Confirmation of Appointments and Personnel Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Well, good evening, everybody. Welcome to the city of Summerville's, city council meeting of the legislative matters committee. It is Tuesday, December 2 at 06:01PM. Pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation, and the audio video recording will be available on the city's website shortly after completion of the meeting. With that said, we got a pretty packed agenda tonight, and, hopefully, we can get through all of it since it is, anticipated to be the last, meeting of the year for legislative matters.

We're going to be taking item number four out of order at the administration's request. Otherwise, plan on hitting this, top to bottom as it appears in the agenda. With that said, first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes of October 20. I'll move to approve those. Is there any discussion? Alright. Then let's go ahead and lay that motion on the table for approval, with a single vote at the end of the meeting. Coming up next, let's take number four. That is, the ordinance amendment to insert the words, including abutting curb cuts if applicable. This is a counselor Klingon's submission.

And while it's been in committee for a little while and is ready to go out as as drafted, we did also receive a memo today from analyst Salisbury with an extensive rewrite for, I'm told, style guideline reasons. Let's I'd love to start off first with director Zano if there's any context or anything from IST on enforcement, in in the writing on it. And, I'm sorry to spring this on you, director Zano, or deputy director Zano, but there's a lot of new text here. Good evening.

Good evening, chair.

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

The chair, Scott. Yes. To confirm, this is something that we went over internally. And then, yes, we're we are comfortable with the text as written to be something that IST can enforce. And then to clarify to the stylistic updates are you know, we're told stylistically, the update the stylistic updates are also in line with that as well. Sorry. Did that answer your question?

It absolutely did. And it reminded me, 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, 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. Councilor Davis?

Here.

Councilor Strazo? Present. Councilor Mbaugh?

Present.

Councilor Yun Campin?

Here.

Councilor Scott?

Present.

All councilors present, we have quorum.

Whoo. Alright. Well, with that taken care of, I don't have any questions about this. I appreciate the work on it and and getting it updated. Let's see here. Councilor Davis, I see you have questions about this text.

Yes. Thank you, mister chair. 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 even with my magic lenses here. I'm I'm there we go. Thank you.

I'm I'm officially could you please make that a little bigger years old? I guess I just wanna put out for my colleagues. 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 and please, you know, doctor Zena, correct me if I'm wrong. You know, if if a a a homeowner or a a renter who, you know, has in their lease a responsibility to clear the snow lives on a corner, and we have any moderate sized snow and our plows come around and do their job, that can result in some pretty big snow piles.

And and as we know, as we've we're experiencing today, sometimes, you know, snow rain lines move back and forth and and, you know, it's we certainly all have seen the scenario where it snows. If you're lucky, you get out there and move it before it freezes, and 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 to 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, you know, I'm not sure the way around that other than maybe we should just not put this on the on and not make this amendment and, 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. So I wanna put that out there for for my my colleagues.

I don't I I'm I don't think I'm on board with this still. I think I raised this concern the first time we talked about it, and I don't think I've heard a good response. And if but if I did and I've just forgotten, then I'll I'll apologize. I look forward to hear it again. But that's that's kinda my my concern there. I just think this is potentially putting and and likely putting a pretty significant hardship on folks 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.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Davis. Councilor Mbaugh, I see you. You have the floor.

Thank you, chair Scott, and thank you, Doctor. Zena. I just I think counselor Davis, you know, when he started speaking, I thought maybe he brought it home for me, but I wanna still make sure that I I'm pretty clear. Because when I saw this myself, you know, one of the things I'm reading, I'm like, how will adding including aborted curb cuts 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 because I'm trying to make sure that they are not unintended consequences for property owner like the good councillor mentioned You know? I have not also, like, heard exactly what and, also, like, just lastly, how will implementation be monitored even?

I'm sorry, counselor Mbah, but could you run that question by me again and and let me know who you'd like to address it?

Absolutely. No. There's, like, so many things going on through my head. So let's say, for example, like, 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, from handicap ramps, from the making sure that when folks clear their sidewalks and they're into their driveway that they also if they, abut a corner, that they clear the snow and ice there so that folks with mobility impairments can actually use our sidewalks and crosswalks. Okay.

And and and and and how will thank you, Cesco, how will implementation be monitored?

Director Zano? I mean

Through, through you, the chair, to, to counselor Mbah. I I mean, it would be implemented as 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, I mean, implementation would be the same as current practice. So it would be, you know, if there's complaints that come in and also while inspectors are out doing inspections, if they saw that these things weren't cleared, and they would potentially issue tickets. So I think it would go in line with, 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, not create any unintended consequences, you know, like the good counselor mentioned for property owners. You know? So, yeah, that's where I'm at, but I I'm open to hear what my colleagues have to say on this. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Mbah. I see councilor Strazo next. You have the floor.

Thank you, mister chair. Following up on what councilor Davis is saying on the unintended consequences of this amendment. I do want to talk about how this may impact renters or 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 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 snuggling and clearing of ice 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 on on this element of their lease, because they need an apartment and it's in their price range, etcetera, but then they're forced to sign a part of their lease that they're responsible for this. How exactly would that play in to future leases and and tenant rights, etcetera? Addition to that, I don't even think it's legal for that to be included in a lease for our tenants, and and that brings a whole other issue with with housing rights, and that's a different issue we can address at a different time. But how would this and I mean, this is a rhetorical question. How would this, in addition to that, impact renters and those leases, etcetera?

So I have I have great pause with that. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. I see councilor Davis wants a second bite at the apple there, or did was that a leftover hand raise?

Yeah. On on two of those points, mister chair, if I may. Actually, well, as such, it's sort of in a follow-up to my own point, something that I remembered after I stopped talking and then and and further to counter Strezo's point. So my recollection is that we have had a discussion about that specific issue in terms of the the passing down of the obligation, in a lease, and that we've been advised by the law department that that that is perfectly legal. It's a, you know, a private transaction.

I do see that we have, assistant, city attorney Shapiro here. I I you know, I don't know if he can speak to that, you know, off the top of off the cuff or not. But the other thing, and this also would relate to the law department, I I'm now recollecting that when we or at least I think I rec 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, you know, four unit count or five years, you know, x unit count or above and not to to, you know, the the the smaller buildings to to avoid this specific thing. And 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.

And so forgive me if that's a case, but I don't think I am. I think it was I think it was about this. So I'd like through you, mister chair, if, you know, and I recognize I I'm be putting mister Sparrow on the spot here. But I I would like to ask first is does any of that ring a bell, to, to the assistant city attorney? And if not, no worries. But is that something that maybe we could look into if if, you know, if if it's not the will of the committee to move forward with this proposal this evening?

Yeah. To the chariot,

it does ring a bell, and I actually remember that one, believe it not, even though it happened back in March. 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. As to your other question about private transactions and, follow-up to council Strazo's point, I can double check this, but my recollection is that the 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 wanna double check it, but I I believe that council Straszow is correct.

Purely off the top of my head, but I do wanna double check that aspect, and I will do that tomorrow and let the, committee know whether there is a restriction under the law about, what you can put into a private lease involving snow shoveling and that sort of thing. But I remember something from ten years ago. I just don't remember exactly what the current state of the law is in that.

So follow-up, mister chair, if I

may. Sure.

So, thank you, attorney Shapiro. So I guess on the first point, I I I guess we just kind of slipped must have slipped through the cracks between between then and and now, and, you know, here we are. But I I still think would much prefer to see something that was applicable to, you know, only to larger larger buildings with the Utica. So I I I think we need to find a way as a city to, clear these these spaces, and and, you know, I recognize that's expensive. But, you know, and and and, you know, perhaps it's it's similar simp similar to the the approach of councilor Ba will recall the invasive species where we decided not to make an ordinance and impose fines on people for doing so, but to teach and encourage, you know, 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 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 without a jackhammer. On on the second point, you know, to through you, mister Chair, to the city's assistant city attorney, 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 comply with a a snow removal ordinance, gosh, gee, it sure seems like they do that all the time in the city. So if if that's the case, then then, you know, then what? I I think we need to we need to come up with a a a real aggressive plan to to undo that wrong because my understanding is that's very commonplace.

We hear it all the time that it's, you know, it's it's pushed down to the to the tenants. So I'll leave it at that. I see that doctor Zano has his his hand up, so maybe there's some correction or or your follow-up to to something there. But I I, you know, I maintain I I maintain, my concern with with this as it's drafted, and I I think I'd like to see it revised to apply to, not to the little folks, before we move forward.

Alright. Appreciate that. Director Zano, is this in direct response? As I do wanna get to counselor Yuencampin as well. Director Zano, why don't you take it right now, and then we'll move on.

Thank you, chair. It's pretty close at, through the chair to, to councilor Davis. Just just as, like, from a practical enforcement perspective from ISD only, nothing about what you guys, from a legislative, want to and 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, you know, 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.

Alright. And, mistakes do get made. I've had to, intercede from time to time on, trash tickets for dumpsters coming to the wrong address. So, appreciate that. Councilor Ewan Campen, you're up.

Thank you, mister chair. And through you, thank you to councilor 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. I think where I'm apprehensive is sort of in not fully understanding what the enforcement would look like in reality.

I think 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. 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 it makes me concerned that too many people are gonna get tickets despite maybe their best efforts. So, yeah, 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 for, you know, serially delinquent properties where they're kind of getting complaints over and over and over about a a situation not being addressed reasonably. But as it is kind of I I think the kind of casts too wide a net is is my concern. I am extremely supportive of more city resources to do this because I agree, you know, that it's completely unacceptable that there are not accessible routes after a snow or a 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, that's why I'm apprehensive.

Alright. Appreciate that, counsel. Are you on camping? I I appreciate this. It does remind me of that discussion, counsel Davis, that that I had forgotten about.

I I just I'm thinking about, we are here in the first not quite snow, stain, wintry mix of the season. And, I I've seen Union Square over and over and over again be basically untraversible. So I wonder if it might be if it might be acceptable to my colleagues to put a restriction on this to apply to only commercial properties, a commercial or mixed use. That is to say any anything that has a commercial use, something around the floor. 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. Good being a good business is to be a good neighbor. So, I am, in the hope of keeping our squares a little bit clearer, I wonder if my colleagues would be open to accepting that. I see director Zano, and then I see councilor Strzet.

Sorry, chair. I just to back up one second to address the the concerns about the, the wall of ice potentially, going back on the curb cut and whether or not, you know, good efforts would be considered, sufficient. I do I can I can comment on general practice, that the term, you know, where, where it talks where impractical, it shall be treated with, sand or other materials that instances where something has been plowed over, and people have shown effort to clear the space has typically been treated as by, ISD as, you know, reasonable effort and meeting still the ordinance that wouldn't be ticketed just to to comment on that?

Yeah. Appreciate that. I've not known ISD to be interested in ringing people up unnecessarily. Councilor Strazza.

Thank you, mister chair, and I totally agree with what you're saying. Sign me up. Union Square is yes. There are some repeat offenders that just keep getting amnesia. Every snowstorm did not do the shoveling. So, yes, let's let's start with exactly what you say. I I I think that's a wonderful springboard, and we can take it from there.

Okay. I see councilor Davis.

Yeah. Thank you, miss chair. I mean, I I look. I I I appreciate that. I I have no I have no concerns with applying this to commercial properties. I my my feeling right now is that we we have the conversation about larger buildings. We know that we treat larger buildings different for for, you know, trash removal. I think the I think the cut out there is six units. You know, this will have to be reworked to incorporate 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 this you know, break out a separate section or or something, I I think.

And my inclination would be just, you know, commercial buildings or, you know, buildings with six or more units as, you know, as with someone's confirmation that that's the that's where we draw the line on on municipal, you know, trash collection. Seems like a good place to draw the line here too. And I don't think that'd be is it too too difficult to do? And I'm you know, if if we could you know, as far as enforcement goes, I I think that'd probably be relatively straightforward. And if there's a few mistakes on the margins, then, know, we can figure out a way to make it easier for y'all to to deal that with that.

But, you know, if we can sort it out for trash collection by address, then I I assume we got a list somewhere. So maybe we use that. That would that would mean by inclination. Let's just you know, let let's let's not leave the door open here if we have a a a reasonable solution, and let's also do a better job cleaning it up, cleaning the rest of the corners ourselves as a city.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Davis. Councilor Strezzo,

I see you.

That point, through you to, councilor Davis. I hear you with, six or more properties. However, what is the I need more information on with units of six or more. I'm sorry. Which which with buildings with six or more units, I wouldn't feel comfortable getting into how our tenants are they responsible for in addition to that?

Are they 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. We can get that answer between now and the next meeting, unfortunately, which will be at 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 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.

Alright.

Miss miss chair, on that fair point, you convinced me. I think if if there's a if if if there's a question about whether that we we would inadvertently be still putting 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 I would support just the adding commercial. Thank you for that, for that point, constellations. I agree with you.

Alright. Well, in that case, let me ask a question to, analyst Salisbury then. Analyst Salisbury, do you think you'd be able to work up the language, on your new form here to to create an obligation to clear the accessible curb ramps where applicable, for commercial properties only. I know it would probably require a twelve eight b or some other division there. Is that something you feel like you can do between now and the next council meeting?

Oh, between now and the next council meeting, absolutely, mister chair. If the ask was for tonight, I would have to give an unequivocal no, unfortunately. There are actually other subsections within this section. The only one present before you tonight is subsection a, but subsection b, c, and d do already exist. So I would need to do a little bit more maneuvering than simply adding some, 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, I'm going to move that this committee requests our policy analyst to draft language that would extend a responsibility for commercial property owners to clear abutting accessible curb ramps. And that way, we can mark this item as work completed and then work from the new submission when it comes in hopefully on next Thursday.

Tara, 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? Let's say that the committee requests, analyst Salisbury to draft language creating an obligation on commercial properties to clear abutting accessible curb ramps.

Thank you. As well, this item is sent for recommendations, so work completed is not a disposition. So I will let you

go over that. We can Councilor Davis.

Sure. I might I might suggest maybe we we, discharge this from committee without a recommendation, with that request that the, that that the the original change requested be limited to commercial properties such that we could then take a look at it. I'm happy to take a look, Brandon, you know, ahead of our next council meeting final council meeting for the year or, you know, mister, obviously, you're more than capable to take a look, make sure it looks good. However however we wanna do that. And then, yes, we can have a little conversation ahead of time if need be, polish it up, and have it ready to go for the council. And and then, you know, if it's the will of the body that time, then we can put it into place for the winter if it's actually gonna snow this year, which they say it might.

Well, there's always next year as the Red Sox say. But, yes, I would love that. So let's go ahead and discharge this item without recommendation, and then we can give it a disposition at the full council, and that'll give us a reason to talk about the item and hopefully bring in the new submission. So unless there's anything further on this, we'll go ahead and 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 thank you to to deputy director Zano, and thank you, solicitor Shapiro, for being here tonight.

Let's go on back to the regular order of the meeting where I will take up number agenda items number two and three. That's a request the city council, a 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 twenty five one six eight six amending chapter eight article three pertaining to secondhand dealer licenses. There is a lot of red here, but I know that our clerk our city clerk and, our analysts have done a lot of work on that. Clerk Poteer, are you here to talk about that one?

Mister chair, through you. Yes. I am.

Alright. Great. Please take it away.

Mister chair, through you, 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. A lot of that substance has kind of been lowered into, section eight six two. A few just highlights here.

One 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. 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, some of the police, in advance. We also clarified some of the identification and record keeping requirements. Most of the changes in additions with that regard come in the in the effort to sort of help prevent theft and resale even if the the secondhand dealer themselves isn't aware that the goods that they're reselling, may or may not have been, improperly obtained. Finally, there's just a change in some of the record keeping and transmission, 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, Diolivera here in this meeting. Work with them to create a system of record keeping, that is most useful for them without, creating too much of an administrative burden. The penalties remain the same. And, yeah, those are the main changes. Happy to answer any question that the members of the committee might have.

Alright. Thank you for that. Questions from members of the committee. Well, while I'm waiting for that, I know there have been concern about the, the threshold for, for, say let's let's say I operate a vintage clothing store, and, you know, I'm going to a yard sale. Do I need to get a valid government issued photo ID, from for the person I'm purchasing from?

Oh, you're muted, sir.

Apologies. I thought I clicked that. Mister Chair, through you, based on the way that this is written, that would be a requirement. The idea is the the straight answer to your question is technically yes. The way that we envision this as drafted was more with regard to the storefront, and we'd be happy to consider any sort of amended language that you 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 kept or the age of the person could be verified, if they're you know, the 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 wanna see the ID of the of the person they're purchasing from.

Yeah. I mean, this is yeah. I I I think there is a difference between folks that are operating out of a, you know, a pawnshop style mechanism and folks who are just doing vintage clothing or items. And I'm wondering how to capture that here. I will hold my thoughts on that for a moment and offer it up to colleagues here. Is there any other thoughts for colleagues? Councilor Mbah, you have the floor.

Thank you, chair. Good to see you, Mr. Patel. I guess one of the things also almost the same, line of thinking that we can create all this policy, which is really great, but it's about enforcement. So, one, it's like, so how will, you know, your office or inspection office ensure compliance? And two, what are the, what what is happening in neighboring communities? Like, do we I'm sure we don't live in a bubble. Like, is it like, any neighboring community, how how is that being regulated?

Alright. I guess I'd put that out to, clerk Pater.

Mister chair, through you, thank you. Just take the second part of the question first. I'm not, specifically familiar with what other cities around us are doing. But what I can say with regard to the first part of your question is that, the the enforcement comes in the renewal process. So, effectively, the requirement of transmitting to SPD records of transactions and things of that nature, would be going to the police, and what we would do on renewal is, send a review route onto our liaison in the police department to confirm that that the, the shop owner, the licensee has been in compliance with that as a as a condition of renewal.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. Alright. There we go. Thank you.

Appreciate it, counselor. Is there purchase merchandise or accept it for consignment? Perhaps we could just add a dollar limit on the value for for the the purchase, before purchasing merchandise, valued at greater than $50 or or even $20. Would that be, would that be an acceptable edit here for the

Mister mister chair, if that's directed to me, absolutely, that's well within your discretion. 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 SPD liaison if that purchase is if that dollar amount 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. So just you know?

Go ahead. No. I I'm I am mindful of, the gift card transactions and how much, gift cards get used in the the pawn and resale world. So, I'll send it to councilor Davis and then back to councilor Mbaugh. Councilor Davis?

Thank you, mister. I actually was just looking for a clarification. I I couldn't see where that language would go in the proposal. So I was just trying to have I was just having a hard time following along what what you were proposing there.

It'd be I'd put it in August c, which yes. Right there at the bottom of the first page. 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, somebody's just doing vintage shopping and rethrifting. So I'm trying to find some way to 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. So, yes, hopefully, that answers the question.

Yeah. It does. Thank you. I think that makes sense. I mean, I I'm pretty sure folks have a tax sale or alright. Sorry. There's a little little circle around Western Mass where we call them tax sales. I learned that wasn't that was that wasn't everywhere. A yard sale, a garage, I think. Probably not doing it under license, so I'm not sure that would be, but I but I see your point. And and so I yeah. Let me ruminate on that. Thank you.

Alright. It's accounts are you in camping?

Well, just mister Scherer, on that, if I'm understanding the discussion, it's it's that someone who operates a secondhand 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 you know, I that to me seems not like something that I would like to put on secondhand shop owners. You know, I I'm not naive to some of the issue. 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, could tell was, like, recently burgled from from people's departments. And people would call the store and complain about it, and, you know, there was nothing that could be done.

So I I'm not naive that this could be an issue, and we might wanna 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 themselves. Just I'm not so so could I just through you, mister chair, currently, we don't require any of this. Is that is that correct for secondhand shops? It's just kind of the largely unreadlined paragraph b there in eight sixty one. Is that correct?

No. There's required record keeping farther down in the old August. Okay. And it has the same language in there about requiring it. As as I recall, councilor Yunkampen, this resurfaced in part because a couple vintage dealers in town who are not running pawnshop style storefronts were wanted to do the right thing, wanted to be licensed, and wanna be compliant, but were just running into the enormous little way of document every. So that that is a requirement that currently exists. We would we have an opportunity here to clean that up and relieve that.

Got it. Mister Chair, I I apologize that I'm not prepared tonight to propose what I think would be a better idea, but I am I am concerned about this requirement. If, know, if we're revisiting this, I I would wanna take a harder look at this, and I'm I'm happy to do that in the future.

Alright. Well, it sounds like there's, I know I have that concern. I appreciate, counselor Ewenkamp and counselor Davis also have similar concerns. So, why don't we do this? I will talk to I'll talk to the clerk's office. We will work on it. If any colleagues do have ideas about what a threshold, might be, if it was a dollar amount threshold or purchase size, what whatever. I'd I'd love to hear it. We can hopefully find some creative ideas when you come back. And next time we visit this, hopefully, be ready to amend and approve.

Is there is there anything further on discussion for this this e Alright. Then let's go ahead. We'll keep that one in committee, mister president. I sure hope items are getting renewed in January 1, but that'll be at your discretion.

I I can speak to that just so so folks know. Might as well my understanding is that anything that is in committee for an action, like, you know, such as this proposed amendment will be renewed. Things that are for discussion will not be. So that it would be, you know, at the discretion of the chair or the maker of the motion or or or, you know, 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 miss Salisbury and or others are already working on a list of stuff, we all have access, nothing gets missed.

God bless. Alright. Let's see here. I don't see anybody else on this, so let's go ahead. We'll keep this, 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, requesting more statement of an amendment to section two dash three zero nine point nine and two dash three zero nine point ten of the code of ordinances to clarify term length and appointment process for the community preservation committee. There was a CPC memo that, is attached here as a as a handout to the meeting, And I guess I will go to oh, who I got director Singh, is this you to introduce? I believe so.

Through the chair, thank you. Yes. Unfortunately, relevant staff could not attend, but a memo is attached that clarifies, the reasoning behind the changes that are being proposed. There are two changes that I can quickly outline for the committee. One would allow members to serve, two full terms in addition to any, partial term, that they have already served, and this is in alignment with our current policy for appointed members for multi member bodies.

And then the second change is to eliminate an unusual step that is in the current ordinance that requires the city to advertise all of the candidates on the city's web page, we think this, is a barrier at attracting potential candidates and, not in line with our, current practices.

Alright. Thank you for that. Just before I hand this off to my colleagues, I just wanna check-in on the interaction with the, charter. Is this is this creating a special case, or is the CBC sufficiently enabled by state law that it would require a separate ordinance? Analyst Salisbury.

Good evening, mister chair. I realize I neglected to introduce myself last time. Analyst Salisbury, legislative and policy analyst for the city council. If I take your question correctly, is this a question about whether this would be moved into the administrative code, and thus an amendment to the ordinance might be out of order? Is that is that the question?

Yeah. It's mostly we've we've got a new, charter approved, and I presume it takes effect real soon now.

You would be correct, mister chair. The the charter has taken effect already. It does. The provisions of it took effect with the exception of any that that had a time of taking effect within six months or something like that. But the provisions of the charter do also include a provision regarding the continuance of existing laws. And so until an administrative code is put in place, that would capture the the community preservation committee and various other multiple member bodies that are established by ordinance, the ordinances do retain effect.

Alright. So, the answer is, hopefully, we won't need one very long into the next mayor's term. But for now, we can clean up this, allow an extension of the terms to allow somebody to serve two full terms and a partial, and removing the requirement that, each candidate has their resume posted on the city's website for two weeks before the appointment happens. Is there any discussion on that from my colleagues? Alright.

Well, seeing none, I'm, inclined to approve this. I think it's a very sim simple thing, and, hopefully, we will approve this now and have it be overwritten or obviated forthwith shortly. Alright. So on that, since we're recommending this one, I'll move to recommend this amendment for approval. 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 five twenty five dash one six five two, councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strezo?

Yes.

Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes, please.

Councilor Ewenkampin?

Yes.

And councilor Scott?

Yes.

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

Alright. Wonderful. Thank you very much for that. Then let's move on to item number six. This is a mayor's request of an amendment of an amendment to section 12 dash one seven eight 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. Is there any I see director Oliveira here. I I I know there's been some conversation I've had with mayor staff, about this, and, this goes back to when this ordinance was first passed, lord, I wanna say back in 2020 or 2021. So director Oliveira, if you wouldn't mind introducing, this simple change, it looks like it's eliminating the sunset clause, Roy.

Good evening. Yes. Can you hear and see me?

We can, director. Please, you have the floor.

Sure. My name is Louisa Oliveira. I'm the director of public space and urban forestry. And, through the chair, we are eliminating this sunset clause that we are not allowed to use any or to source any plants that have neotenictonoids or for the ease of speech, we'll call them neonics beginning in January 2026. Well, neotinichtonides or neonics are a huge problem, both in pollinator decline, but for other reasons too.

Pesticide is a huge problem in this country. It is a particular problem for bees, and they are a class of neurotoxins that are systematic and are, prevalent in agricultural crops, lawn, and gardens, as well as the nursery nursery industry. So having just finished the Somerville pollinator action plan, that was one of the recommendations, and we wholeheartedly support this recommendation. The problem is that not being able right now, neotinictonoids 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, is very hard to buy the quantity of plants that we need on our projects through these smaller nurseries, and sometimes absolutely impossible to do that.

So we have a number of projects that are coming up that are middle and larger projects, and those projects would be in jeopardy if we continue with this clause in January 2026. So the projects that we are putting up, and I'm just looking for that right now, the projects that we are gonna be going out to bid, what happens is they go out to bid with a large 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, they then go and find, you know, 19 oak trees and a 150 little blue stems or sometimes 600, of one plant or another and deliver them to the site and put them in. So if you go, for example, to the new Summerville Junction Park, that park has 91 trees and, 6,000 plants.

At the moment, we are not saying you cannot use neotinichtonides. If we said that, it would be very difficult for them to be able to complete our projects. And I wanna just run through the projects that are in jeopardy. So so, again, there are small local nurseries that many of our projects we can get. For example, we have done five, habitat projects this year, adding habitat to different planting areas and parks, and all of those were sourced without neonics because they're smaller quantities.

But we have the Kennedy Schoolyard renovation, 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, green infrastructure that will be sourcing plants, Morris Ave linear storm water drainage, and the blessing of the bay, greenway. So those are all projects that are going to be, put out to bid this winter or in '26 or '27. If we don't remove this clause in January '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, raise the prices on everything because it requires so much extra work. And the plants are more expensive because they are grown without pesticides, 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.

Alright. Well, I appreciate it. I I I see you, councilor Davis. Before I go, I just wanna, make sure my recollection of when we first passed this, there was a similar concern about the state of the nursery industry, and this sunset date was picked as being sufficiently on the future where, hopefully, the the the purchasing pressure would encourage that. It had it sounds like there are more people doing this kind of neonic free, 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, larger scaled ones, but they're not selling the quantity of plants. 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 100 of something else. So there could be a combination of nonneonic and neonic. 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.

Alright. I see councilor Davis followed by councilor Yoon Camp. Councilor Davis, you have the floor.

Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, director Oliver, as always, for your attention to all these matters. They are they're a lot more important than I think a lot of people appreciate. But I appreciate it, and and I'm glad that we're talking about it. I I just had I have some questions. I have some thoughts.

And, you know, as always, I'm you know, I'm I I welcome the opportunity to be, you know, convinced that I'm wrong and to to change to have my mind changed. So first off, so the the the eucinectinoid pesticides specifically, are are they obviously, as you said, they're they're 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 nursing their nursing industry, or we wouldn't be having this conversation that's clear from from your your statement. And I guess just for for my understanding, why is that? I mean, is is it is it that I mean, my understanding is that, you know, what I use at home, right, neem oil and insecticidal soap and, I guess I could I could editorialize and, you know, and and comment on the effectiveness given that I seem to be doing that on a 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 they're maybe not good alternatives.

But is it are those so first of all, those types of things do not contain this this, chemical. Is that correct or this type of, comment?

Through the chair? Yes. That's correct. Your neem oil or, dishwashing liquid don't contain, Neonics. And I believe Neonics are banned in Europe, but, not in the good old USA, and they are prevalent not only in the nursery industry, but in agriculture as well.

Yeah. So, yeah, the the, you know, the the the this search engine for what it's worth and its AI assistant is telling me, as you noted, they're banned in The UK, that there are some that that, you know, some of the large big box nurseries are are committed to phasing it out, but we you know, great to tell us when you do. So that that all, you know, that all tracks. I guess so so let's let me so then let's flip the conversation then. I totally am with you on, you know, finding on not having it such that our RFPs are gonna come back, you know, way over budget, and we're ultimately not gonna be able to, you know, to do things.

But I I know you've thought about this. I have no no doubt. So tell me your thought process in terms of, you know, rather than just taking this out and saying we're gonna do our best, which the the ordinance would still say, we're we're going to, you know, prioritize sourcing native plants that have not been treated, then we'll still do that, and and that's good. But, you know, given the impact that that that the neoconectinoids have on pollinators, especially as you said, bees, wouldn't it be better to just maybe plant fewer, have a, you know, a a more sparse planting plan than kill a bunch of bees, to put it bluntly? You know?

It's oversimplifying, I guess. Like, what what what was what's the thought process there? Or or maybe to use non so you 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. Nonatives can are also treated with neonicotinoid, so it's not a a question of nativity. And the native plants are specifically being planted to host our native pollinators that are we know are in decline. So when we're there's small amounts, like I said, Allison Mauer 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 list of nurseries that don't do not use these.

But, again, they're fine for a filler project, but harder, 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 source a a neonic 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. 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, 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 it's systematic and very small amounts, 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, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. 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 to build on this. So we wanted to try to see what kind of a difficulty does that cause.

Does it give us some pushback? We've had conversations with the advocates about this. One thing that we continually say is 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 change their specifications or change the way that the more people that go to nursery 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 PSEF, 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 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 nonorganic situation. And it's cheaper because you don't lose plants, and you don't have to keep applying less harmful pesticides. So, I mean, like everything, it's it's about money and about production. And nursery people get very testy about this suggestion because I think it is much harder to grow, especially in large industrial quantities, 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, central area that I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this, and I now I'm realizing Vanessa explained it to me in-depth, but it it's pervasive. Like, it's very it's almost impossible to source trees without neonics. So that's another issue. So we too would love to be able to get all of the trees neonic 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 1.

Okay. So I I I thank you for that. I guess, mister chair, if I may just follow-up and, you know, more more searching it, your favorite, corporate web engine 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 I so I'm hesitant to take this out.

I I think for all the reasons that you articulated, it sounds like changing the date might might be, you know, a fair consideration. But, you know, for other for for the all the same reasons that that that you just made that that that, you know, keeping this conversation going and and and and keeping the pressure on you know, I don't want the headline to be Summerville removes your prohibition. Right? I want the some the headline to be Somerville pushes it at worse, Somerville pushes it back. Right?

And I know I'd rather see no trees than trees that are gonna kill the bees. Right? If if it's a nay if it's a non native or if it's a 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. And, you know, so if we if we can't in these and 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 or less likely to be harmful to our to our local pollinators, then then we should, you know, we should change the plan, as you said. And so, you know, if that's something that can be managed in in the in the planting, in the designs, in the plans, and and, you know, using that prioritizing it, like you said.

But I I I don't know. I I just to 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 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. May 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. Here's another thing from two years ago that says Lowe is doing the same thing. I don't know. Ma'am, to the chair The Internet could be could be wrong on all that.

We 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

Hear what they say.

Where are they buying them? They're not going to, like, you know, the smaller, 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, 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, plant the 350 trees that we plant on Somerville Streets because trees are not available without neonics. So there 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.

Okay. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, director. I I I'd like to see this pushed out, and not just removed altogether. I think we need to remain keep, you know, keep the pressure on the industry. I'm reading a Lowe's policy right now that seems, you know, clearly focused on on going deep into their supply chain to phase out these uses. You know, we don't know how long they'll 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 we're putting in the ground are going to have, you know, significant impact on on our our pollinators. That to me, it'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. And I know that's not exactly what you're saying, and I appreciate that. And I don't wanna, you know, I I don't wanna oversimplify here. Right? I I I I I do appreciate, and and I know that, you you you know, your the intense the intentions are are are pure and good and that, you know, there there's financial challenges. But I think, you know, at at at least at worst, I'd like to see this day just push back rather than taken out altogether to me. I think, you know, we need to keep the pressure on to keep changing the industry. And, you know, some of our 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 I think that that would be my preferred approach.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Jungkampin, then Strezo Binumba. Councilor Ewenkampen, you have floor.

Thank you, mister Scheer. Through you, thank you, director, and thank you, councilor, for that. That was really helpful. And, let me also just say I have a, a 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 three legacy. Neonicotinoid exposure disrupts bumblebee nest behavior, social networks, and thermoregulation. 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. With all that said, I I am reluctantly convinced that 01/01/2026 is not the date.

I I I concede that point as much as I don't want to. 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 Mhmm. 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 there has been the kind of movement and shift 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 respect, obviously, the the expertise of the department.

And, you know, I I don't I don't think that the folks who just wrote the pollinator plan are blowing smoke that this isn't gonna work by January 1. 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.

Alright. Thank you, counselor. Counselor Strezzo, you are up.

Alright. Thank you. Quick, through you to, doctor Oliveira. I had a quick, few quick follow-up questions on on what you've mentioned. I'm not on finance. So I I don't and and I don't I haven't looked at the order and purchases that PCEP does with what specific were they were you specifically purchased your your stock. 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. Additionally, there are procurement laws that we cannot tell them where they must purchase the plants. That's against Massachusetts procurement law. We can ask them to purchase. We can do 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. And they we need there's always an as equal clause.

That is mass state procurement law. When we purchase piece of when we do smaller projects, for example, the pollinator garden in front of City Hall or the five pollinator additions that we added to different parks this year. We purchased them from a a 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, p open POs with a number of different nurseries to get plants at.

I couldn't tell you what the what those are. IAM engineering who are doing the streetscape projects, they do the same, 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. 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. So 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. And I and that's what I was looking for. With that, mister chair, through you to to director, 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, a little more more depth to the the Can you give a guesstimate of percentages of, like, how much of the purchase that, like, piece of or the city purchases versus how how how is supplied with the the contractors or or the the bidders of how how much stock is being planted here in our city.

I say stocks is 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, etcetera. I know it's very complex, I was trying to elaborate on, you know, brief get a briefer sense of time brief time on this. So can you give a guesstimate of a percentage of how much piece of or the city purchases on plants versus the contractors? Or is that like a longer follow-up question?

Through the chair, on our parks projects, on our IAM projects, the sewer separation and green infrastructure, we are talking about thousands and thousands of plants. On the PSoF side, we are talking about maybe a thousand, maybe 500. So it's a very, 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 miss Chia, through you too, director. Thank you very much. That's that's helpful. And has there been I I know that there are, mass gen law restrictions on on preferences of of companies, etcetera. And I I know there are laws in that, but has has PISAF 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 fully up to 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 Summerville would order and they could deliver?

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

Well, I guess, are they I don't know. Maybe they're too small scale than that. Technically, the one, say, Union Square, is that too small for that for what we could purchase?

The Through the chair, absolutely. We could not you know, they they also do not carry the types of plants. 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. Mhmm.

And and This is

a this is a industry wide problem. And, yes, people have to band together and push against it, 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 miss Chera, through you to director. Yeah. I get that. I hear what you're saying. With with I'm trying not to name them because to nacho preference, etcetera, even though it's very clear that, we have a nursery or a small, plant seller in our city.

And my my hope is always loyal to our local companies and opposed to a huge big box store who has different agendas and motivations, etcetera. I like the local aspect of us. Is there going forward and I know that this is not what we're immediately, 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 a thought of pulling an economic development, small business, and and finding out within, of course, procurement laws, if we can find ways to work within the Union Square person, you know, company that sells plants and the adjacent one in Boston, the adjacent one in Cambridge to help us get to speed and the visionary compliance we wanna 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 a rhetorical open end question, but, 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, 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, because they're not readily available that requires some extra work and some extra cost. So we can't really, would would it be great for them to start selling neonic free things and for everybody in Somerville to only wanna buy neonic and buy in Union Square? Sure.

That would be wonderful. 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 are now committed to buying plants that are not neonic free whenever we can. We just cannot on the bigger projects.

Mister Sheard, thanks for indulging me. One more question to director on this through you to director. Hear you. But I mean, it's more yeah. I get it.

They're they're they're different I I get what you're saying. A different business philosophy. I get that. What I'm also saying is is in a in a a future conversation, can we find ways to bring them on board so maybe a small percentage of their plants are wholesale that we can help them make that transition as well And 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 Envision with that. 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 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 sure we'll try to bring the discussion back to the, prohibition on neonicotinoids right now, but it does sound like a good policy order I'd be happy to to work with you on in the future. Alright. Counselor Mbai, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Scott. Good to see you, Doctor. Oliveira. Appreciate all the work you're doing and your thoughtfulness around, you know, these issues. I guess, hearing this conversation, one question quick one that I have is that, is it possible, you know, to make the neonic applied to street trees only?

Through the chair so sourcing trees that are free of neonics is the hardest thing because they are not available because of the way that the trees are grown in the 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 neonic free. So, if you are asking, could this apply to everything but trees, that's or are you are you saying that this should apply to the trees?

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

To the chair. So just to clarify, you are saying that we would not be able to buy trees unless they are neonic free.

Yes.

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

Gotcha. And and, also, like, I I also just, you know, would think that, you know, basically, having, like, a sunset clause on, you know, Neonics will actually usually will, you know, force us to start sourcing, you know, for plans that are neonics free. You know? But, you know, it's because, like, I think, counselor, you and Kempen 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 if there's no precedence, we can actually set one. You know? I'm not interested in what what The UK is actually, you know, like, doing. It's about it's 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. 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, an all or nothing approach, and I think that this is true here. We could say we're never planting anything with neonics, 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.

I do not think that, we should we should say we're not I mean, we can we can say we're not replanting 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, advocates will spend some of this great energy pushing state legislation, to ban neonics. You know, there's a lot of value in partnering with, you know, people who are selecting plants, like landscape architects or other municipalities.

But the municipalities that we know of, 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 a a trade off and also practicality in terms of do we still wanna have wonderful parks?

Through you, chair, director Oliveira, I still wanna have wonderful parts. Thank you.

Me too. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, counselor. Colleagues, I very much appreciate the discussion. I tend to believe that we should put our money where our values are. I remember this discussion pretty strongly from I went back and looked.

We we finally passed it in March 2021. So I'd be comfortable I understand the the 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 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 counselor Davis' suggestion to to move the date out, but I see councilor Ewen Kampen and councilor Davis. Gentlemen, after the discussion, motions to amend are, of course, in order. So, councilor Ewen Kampen, you have the floor first.

Oh, thank you, mister Scheer. I was just, so, you know, we wanna act on this before the end of the year, if it is the will of the committee. So it's my thought that we should, if it is if if we are in agreement that we want to push back the date rather than get rid of the sentence, I was gonna suggest, 2029, and hear what the committee has to say. You know, I I don't I'm coming up with that in the course of this meeting, and I welcome any feedback.

Alright. Councilor Davis.

I was gonna suggest 2028, but 2029 sounds good, and I'll call a question.

Alright. So just to make sure we are clear on the motion that is being made here, it is it would be to amend the section 12 dash one seventy eight to, change 2026 to 2029 and not make, the strike throughs that are requested here. Correct?

Yeah. Mister chair, if I if I may, I I think procedurally because we have a proposed amendment for 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 sentence or the final bit of the of of the previous sentence that is struck beginning with the word provided and ending with neo neocognitoids, but with changing the date 2026 to 2029.

Alright. Sounds good. I think I think you are right about the procedural order of operations there. Counselor Strezzo, before we get into the procedurals

Yes. Thank you. I am gonna propose 2028. I would be fine with 2029, but I think that 2028 is a good checkpoint. And if we need to come before I I think if we need to come before and and have this discussion discussion again in 2027 as 2028 is hovering above us, then we can then we can go push it to 2029.

I I so if I I understand if 2028 I'm sorry. 2029 is is is before us, but I would be interested in in, well, convincing my colleagues to 2028. And if not, I would if that doesn't, we I guess we can vote on it. I I don't know. Chair, you tell me.

Yeah. Alright. So just to just to take these Procedure me here. Procedurally, what I'd say is, given that we already have a motion on the table, for 2029, let's go ahead and complete that, and then, you can propose another amendment for 2028, and we can just take a quick vote on We're either yay or nay. Right.

So, for that, the motion is to amend the amendment before us to restore the struck language from provided to neonicotinoids and replace 2026 with twenty twenty nine in that sentence. So let's vote on that amendment first.

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 councilor Ewen Kampen to amend section twelve one seventy eight by replacing the sentence that is struck and replacing it with provided that is 01/01/2029, the city shall not source native plants that have been treated with neonicotinoids. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Strazo?

No.

Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Councilor Yuan Kampen?

Yes.

Councilor Scott?

Yes.

Before councilors in favor, that is approved.

Alright. Thank you. Before we move for recommendation on this, would you like to make a proposed amendment to '20 28, councilor Strazo?

Mister chair, yes, I would. And, 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.

Alright. So on amending the amendment before us currently to replace 2029 with twenty twenty eight.

On the motion, mister chair.

On the motion, council Davis.

Thank you. Through you to, director Oliveira. Given the nature of the projects that we have lined up and the and the, you know, expected time frame on those, is there you know, does would you expect that, you know, two years versus three years might have an impact, or is two years enough to sort of get our RFPs in the door and then we we sort of could take it there if we were to go to 02/2028 on this? Did I 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, partner with other groups and other professional organizations, nursery organizations, in order to push this is, in my mind, a better a better idea than sooner. The extra year could be used for that. Yes.

Let let me let me ask it differently, mister chair, if I if I may. The projects that you that you noted that the larger projects that you we hope to, you know, to have out to bid early in calendar '26, do we expect those to go into calendar year '29? Sorry. Calendar '28?

Through 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, 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 neonics. So it would be that date, whatever contract. 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 then what you're saying then is if is if this provision is not in place in January '26 and we put thing 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 that sunset period would would effectively would would not apply. Those bids would be what they are that this plans could be sourced. So so going to the 02/2028 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?

To 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 when when are we sourcing something? Is it? And the city is effectively sourcing it when the contract signed is is what you're saying. So thank you for that explanation. That's all I needed to hear. I'm sorry. I'm I'm inclined to stick with the original twenty eighth that I had suggested that councilor Schrezza then motioned. Thank you, mister chair.

And, mister chair, if I may?

Let's, on on, on the motion, I see councilor Mbah and then, recognize you, councilor Mbah.

Thank you, chair Scott. Just back to director Oliveira. Again, you're the expert. What is what is, what do you recommend?

Through the chair, it is your decision whether you 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, moving at a state level. And there have been some state there is some, active state legislation that is trying to ban neonics. Mostly, it's for agriculture. But, 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 Neonics, and here's a list of where you can get the other ones. And there is a push, with our elected officials to create a law at the state level.

Okay. Thank you. I would I will stick to my original 2029. Thank you.

Alright. So, councilor Strezza, before we, go to a roll call.

Thank you, mister chair. Final words on this. Like I said, just quick reminder, colleagues. I'm fine sticking with 2029, but I think, keeping it or or proposing 2028. And even if it fails, that's fine.

But 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 twenty twenty eight, we can always modify and and and when it's before us and and then move it to twenty twenty nine 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, goal to reach, and that's why I'm proposing it. I'm sticking with it. Even if I'm the Lone Wolf voting board, ready to go, mister chair.

Alright. Thank you. So on that motion, madam clerk.

Councilor Strazo has made a motion to amend the amended version of section twelve one seventy eight to replace twenty twenty nine with twenty twenty eight on the motion. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strazo? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

No.

Councilor Euncampan? No. Councilor Scott?

Yes. Let's go with yes. With

three counselors in favor, that motion has passed.

Alright. I appreciate, everybody's time tonight. This is, I think, a good opportunity, as said, to keep the keep the conversation vital in future legislative sessions. So, on now the recommendation, I'm moving to recommend approval on the amendment. So this is to refer it out of committee, recommending approval on that motion. I see no comment or discussion, so let's do a roll call.

Recommended, excuse me, item six to be recommended as amended. Councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Jozo? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh? Yes. Councilor Euncannon?

Yes.

Councilor Scott? Yes. With all councilors in favor, that is recommended to be approved as

Alright. Then, this takes us to our next to last, items. 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. I have gone through these and like what I see, but, I'm sure analyst Salisbury would probably like a chance to talk about this. So analyst Salisbury.

Mister Chair, you know me so well. An opportunity to speak. To introduce these for you, as as, the item indicates, this is amendments to the rules of the city council to bring them in line, with conforming to the new charter. So the the sort of thrust of this is, of course, that the the vote is required, because, of course, you cannot have rules that are in conflict with the, constitutional foundational governing document of the city. But I will happily walk you through these changes and also answer any questions that you might have.

First, of course, at the top, is that the charter does amend the mechanism for establishing the time and place of the meetings of the city council, and does require that those be done by ordinance. The city clerk's office is currently working on drafting an ordinance to that effect. Please stay tuned. Moving forward, we did also, as you can see throughout the document, correct a number of references, to, make sure that they are in line with the actual, current sections of the charter rather than previous sections of the charter. Moving forward to rule number six, on the, on the document, if the clerk could scroll down to that.

Thank you. The first change that you will note here is the, much discussed change from solicitor to attorney, and then subsequently, the, change from one week's notice to fourteen days notice, in compliance with the provisions of the access to information, section of the charter. Similarly, in rule number eight, as you can see, once again, a change to attorney as in rule number nine as well. In rule number 10, 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, as president pro tem until the election of a president and vice president, which I am sure we will all miss the jokes. Rule number 17, very small, change just in terms of form.

And then, same with rule number 18. I will admit that these are, of course, my, particular influence here. Moving on to rule number 30, this is just a slight change, in terms of procedure. This is actually not directly related to the charter, but rather than recommending that something should not be approved for the current practice is that something is recommended to be not approved. So we just wanted to make sure that that update aligned with our current practice, or to update to align that language of our current practice.

And then we don't have any further changes until rule 53. This is to align with the changes to the charter that that included posting to the website, as being sufficient for for posting and dissemination of information. And so the requirement that printed copies be disseminated to all members of the body, does not really align with the values of the charter. Naturally, of course, printed copies will be available upon request, as I note in my week biweekly emails to you. Rule 55, this is where we begin the most significant changes.

This is the charter right. As, you can see, really what was done here is is a simple copy paste. I I moved the provision of the charter into this rule. You will note, of course, that, while previously, there was an ability to postpone for multiple meetings, making the second postponement, that does not exist anymore. Moving on to rule 56.

This, once again, is just to ref it's a copy and paste job, to to take the provisions of the charter here. Nothing really there's nothing really different here. It's just largely changes the language, and it relates to the, approval of ordinances and measures by the mayor, as well as the city council's capacity to override a veto. And then, I believe the last substantive change, is in rule 59. As you may recall, the city clerk no longer has a three year term.

But in addition to that, the city clerk is also no longer the only individual who is able to clerk meetings for the city council. Their designee may now accomplish that without needing to be sworn in as a clerk pro tem. 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 two nine b to reflect the new section where the charter right lives. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Alright. On this, submission of the clerks. Alright. 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. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, miss Salisbury, for this. I had I had a couple questions.

I think you've answered one of them for me, but let me just make sure I I'm reading this correctly because I I now remember now remember this this piece of the charter. But so in rule 55 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. I know that there was a question about, you know, how that would apply if something was submitted but was not 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 if it's not put to the council for a vote, then, you know, at the next meeting, this this rule certainly could be could be exercised. Otherwise, it would seem to have well, anyway, so so that that that's for what it's worth, that's my reading, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't think. I think that that the the key point here that I wanted to ask about is just the the second sentence. If two or more members object, the distinction there is that 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?

That is correct, mister councilor Davis. My apologies. Old habits. Very well. 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 forty eight hours at the call of a special meeting. With two members objecting, it does put a a pause on that for a minimum of two weeks, 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 October. Precisely. Getting the November. Yeah. Okay. Very well. Thank you. And then the the the last question. So this is in in the in the in rule 59, the I'm not sure that I agree that the the addition of or the designee in the second sentence, And maybe this isn't the intent, but I don't think it it, you know, stands in the place of the of what the last sentence provided because, you know, the the second sentence is is specifically to, you know, attending the meetings, recording, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. But the first sentence talks about other stuff.

And so I I guess let me just put if there if the clerk was absent for some reason and and hadn't designated someone to attend the meetings or had designated to to someone to attend the meetings, but we have a question about keeping charge of journals, records, and documents of the council and attesting 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? The the last sentence.

Ad admittedly, I I don't think we're reading it exactly the same way. I my understanding is that this and that are the same thing 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. And so to the extent that the clerk, as the clerk of the city council, may assign a designee, that final sentence does have the same effect. Does that I I apologize if that did not answer your question clearly.

No. I 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. You know? Yeah.

I think that the several sense that follow sort of naturally apply to the meetings, but I don't know. I I I guess I I I feel like there's some ambiguity there by by just saying, and they or their designee shall attend meetings. 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. And, mister chair, through you to councilor Davis, I will note, of course, that the the rules are supplemental to the charter and that to the extent that the charter provides a more clear, statement on this, that the charter would, of course, prevail there. I think that the what 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 further changes. I would hesitate to suggest that the entirety of these amendments be held up by that if if that, if that's not overstepping my position.

Yeah. No. Mister chair, through you to, miss Showsley, no. Completely agree. My thought is May may I'm inclined to to, you know, move to recommend approval of of, you know, the entirety of this with the caveat that maybe we could take a peek at fifty nine between now and the council meeting and and see if there's a little clarification that we could add to to put before the council, if that makes sense.

Makes sense to me, mister Davis. Counselor Davis. Alright. So is that, 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 other folks ask questions.

Appreciate that. Councilor Mbah, you are recognized.

Thank you, chair. I just also wanna thank Doctor. Salisbury for all the heavy lifting and all the work you've been doing for us. Appreciate it. I guess the first question that I have is the first rule.

I just wanna understand, you know, clearly. Like, as since that, you know, you've struck through multiple lines, you know, like the canceled date of our meeting, second and fourth Thursday, and all whatnot. I'm not sure, like, you know, what the are you saying that there was, like, some this current rule that you're striking, there was some misalignment with the charter? And if if so, like, what operational or procedural challenges have this discrepancy created? Like, what is, like if you I'm seeing you striking a bunch of stuff here, like, on the second and fourth Thursday evening of each month at 7PM except blah blah blah.

This is already what is in place. And so I'm not sure exactly, like, what is that misalignment there.

Mister chair, through you I'm my apologies, mister chair. I if you if you would prefer to answer the question, I'm happy to defer. Seeing that that mister chair, through you to councilor Mbaugh, the the charter, as amended, does actually specifically require that the date and times of the city council's meetings be set by ordinance. And so to the extent that the rule purports to set the the date and time of the meetings, that would be inappropriate and in conflict with the charter. Gotcha.

So as I noted at the outset, the city clerk's office is currently working on an ordinance to effectuate this. Other than that, there's there's not much more than I can explain. We simply made these changes to make sure that we are not in out of compliance with the, with the the the charter. As I had noted earlier in the meeting, certainly, there is a provision within the charter about continuance of existing laws. 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 before them as that would certainly present quite the catch 22 of how would one approve said ordinance.

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

Excellent. I thought so too. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, chair.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Mbaugh. Alright. Looking for any further discussion on it. So seeing no further discussion, councilor Davis moves to recommend approval on these amendments. Seeing no discussion on that motion, madam clerk, if we can call the roll.

And on approval of agenda item seven, councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Schozzo? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Councilor Yuan Kempen?

Yes.

Counselor Scott?

Yes.

All counselors in favor that is recommended to be approved.

Alright. Thank you very much. And now we come to the final four items of our agenda. This is, items eight through 11. These are the submission of surveillance technology impact reports for four systems that were previously not included in the administration's production. Although, as the memo there is a memo about this. As the memo points out, several of these technologies were things that we had in our possession, and we're we're just coming back to make sure we document. So that's great. I have reviewed them. This is just as a reminder, not a thing that the city council modifies.

In any way, this is just documentation what the city intends to do and what technologies they tend to intend to use, which are then approved by the city council, not modified. So I'd want to open it up to any questions about any of these four reports. Counselor, you on You have

Mister Chair, I I just have a kind of general statement on all of them. So the 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, and also, you know, just as a basic transparency, good government, thing. So I'll just say, from my perspective, these three technologies, ball cameras, thermal imaging, monoculars, and under door cameras, I'm not particularly concerned with the kind of big picture civil liberties privacy issues. I know my my my colleagues often have really helpful feedback on kind of the details of the STRS of the the impact reports, 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.

Alright. Thank you very much, councilor Ewenkampin. Is there other discussion on these items? Councilor Davis.

Thank you, mister chair. I feel like councilor Ewenkampin was, deliberately queuing me up there, so I'll oblige. I did read through these, and I wanna thank captain Sheehan and everyone else who, you know, who put time into the into these. I every time we come to these, I it's worth taking a moment to just say how, you know, how much I appreciate the collaboration from the beginning of this process, how how much I I like that we have this ordinance, and and, you know, how how important it is that that, you know, that we do have that cooperation because it wouldn't really be very meaningful otherwise. And this is a a a perfect example.

You know, these are as as we if, you know, as we saw in the memo and the and the the one that sees their technologies that it did exist, but sort of on reflection, the department decided, you know, these these probably we should put it 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, certainly, it seems to be have been no attempt.

I I think as as my colleague from Ward 3 noted, there's, you know, there's sort of a a a fundamental difference between 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 but I I I agree that it's appropriate to have a stir for them, and I and I appreciate that we have those now. I did wanna ask I do wanna I do have a few specific points that I wanna kind of flag. And the first one is is specific to the, mini ball camera. And but 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 in the public understanding, particularly where there where there is any, you know, permit or permanent or, you know, ability to be to to make permanent recording or or or data that that is created. Right? You know, stuff that's used in the moment, 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 and potentially audio in some of them that that that video could then be produced, you know, in certain circumstances and talked about. So that's, you know, that that's where I start to look a little bit more closely. So in the in the for the ball camera, in in the response to question three c, the data retention, It says the device has two storage options. One is local where the videos are stored in the device memory, and that is a a default setting so that they could be replay replayed down or deleted by the user. And then the second is a is a cloud option where the the provider third party provider has a a streaming service or, you know, sort of a cloud storage, but it it indicates that there's that that subscription will not be purchased.

We're not gonna provide the cloud storage. But then the there you know, there's other discussion either actually before and after that talks about uploading and downloading videos from the device, you know, data that could be shared on investigation. You know? And so I'm not clear what is the download scenario. Right?

I I think if there's only two storage options and one is one is on the device itself and the other is a cloud and rocking to the cloud, It it sounds like that maybe that maybe that's not actually entirely accurate that that maybe there would be video stored in some other maybe not, but I I just wanna I I wanna further understand kinda how that would work, you know, if x period of time down the road for this investigation, do we just leave the video on the ball itself and hope we don't need to use it again? Or is it 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. So it seems like there's maybe a little bit piece piece missing.

Does that make sense, Capshin?

Or

Yes. Through the chair to, counselors. I'm gonna actually defer to, lieutenant De Oliveira who wrote the, the STIRR for the ball camera. He might be better able to, answer that question for you.

Perfect. Thank you.

Through the chair, councilor Davis, you are correct. There is a way to, save download those. 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. 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, an investigation, the DA's office asked for it, I'm assuming that I 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.

K. That's a great answer as is all almost always the case with these. I I'd 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. That's, you know, that that's the kind of thing I I think it would be great to to to add in here.

So, you know, if if we do a revision of the if you if you're willing to do a a revision, 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 a perfect response and and really provide that that explanation. Then the the other comments, I think, are applicable to all three. And so, mister chair, if if it's okay, I mean, just in the interest of time, you know, maybe I'll I'll make these and and, you know, to the extent that it it there's some adjustments that can be made to to all of them because I think the, you know, the answers were somewhat similar. And they're similar comments to at least one of them is is is similar to some discussion we had on on a recent one of the more, you know, recent ones, a STRS that was submitted notes.

It's been a bit since we've had one of these. But in in subsection e, so I guess it would be, what, three yeah. Three e. The the the question specifically asks for the, you know, a required legal a required legal a required justification and legal standard necessary. Right?

And I think in the 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, etcetera, etcetera. That real that piece is really missing, and I I think in all three of the responses, you know, it's I understand that it's there for reading it because I've seen enough of these, I've talked to y'all y'all about it. I know how it I know how it works, but I think if a member of the public picked this up, I'm not sure that that they would interpret it the same way I do. And I and I think I I I think I'd like to see that, you know, because, like, you know, like I said, the the questions here are are in the statute. They're specific they we we went through these, we went back and forth about these a lot, and they're they're crafted, you know, to to to make sure that certain specific information is included.

And so I think having that, you know, what what the justification would need to be and and a legal standard necessary would is is important to have in here. If for no other reason that that that they would be then be consistent with, you know, with the others where where we included that. You know? And I note that, like, the the response here data could be shared depending on the investigation. In the middle, images could be shared if there was a joint investigation. You know, could be shared as a pretty broad concept. Right? Well, we don't when? Under what circumstances? Under what legal like, that that's what I think.

You know? And I I read these sort of, you know, we'll try to it's 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 what we wanna draft is so that anyone can be comfortable reading them and they're they're and they're not gonna write something. I think, you know, I think somebody could definitely read that sort of could be shared and say, well, wait. That's not really a legal standard. Could be could mean anything. Right?

So I I you know, as I said, the the answer to this question in in some of the other STRS, I think once we were once they revised that we that that was, you know, the legal standards were stated a little more clearly. You know? And then at the end, you know, shared with the 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. 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. Don't wanna 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, I definitely you know, I don't I don't wanna make, you know, more work for you, but I think that is is a relevant point. And then the other thing, 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 wanna put this out there just just for your thought because as as the councilor from Ward 3 noted, these do feel like different types of technology than many of the other ones we've talked about. And so where 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, you know, putting rules and regulations in place for using surveillance technology, and that's to the accrediting department. Think it's worth noting, 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. 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?

The the the kind of things that that councilor Ewenkampin 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? And maybe a member of public would go pull up and and you can, yeah, can find that policy pretty easily, which is which is also good, you know, just through a web search. But the video surveillance system that it's talked about in that the technology data and used by the police department policy, I don't think that's talking about these things because it's it's pretty robust, and 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? So I just wanna throw that out there and and ask you to maybe take another look at where where you've leveraged just references to that general policy and, you know, and consider whether it applies or not. And and I don't I'm not the expert. Right? So I I defer to y'all whether whether you know, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't wanna suggest how it should be changed because I you know, as I said, it's not I don't have the expertise.

You you do. 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 these three really sort of discrete use types of technologies. So, you know, maybe there's a maybe there's a simpler answer that that actually is on point because, you know, as we go to these are, you know, really for sort of specific use in a specific scenario if we ever need it, god forbid. And and I think that would I I think if somebody went down the the rabbit hole that I did and started reading the policy, they might start going, oh, woah. Woah. Wait a minute. Hold on. You're gonna do all this. And it's like, 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. You know, if you're willing to, I'd I'd love to to to see a revision. You know, I think that I acknowledge that that that, you know, we've had these technologies in place. And so, I think if there's a an exigent circumstance, that, you know, you felt it was needed in emergency, I, you know, I certainly wouldn't wouldn't make a mistake if you needed to use them between now and, you know, January when when we can talk about this again.

And I wanna say that because by no means do I mean to, 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 let that be clear. But for the for the sake of of kinda just dialing this a little bit, you know, I I think that I think there might be a a few tweaks that could be made to, 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, that transparency will serve its purpose.

Thank you for that, Davis. I'm gonna hand it over to captain Chin in a second since it looks like he has direct response. But, I actually went and pulled up the, covert device surveillance technology impact report, and the language in three e there, specifically talks about shared as the district attorney's, office as part of submitting evidence for a criminal case, etcetera. So, I think the language is there just, in in other ones, so it shouldn't be that hard of a revision. Captain Sheehan on, in response there.

Oh, or not. Captain Sheehan.

Nope. That yep. Exactly. I just wanted to to through the chair, to the, to consular Davis and to you, consular Scott. We do appreciate working with the council. Obviously, this a lot of this stuff is new to us. These reports, we're we're getting the hang of it. We're more than welcome to to work with you as we have in the past. We will put as councilor 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, we will put that together, and we will get together, hopefully, in January, and we'll have the language, that you're looking for.

And, mister chair, quick follow-up if I could just to acknowledge it. Absolutely. Totally get it. Appreciate. This this is this is great. You know, what's there already is perfect. I I I'm just, like I said, looking to maybe, you know, avoid avoid any questions. But, by no means, you know, do my comments suggest that this was you know, that there was any 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 collaborating on this. So I really, really appreciate it. So thank you.

Alright. So, given all that, it sounds like there's a request for, amendment on that. I wonder, would you, want to approve these as they stand and then count on the administration to bring, amendments, 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?

Mister chair, the the we've we've done this two different ways in the past. In all cases, we have taken no action on the current version, and then a a new version has been submitted. Because as you noted, this isn't something the council can amend or change. It's not our document, but we this is the piece of this surveillance technology ordinance that we do need to approve ultimately. And so I I think the the most recent preference would is to simply place the once a new one comes in to 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 the replacement one.

We used to 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. At least my my view would be and as I said, I would certainly look at it as if something needed to be know, the the Surreal's technology ordinance does have an exigent circumstance provision in it, and 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, you know, I I don't have any concerns with, you know, with that potential scenario, and just keeping these here until we get the the revised versions. That's my preference, but it's your your call.

No. Let's, go ahead and do that then. Let's keep these in committee. It'll be a good reminder that we're, looking for those updates. You know, this is we're getting we're not quite in scrivener's territory here, but as you said, these reports have been getting better and better every time they get submitted.

So I really appreciate it. You know, that to your other point, these are kind of different systems, in that, you know, they're being deployed either as a result of a warrant or, in an emergency situation, as part of a well, I don't wanna call, use the technical term on it, but, as as part of a tactical situation. So, I I appreciate that there's a difference, but, you know, anytime the video is recorded, it could end up somewhere. So I appreciate submitting these, and I think, more disclosure is always better than less. So, why don't we go ahead and keep these in here? Sergeant sergeant Developer? I'm sorry. Is it sergeant or lieutenant?

Mister chair, lieutenant Jealivan, apologies. I I was having problem with my computer here.

That's okay. I'm old. I think I knew you when you were sergeant. So, lieutenant, thank you very much. And, captain Sheehan, I've been fighting the urge to call you lieutenant Sheehan all night, but, it's, good to see you both. 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. We have an item a few several items that were laid on the table for a single roll call vote for approval later, and motion to adjourn is gonna be in order momentarily. But let's see if director Singh is gonna remind me of something I forgot.

Council Scott, I'm not sure if you took up item 11 impact report for the drone usage at the high school.

Yeah. We took up eight through eleven.

Oh, apologies. Sorry,

mister chair, if I may. Sure. And I thank the director for for flagging that, actually. My my thought I I read through that one too that as you I'm sure you saw it. It was a really specific to a a completely different use of technology using the drone to inspect the high school to figure out why panels panels were falling. I have no problem approving that one tonight because it's, in my opinion, really straightforward. No issues. And we can take that one off the list if if you're so inclined.

Okay. I love that. Alright. So let's, motion has been made to approve or recommend approval on item 11, and and we can reiterate that eight through 10 are remaining in committee. And 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 the motion to adjourn.

Care, 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 we should take those all up at once as they are all different dispositions.

Alright. Then let's go one at a time. Why not? Okay. Director Singh, can I help you?

To the chair, apologies to the clerk. Did we miss item five for approval?

Nope. Item five was approved. 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 prevailed, and then item seven, we also approved. So just to go through the list again, item one is laid on the table. We'll accept those. Two and three are being kept in committee. Four is discharged without a recommendation. Five was recommended for approval. Six was recommended for approval as amended. Seven was recommended for approval. Eight through 10 is kept in committee, and then we will still take the vote on 11 recommended for approval.

Alright. So with that summary, we will, I I believe, take two roll call votes. Correct? One on acceptance of eight through 10, and then a second one for accept approval of the minutes. How do you wanna divide that up?

We can yes. We can do two. We can do two. We can do I can do it right now on the acceptance of agenda item one, approval of the minutes of legislative matters committee meeting on October 2025, and the approval of agenda item 11, approval of the surveillance technology impact report for use on unmanned aircraft system at the high school. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Schrozzo? Councilor Strezo? Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Councilor Ewen Campan?

Yes.

Councilor Scott?

Yes.

And with four counselors in favor, those motions are approved. And then on agenda item four, and adjournment to discharge without a recommendation, councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Schroeder. Excuse me. Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Councilor Ewingkampan?

Yes.

Councilor 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, thank you very much, and I will see you all soon. Good night, everybody.