Confirmation of Appointments and Personnel Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. It is Tuesday, September 30, and, here at 6PM. This is your ward two counselor, JT Scott, serving as chair of legislative matters committee of the Somerville City Council. This committee will be meeting by remote participation this evening pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025. Recording will be available on the city's website shortly after its completion. To get things started tonight, let's go ahead and take a roll call to establish a quorum, if you don't mind, madam clerk.

Yep. This is roll call. Councilor Davis.

Here.

Councilor Strazo? Councilor Mbaugh? Councilor Yoon Kampen?

Here.

Chair Scott? Present.

Alright. With that, we do have three members present.

And I did have a note from councilor Strazo earlier saying that she anticipated being late to the meeting, so I hope she can join us later. But in the meantime, three is a quorum. So let's go ahead and begin. Our first item is just the approval of the minutes of our last meeting on September 8. Is there any discussion on those minutes? Alright. Then, seeing none, let's go ahead and take a roll call for approval of the minutes so we can just step through these one item at a time.

Great. On approval of the minutes. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strazo? Councilor Mbaugh? Present. This is on the minutes, councilor.

Yes. Is it I said present. Is that is that in order?

No. We're voting to approve the minutes. We already missed roll call, but that's alright. We we know you're here now. Just, yes or no on the approval of the minutes, counselor.

Yes.

Thank you. And I will I'll note the time you arrived. Counselor Yunkampan?

Yes.

Chair Scott? Yes.

Alright. With that, that is four votes in favor.

Alright. Wonderful. I was tempted

to vote present there for a second.

Alright. Let's, go ahead, and we I anticipate we will just go in agenda order tonight. We have ourselves three items of substance on the agenda this evening. So welcome to what is hopefully going to be a very exciting and fast paced piece of legislating this evening. Our first item on our next item on the agenda is number two.

That's requesting approval of a home rule petition to raise the sound business practices and written quote contract thresholds under MGL chapter 30 b for city contracts with certified disadvantaged businesses. So, hopefully, we can, on the screen, place up the HRP text. And I would invite director Allen from procurement, who is here with us tonight, to come in and give a brief introduction or IGA if that's the preferred outlet. Let me just say at the outset, I'm excited about this and looking forward to it. Hello. Good evening, director Al.

Good evening. Through the chair, counselor Scott, to the committee. It's great to be here. IGA, do you wanna speak, or do you want me to dive on in?

Through the chair to Angela. That's fine. You can go ahead.

Cool.

Okay. Yes. Through the chair to the committee, I am very pleased to tell you about this proposed home rule petition from the city to, as you just read, counselor Scott, to raise the current threshold, which is the one in the statute, the Uniform Procurement Act called chapter 30 b of mass general laws from its current value of $10,000 up to $20,000 only if those contracts were goods and services, the business we would conduct up to that cap of $20,000 would be with a certified disadvantaged business, including minority and women owned businesses, veteran owned businesses, businesses, LGBTQ owned businesses, and other categories identified by the either the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office or by the city of Boston that has its own certification program. Or third, that we would have clear and measurable discretion in the city. We will not have our own certification program in Somerville, but if we receive an application for work or seek a quote for or business, for example, from a company that is housed in Rhode Island or another jurisdiction that is certified as a disadvantaged business through a an agency that has a recognized certification program that mirrors the same standards as Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or the city of Boston.

We would want to be able to accept those as well up to that dollar value. The other thing that this home rule petition would enable us to do should we move forward with it and have it accepted by the legislature is that we would raise the current threshold for what we call a quoted contract. Currently, that the band the the procurement threshold dollar values are between 10,000, starting at 10,000 up to and including $50,000. We would raise that $50,000 up to $250,000, which is the current it's called the simplified acquisition threshold, which is what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts uses. We would actually tie it to that benchmark instead of naming the exact dollar amount.

That would be what I would recommend. And that would enable us to use this simplified procurement process called a quoted process, also only for certified disadvantaged businesses certified by the same agencies that I referenced moments ago. This aligns with an existing home rule petition that Boston successfully petitioned for and obtained in 2022, I believe. I've spoken with their office, my counterparts there about how it's going, how it's being received. They were very enthusiastic about its reception in in the city of Boston.

And the city of Cambridge also has a current similar petition pending with the legislature, And I believe Somerville should join in that effort as well. And that, in a nutshell, is is what the Homeworld petition would enable us to do. I'm happy to accept any questions that you may have through the chair to the committee.

Alright. Excellent. Thank you for that, director Allen. I see councilor Yun Kampen has hand up and council Mbod next. I will say I did I appreciate you raising I I appreciate the summary. There have been some questions raised by the legislative policy analyst, and I'll I'll pull those up later. But let me go first go to colleagues, councilor Ewan Kampen. You have the floor.

Thank you, mister chair. Through you. Thank you so much, director Allen. I think this is really exciting. So I I just wanna make sure that I understand kind of in plain language what this would actually do if if we were so lucky to get this passed. So for procurement of less than 20,000, am I correct? Basically, it would streamline the process for us to do procurement if we're awarding the contract to a disadvantaged business diverse business. Is that right?

Through the chair to councilor Yoon Kempen, that is correct. I would like to, yes. It would streamline it. What it would do is we would not have to seek competitive quotes under $20,000. If we have a known supplier, for example, let's just say a graphic artist who like, we need to have t shirts and various things printed from a certified business that we know is here, local business. We could just set up a contract. We would still need a written contract. Other ordinances would apply that are set at the 10,000 mark, but we don't have to seek competitive quotes. It would streamline it. Say, hey. We can we can button up a contract with you. So that's one example.

Okay. And then can you just in in, like you know, for for members of the public and and for myself, can you just also explain the section two part just in, like, really simple languages? So this is for larger than 20,000 but less than, did you say, quarter million?

Exactly. So for that yeah. From 20,000 up to $250,000, let's say the city needs potholes filled, and we normally, we would have to put out a bid. It's a different it's a more intensive process. It would have to be advertised.

It would take longer time. What we could do instead is identify at least three businesses that have a certification as a disadvantaged business and seek quotes from them. So we'd send them, you this know, is what we need. This is our price form, our contract, and we would only compete that opportunity with certified disadvantaged businesses for certain contract types. That that's how that would work. It it's easier than the process the current state laws require us to follow.

Got it. So, mister Share, I just wanna say, you know, I'm I'm looking forward to hearing the questions from my colleagues, from our legislative analyst. I think having, seen the results of our disparities disparity study, having kind of worked on this for a long time, I think this makes a lot of sense. You know, I I think of this basically as starting to level the playing field. You know, this is my general understanding is especially for for newer businesses that don't have a long history of contracting with municipalities.

It's really you know, there is a major, major, major advantage to companies that have been doing this for a long time and kind of have the existing kind of flywheel going on these permitting and taking action like this really will kind of help smaller businesses that have historically kind of been locked out from the process. So I'm I'm glad that that this is before us. I wanna thank all the staff that worked on this, and I look forward to hearing from colleagues.

Agreed. Thank you, counselor Ewen Kampen. Counselor Mbah, you have the floor.

Thank you, chairman Scott. Can you hear me okay?

We got you.

Amazing. Doctor Allen, good to see you, and, thank you for your work as always. You know, it's I guess, the thing I wanna clarify here, it's I mean, not necessarily clarify because I think I understand, like, the state process, which actually, you know, has three level classification that's in and I also, you know, concur with Ben, my counselor from what three that this is a way a a way to open up the process for disadvantaged folks. I guess just a little bit of clarification question that I have, it's like, do we know how many businesses in Somavia are already registered in, you know, in the system?

Mister chair, I wanna make sure I understand your question, councilor Mabaugh. You're asking, are there vendors already registered or meaning, do they already work with the city that already have city contracts? Is that your question?

Yes, please.

Yes. Yes. We through the chair to you, we have a number of certified businesses that already do business with the city of Somerville. They would be included in this process, and we hope to engage more who might may not currently be bidding on our contracts as well.

Okay. Thank you, director. And so what is the relationship, you know, between the the the state registration process to our existing program of promoting small and minority owned businesses?

Through the chair to you, I'm gonna repeat the question to make sure I'm addressing your question. So the question sounds like it's how would this change the existing procurement process we have already with this with certified disadvantaged businesses? Is that your question?

Yes, please.

Okay. So what it would do through the chair to you is that it would simplify the procurement process for certain contracts. It may not it's not necessarily a fit for all contract types, but we would review with each department. Again, this is down the road, but we've already thought about how would we implement this. We would consult the our existing vendor pool, and we have lists of certified vendors from the city of Boston and from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

And we'll look and say, are there enough are there at least three contractors that fill potholes as one example? And then we would seek quotes only from them for that opportunity. That's one that would be different from the current process, which is now what we do is if the contract is valued, let's say it's valued at $200,000, we need to advertise a bid, and we still contact all those vendors. We say, hey. Somerville is looking for pothole filling companies that do this work.

We need your help. Here is the forms you fill out. Please can please bid on this job. But they are competing with other companies that are not certified vendors. So what this home rule petition, if you if the city council approves it and the legislature accepts it as well, we would be able to have a marketplace for certain contracts where it makes sense for the city, where there are enough available vendors who have that certification.

We would make sure that a certified vendor gets that contract. That's that's the difference from what we're currently do versus what the home rule petition would enable us to do.

Thank you. Thank you, doctor. And and through your chair, one last question. It's like, so, with the language, you know, of the home rule petition intends to have, you know, like, again, a simpler, simpler process that apply for contract as large as 250,000?

That's correct. Through the chair. Yes. For yes.

Okay. Because that's what the OS OS OSD publications, you know, seems to say. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

No problem. Excellent questions, councilor Bob. Thank you. Councilor Davis, I see you've got your hand up before I take a shot at it. Go for it.

Thank you, mister chair. I I don't seem to be able to allow my camera to work today, so forgive me for the moment. I'm gonna continue working on that. But in the meantime, I assure you I look like I just got back from work and I'm frazzled. So paint a picture in your head. This this sounds great. I appreciate the director's explanations and my colleagues' questions that hit most of what I wanted to ask about. I guess I just wanna hit one point that the director just mentioned through you, mister chair, in terms of, you know, the the kind of the the process and how we'll implement it. Because that's you know, to that everything sounds great. That sounds logical.

Right? But if I sort of think through, like, where are the potential pitfalls, it's kind of that. Like, when do we decide to use this process versus not? When do we what if there's more than three companies? Do we get to pick and choose? Or or get to is probably not the worst. You know? You know, would it would we be able to pick and choose, and is that the right thing to do? And so is it is it the thinking? And, you know, do we know if the other cities who have, who are, you know, going down this road have have, you know, talked publicly about their plans in terms of, you know, will we have a a clear set transparent procedure for exactly how this will be implemented?

I know that you just touched on that, but if there's any more detail you can provide, I'd appreciate it. If not, then we'll look forward to having that conversation if and when the, you know, the petition goes forward and if it's granted.

Yes. Through the chair to you, counselor Davis, I appreciate the question, and I I really appreciate also that counselors like yourself are thinking about implementation. How does this actually look on the ground? How it sounds great on paper. Is it gonna work?

So my answer to this question is that we we've already given it some careful thought. We don't have a an exact plan yet because we're not there yet. I have spoken in-depth with the city of Boston who actually has a program that they've been running for a few years. And one approach I would advocate for is to do an audit of contracts that fall in that up to $250,000 category and work with those departments. Look at existing who what vendors have done this work in the past.

We don't wanna displace an incumbent local vendor that has does excellent work, so we might not compete every $250,000 contract under this. We have to look at which vendors are on the marketplace, but we're still inviting everyone to come bid on this opportunity. But that elevated increased threshold would only be available for the certified businesses. So we would need to have a process in the city that is not yet set up. It would depend on the passage of this home rule petition, but I have ideas of how to do that and how to market those opportunities further in advance and drum up interest in preparation for contractors on the marketplace who have the certifications that make them eligible for such contracts to say, hey.

Somerville is is throwing me a bone. I've got this great hey. Let's let's go for this. You know, keep certain people on staff, whatever it is that enables them to compete for that contract. Something that is in the question you asked is, I believe, what would the rule for award be? How do you pick the three? So I'm gonna interpret your question this way as how do you pick which three? We could offer a contract to we could seek quotes, I should say. Not offer. We would seek quotes from at least three certified vendors that offer the good or service that we are seeking.

They have to be certified, and they have to meet certain minimum requirements. We will state what those are for the given contract. And it's the the one the contractor that meets those minimum requirements and submits the lowest price. So we still that's the rule for award that is stated in the statute. We're not changing that. So that's how we would select the or award the contract, and that is consistent with with current law. What we're doing is we are having the marketplace for that particular contract only competed among certified disadvantaged businesses.

Council Davis, you're all set?

Yep. Thank you, mister chair. That's excellent. I appreciate the response. That's all I got for now.

Alright. Excellent. Thank you, sir. Well, thank you, director Allen. This has been both succinct and excellent as as stated by my colleagues. I also greatly support the aim of this. And while I am customarily a little bit cautious about putting more paperwork requirements on your office, given how complicated procurement is already. This appears to just simply be giving you a little bit more leeway to actually, create a short process here. So, I also appreciate the amount of work that you've done contacting colleagues in Boston who have been working with this process to figure out if it causes more heartache than it than it answers. I guess I just had a a couple questions.

You know, we we spoke about how there's a certification, from the supplier diversity office. That's the state level supplier diversity office, I think. And Boston also has a separate process. I guess I'm curious as to what those much extensive vetting is in those processes as opposed to just what we might have available, which is a history of old contracts and bids where people selected, you know, WME or some other category on their on their previous bids?

Yes, chair Scott, on this question. This is a great question. You all have great questions tonight. I like it. So the language I drafted and vetted with wonderful support from our city solicitor's office and IGA team really mirrors very closely the language in Cambridge's home rule petition, which they based on Boston's.

And there was a so it it lists exactly as you said, the supplier diversity offices, certification certification process process, and the city of Boston's, both of which are quite rigorous. I believe the state's process is more rigorous, and there have been anecdotal complaints about it. I personally have never had an issue with it, but I think it is quite a heavy lift to manage such a certification program. Boston has their own program, and they've been very cooperative with us in sharing their lists. It is publicly available.

It needs to be easy to use, and the goal is also to incentivize vendors to get certified. Like, there needs to be something in it for them. But going back to the language and the the draft home rule petition, we did have a clause in there saying that, you know, the city of Somerville could also, by virtue of our own certification, I'd like to work with this committee and our legislative policy analysts, others who know advise on the the clearest language, but to enable the city exactly what I believe you're you're suggesting, chair councilor Scott, is what if we have a supplier come forth? We know of a supplier that is not certified by the supplier diversity office nor by the city of Boston, but we know that supplier is a veteran owned business, for example, or a minority owned business. Can't we offer them this opportunity?

So I would like to look at that and say, well, are they certified by any agency? I think it is important that there is a body out there that has some standards, whether it's I don't I don't know. I I'm not gonna go into all those details now, but you can get certified in different states. There's the Department of Transportation at the federal level has a has had a robust supplier diversity and small business disadvantaged business program for years, and every state in the in The United States has such a program. So we'd wanna look at what do what do you have?

What's what can you furnish to us that gives us what we need? And that would be part of ironing out what the implementation looks like. We we don't want to we wanna lower the barriers, but we don't wanna lower the standards, if that makes sense.

Well no. And that was where my question was going to. Was just trying to understand how onerous the certification process was simply beyond the because, obviously, you know, you receive bids all the time from folks who check the box saying veteran or WME and presumably some kind of you have to do if they're not already certified on a list. You see that check box and you say, okay. Show me some documentation that proves that this is the case. I don't know. Maybe maybe I'm presuming too far. But, that would be what I would guess.

Yes. So,

on, you know, on that basis, especially with companies we've already done business with, you know, they've done the contract. Like you said, we know they're a veteran owned local business or something like that. I I would definitely be eager to allow for, in the homeroom petition, a pathway that will allow for, some business with that kind of track record locally that maybe has gone through all the other certification hoops to still be eligible for this. So am I understanding you correctly that that's also your intention here with that language?

That is correct.

Yes. Alright. Well, okay. Sounds good. So I'm gonna pause for a second here and go to, some of the concerns or issues raised by our legislative policy analyst here on this.

There is some concern about wording in the first sentence of section two, which, frankly, I I don't necessarily share the concern, but understand why it's there, in the three, in the language there at the bottom of that page saying, from not fewer than three disadvantaged businesses, analyst Salisbury's recommendation would be moving that final clause of customarily providing the supplier service, up to, right after the number three there. Basically saying three businesses customarily providing the supplier service that are then disadvantaged businesses, etcetera. I think I understand the concern there, but it's not one that I'm as fired up about. Let me, before I go to my second, point here, let me offer analyst Salisbury if you have a, do you have a a substantive reason why that why that change is important?

Well, mister chair, through you, thank you for the opportunity. For the record, Brendan Salisbury, legislative and policy analyst. I will simply say that while there is no specific substantive reason for that, I will note that as lacking in enthusiasm for this change as you may be, that is why my job exists. This is merely a drafting, issue to promote clarity and, remove potential confusion.

I love clarity. Alright. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I wanted to make sure there was nothing, in the in the effect that I was missing for a change like that.

I also wanted to go in so they there's a second point here, Anna Salisbury, that I believe you raised, that goes to the conversation we were just having about, state supplier office, spy diversity office or in Boston. And the concern is that if there is, that there would be a presumption that the city clerk would be responsible for, any certification or administration process that would create a a local certification, which isn't necessarily what I I heard from, director Allen there. Could you maybe, given the context of what we just heard from director Allen, could you maybe help us out with, what the your concern or the clerk's office concern might be?

Certainly, mister chair. So to clarify just a a little bit, it's my understanding that we do not have a certification process, that is substantively similar to the city of Boston or the, supplier diversity office on the state level. And so it is it is the it is my recommendation that we avoid using language that purports to utilize a standard that does not exist. Because, historically, when questions arise about a thing that does not exist but appears to exist according to state law, the most frequent person to receive questions about that is the city clerk's office. We are sort of the one stop shop for many issues within the city, and it is the opinion of the city clerk that that she does not have the appropriate expertise or qualifications to certify businesses in this way and would not want to have that expectation be disappointed for our our local businesses.

Okay. I can appreciate that. The way the language is, written right now, I believe oh, sorry. Let me find the language once again as certified by supplier diversity office by Boston or by virtue of certification by Somerville. So that does insinuate that they're, not not necessarily the one exists currently, but that one might, which I think is the room we're trying to allow here.

Is that right, director Allen? That in the future, there may be a process even if that process is simply as abbreviated as, you are a supplier who has previously done business with city of Somerville as representing yourself as a WME veteran owned or other category specified. Correct?

Yes. That is correct. I would like to add to you, chair councilor Scott, and through you to Brennan Salisbury that I fully am open to clearer language that removes ambiguity but still gives the city the flexibility we just discussed. One option may be to, you know, any certification that meets the standards aligned with the Commonwealth or the city of Boston, for example. But, anyway, that's I wanted to add that. But yes.

Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I think I definitely would want to air on the HRP, particularly since we're pre implementation, to on the side of giving us more room to maneuver once the HRP is accepted and we're in the implementation phase. But that's just my opinion. I see councilor Davis. Councilor Davis, you got the floor.

Thank you, mister chair. So I first off, I end of the day, completely agree with your final statement, right, which is that this is a mechanism for, you know, any asking the Commonwealth to enable us to do something, and and so leaving us the flexibility to do that thing is in our interest to the extent that it, you know, doesn't impact our likelihood of getting the past. You know, I guess at at at its crux, I think I'm not I'm not hearing a clear connection between what exactly we're saying here. Right? To to to me, it sounds like there's two concepts.

One concept is at some point in the future, we may establish and put in place and budget foreign staff or whatever is necessary a certification process of our own. Right? Another another possible interpretation or or path or parallel, you know, reality is that we might decide that x y z company, even if they don't otherwise meet city of Boston or Commonwealth, Massachusetts or some other state certification, are good because they meet all the conceptual things that we've you know, that the others do, and and we want that to just be our yes. Okay. I'm a little more I'd be a little more concerned about that because it feels less structured and transparent and become more open to nefarious things that governments sometimes do.

Hopefully, know what never in the again in the future of Somerville, but, you know, these things happen. So I guess I just like a little clarification from the director if I could is, you know, is the idea when you talked about flexibility that we might establish a transparent program or that there might be a vendor who is so clearly, you know, checks the boxes that even though they don't otherwise meet any certification, we want them to be able to be one of the three.

Yes. Through through the chair to you, counselor Davis, I completely appreciate the concern. I had it myself when I read Cambridge's draft language and prepared hours, and we've discussed this internally with our colleagues here in the city. And I'm glad to discuss it with you. So to answer your question, it is to allow for flexibility, not be so rigid to just these two programs because they're not the only two out there.

We certainly so, anyway, we would we would need to define what those standards are. Like and that and I appreciate the city clerk's office saying this could come to us. That needs to be established. We don't have that yet. We don't have the home rule petition yet.

But I today, if this were to go into effect tomorrow, I'd say we would look we would want to see an official letter from your the issuer that has certified you as a business in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, California, the federal government, Kentucky, wherever it may be, and what the process is, and we will accept this. There'll be a notation. I do wanna leave the door open for some sort of future program. I don't see that being a direction we will go, but I can't speak for my colleague who isn't here from OSPCD, Luis Quixpe, who was the project manager of the disparity study. But he was very in favor of the concept of a community con compact and saying that there's anecdotally in the vendor community, especially disadvantaged vendors, local certifications or or local recognition of a a business' status is very desirable.

I firmly believe there has to be some guidance so that I'm not making a judgment call at my desk when I get a bid. There needs to be document patient furnished. So I use the language that Cambridge did. We've embedded internally. I fully am open to edits to it that would make it clearer. I would advocate that we retain some flexibility as a city to allow disadvantaged businesses that might not be certified by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the city of Boston also to be considered for the this opportunity.

Follow-up, mister chair, if I could.

Please.

Okay. Thank you. So thank you for that. I I think so what I what I think I'm hearing is that the intent here is that we, you know, we may well want to put something in place whereby we could then say yes to a company, but but not that, you know, without otherwise having previously put a process in place, we would just be like, oh, no. These are These are fine.

Right? And so I think that my you know, just my sort of initial thought in terms of the the concern right by the clerk's office, I think it's perfectly valid, you know, would be and and maybe to make the language a little more reflective of what you just described is, you know but, you know, something like, you know, by virtue of a certification process that, you know, may be established by Somerville or something that, you know, that sort of acknowledges that, you know, if we take steps to say, to establish a process. Right? If we take some steps to put a a process in place, then that will be good that'll be good enough as well. But not that by virtue of certification by SilverBro, therefore, call the clerk and ask how you get certified.

Right? It may still be call the clerk and find out if there is a certification process. The answer is no. We don't have one yet, so you gotta go to the other ones. Right? Which would be I think that it's gonna be is what it is. Does that make sense? And to my colleagues too, like, is or or I guess maybe to you, mister Salisbury, you know, could you noodle with some words along those lines that that might address that concern?

Mister chair, through you to councilor Davis, I I could certainly consider that. I I think and I director Allen, please correct me if I'm I'm wrong, as well. I I want to restate what what you and I had talked about and also what you've stated here. I think also introducing some language regarding certification from other entities beyond the supplier diversity office, the city of Boston, or the city of Somerville. I do think that we could we could probably replace the language of by virtue of certification by Somerville with, something like by virtue of certification by, another or or certification by another agency with similar standards, which which would, I think, still leave the door open for us in the future to become an agency that certifies using similar standards.

So I I do just want to throw that out there.

If I could, councilor Davis, just a just a thought.

Of course. Of course, mister chair, please.

Thank you. So I I get what you're what you're getting at there, and I certainly would not want to put us in a situation where the presumption is, hey. You know, Jim and John and Joey have, three companies. They're the approved companies. They're the ones we're gonna, you know, go to.

I think as as impossible it is to legislate, good behavior, I think it's also at the home rule petition stand, state one where I'd want to be perhaps a little bit more broad. It occurs to me that language here along the lines of, in you know, instead of or by virtue of certification by Somerville, it could be, or or by virtue virtue of certification by Somerville according to regulations promulgated by the procurement, director of procurement. It could even be promulgated by director of procurement and approved by the city council. I mean, there's could definitely be safeguards in place so that whatever those procedures are are things that get reviewed and approved rather than just, appearing in straight, you know, becoming just a matter of past practice. So, analyst Salisbury, while you're considering language, I'd I'd wanna put that in there.

I I did have a thought as we were talking about certification by other agencies. I can certainly understand the possibility of, say, the federal Department of Transportation promulgating a list of disadvantaged businesses because they are owned by people who were previously convicted of trespassing at The US Capitol in 2020, for example. And, certainly, that would not necessarily be a list that would be looking to to apply here. So having there being an option of which standards we could we could take into consideration here, which is what's allowed in this language here is something that I'd be interested in. And and, again, I generally on the side of not being overly prescriptive in terms of which certification standards can be selected at this point or which eligibility standards are certification standards are eligible and rather go with some of that language that analyst Salzberg was talking about saying that they you know?

Or or some language about standards that are found to be acceptable certifications by the director of procurement or some something along those lines. So it's just just my general thoughts because it sounds like what we're looking at right now is going doing a little drafting between now and our next meeting and hopefully coming back with some languages that satisfies everybody's concerns and then moves forward. I I do see Solicitor Amara. Solicitor Amara, I'm gonna recognize you just in case there's, what what do you have on your mind here?

I was just going to say, it it we've worked really hard and looked at different propositions and different language, and a lot of time it's been invested in it. And I think to your point, if language is going to be changed, we need some time to do it. But I think the goal and the point of this is to give Somerville the flexibility to create its own process for certification. And what that is down the road, I don't know. But a process for certification which could be you're on another state, you've done business for ten years at over $50,000.

I mean, we could create whatever those standards are. And one thing I will defer to Angela on, I don't know if we would then have to get any sort of approval from anyone for our certification. But we would also we would want to make sure that the safeguards are put in place, that it's a process, that it's not a, oh, I like this contractor because they did a good job on my yard and they gave me a good discount. No. It's gonna be an objective sort of certification process. So I just wanted to say that is the goal. And if, we need to go back and work on some language, we're happy to do so.

K. Well, I I think I've I've heard the the the general concern and, from from councilor Davis here. Councilor Davis, do you feel like you had you've had your concern adequately kinda captured here so that some work can go in the background between now and our next meeting, or is it more Yeah.

I mean, I'm I appreciate all the the impact. I I I appreciate solicitor Mara, you know, clearly confirming, you know, what what I heard from the the the director. Sounds like we're all very much at the same page. You know, I fully respect and appreciate all the time and and effort that went into this. I think that, you know, the clerk's office has raised a concern, which my read of this language seems very valued, or by virtue of certification by Somerville, leaves a lot to the imagination and and, frankly, might raise concerns on Beacon Hill.

Right? That that it it you know, we that we might be talking about we like, you know, JT and Lance's construction business, and therefore, we're just gonna give them you know? Right? So, you know, at the risk of sort of trying to oversimplify this, you know, certification by a process as may be established by Somerville or or something along those lines seems fairly straightforward, I don't think that changes. I think the only thing that does is clarify and narrow the meaning. I certainly would defer to the solicitor's office if there's concerns with that. My suggestion would be that to make a change along those lines either tonight or Thursday and and move forward unless there's some other compelling reason not to to get this going.

I certainly love moving fast, council Davis, but, I think I'd rather give, analyst Salisbury and solicitor Amara, and team a little bit of time to make sure they've got language that they all feel good about as opposed to us necessarily trying to generate it on the fly this evening. Of course, it's always the will of committee. But my inclination would be to take this discussion and, let them run with it for for a hot minute and also allows them to compare with the notes with Cambridge and Boston who have also gotten similar language through the HRP process in case there's anything that they felt, that they got flagged through the legislative process that, was a close call for them, for example.

Mister chair, as you wish.

God bless. Alright.

Mister chair, please reflect in the minutes that I that I, am here. This is councilor Strezzo.

Alright. Let the minutes reflect. Councilor Strezzo has arrived. Welcome, councilor Strezzo.

Bye. Thank you.

Alright. We're about to, keep this one in committee and move on. Did you have any, comments or thoughts you'd like to share before we do that, counselor Strezzo?

Thank you. No. I think, right. I agree with you, mister chair, on this.

Alright. Okay. Well, then, is there anything else from the administration or any questions for clarification that we can help with before before putting this back in the box for the evening? Alright. Not seeing any.

I once again want to thank solicitor Mara and director Allen for all your work in prepping this. And, hopefully, at our next legislative matters meeting in two weeks, we'll be able to, quickly adopt some amendments to take care of everything and, get this back out to the council so it can go up to the state house. Alright. Seeing no further discussion on that item right now, let's go ahead and keep number two in committee. Thank you so much, this evening, and move on to, item number three.

This is a home rule petition, requesting approval of home rule petition to raise the maximum amount of fines for violations allowed by MGL chapter 40 section 21 b. And, this is another one of those that I'm very excited about this evening. Thanks to the administration for bringing this forward. Let's go ahead and, put that HRP text on the screen, if you wouldn't mind. And I believe, let's see. IGA or, oh, I I see mister Ziegler here this evening. Oh, are you, here to present on this?

Through the chair? Yes.

Alright. Well, then please take it away.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, everyone. My name is Colin Ziegler, environmental health manager for the city of Somerville, inspectional services department. I'm joined here today with my colleagues, deputy director, Matt Zano, as well as environmental health coordinator, Alicia Privette, to present this home rule petition to committee to discuss the ability for city departments and the city itself to increase the maximum violation fine from $300, which was introduced in the eighties, which we all know inflation and the cost of things has increased substantially since then, and to catch up with our regional partners like Boston who have passed a similar home rule petition back in 2024. Just for clarity, this home rule petition does not change the violation maximum immediately.

It just gives the city and departments and the the ability to restructure fines, how we issue them, what they're issued for, and negotiate those through the correct channels and processes. So we're here tonight to answer any questions you might have, comments, suggestions, to make edits that we can come back to you with or what's appropriate. So looking forward to the discussion. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, manager Zeigler. I will say, just as a TLDR for anybody at home, this, basically, up to now, it's been capped at $300. My reading of this is that if approved, this would allow us to raise that maximum fine to $2,000 currently, and then every five years to index that change for inflation based on the, annual percentage change, of CPI. So if I've got that wrong, please feel free to flag me on it.

There is one note that came up about the rounded, the section of maximum fines set forth shall be adjusted for inflation on 01/01/2025 and on January 1 every five years thereafter. Given that we're playing pretty far past 01/01/2025, it would seem to be, I would be inclined to just set that at 01/01/2026 because it's not like there's a off year, problem for CPI, just to allow it to start getting indexed on a first possible year after that. Does that would that make sense to y'all? Alright. I don't hear any I don't hear anybody, but I do see alright.

Great. Alright. Then, let me give the floor over as usual to colleagues first. Let's councilor Davis and then councilor Mbah. Councilor Davis, you have the floor.

Thank you, mister chair. Allow me to just say, hear, hear, hallelujah, can I get an amen? If there is of all the things that I have to explain or that I have the the privilege and and duty to explain to my constituents over the years, and I guess since we changed the city council and what is an alderman is no longer at the top of the list. It is why can't we do anything about blank? And oftentimes that it's we we we we have a we have an ordinance.

We have a law, but $300. Effectively, there's no meaning whatsoever to the way that we can force our ordinances. Sometimes there's little, you know, tricks and ways that we apply it, but, you know, if if there's ever been a a a bigger no brainer from a really substantive issue, I I don't I'm not aware of it. This is obviously long overdue, and it really it really cuts to the city's ability to to, you know, meet the expectations of our of our constituents, whether it's, you know, garbage disposal that goes directly to our effort to mitigate the rat issues, whether it goes to vacant property ordinance, whether it goes to any number of other things that, you know, that that we're we're we're hamstrung by the the current status of our our fine limits, noise ordinance for as another example for construction sites. I would love to have more flexibility to make it a little more meaningful, to maybe dissuade, future bad actors.

Thank you, mister chair.

Hear hear indeed, councilor Davis. Alright. Councilor Mbai, you have the floor.

Thank you, chair, and, thank you, councilor David, for that editorial. It's, I think I really also, I'm right there with you. I support that. I was also waiting to hear the good director, you know, to say this is you know, in particular, the one of the things we've heard in the past is mostly construction because if they valid, you know, there's a violation, they can pay $300. That's nothing they can pay even, you know, a 100 times over.

So one of the things I was hoping to hear was just, you know, that this is not for small violations like, you know, traffic, parking rules, you know, littering and, know, there's like all this. So, again, which which brings me to the question, like, what are the categories of violation that are the most common and which are the worst problems that a large fine will be expected to remedy?

Thank you, counselor, for the question. Through the chair, we haven't defined any fine structures currently. The basis of the home rule petition would just be to give us the ability to. But, of course, there would be no capricious, you know, sort of application of larger fines for minor violations. The intention of this would be to issue violations for more egregious things or long term problems without response. But each of those will have to be negotiated in the proper processes internally within departments first to the council. The public will have to weigh in, of course. This is not something that's just gonna be waved around and just done willy nilly, essentially.

Thank you, director Ziegler, and thank you, chair. You know, doctor Ziegler, we're asking this question because you never know. You know? People use all kinds of method to set us scores, you know, with with neighbors and residents that they don't like and all whatnot, you know, so it is what it is. Anyway, but yes, this has been long overdue because one of the things, you know, I had a million time over is about construction.

They don't care, they don't pay, and they find it's very minimal for them that they don't even care. That's like, for me, this will go, we should even double this for certain violations, this is 2,000 even still for me, I feel like we should even increase it, like just have a certain category and then slam them so that they don't have to, you know, when they see that, they will stop, you know, creating any violation that will hurt our neighbors and constituents that will call us every day for the same issues. So thank you, chair.

Thank you, councilor. I would point out once again, this is the home rule petition stage, so this is simply allowing the city to levy fines higher than $300. All of those fines and penalties are set forth in city ordinance. So any recommended change to a penalty would have to go to the city council for approval and and would be reflected in ordinance. So the the possibilities for any kind of shenanigans are already under oversight.

Alright. Are there any other questions from colleagues on this? Alright. Then just to the point that I made at the very start, which is similar to a point that was raised by by analyst Salisbury. Is there a reason why we wouldn't change this date of the first indexing to 01/01/2026 instead of '20 '25 just so we don't have to wait a full four and a half years until our first indexing?

Through the chair, I don't have a problem with that. I just will note that Boston's home repetition process did take a full year to go into effect.

Oh, heck. Well, then we might wanna change it out to 2027. Alright. So, given that, I I would move to amend, simply in the second is that a sentence? My god. That's a heck of a sentence. In the second sentence, 01/01/2025 to amend that to 01/01/2027. On that motion to amend, is there any discussion from colleagues? Alright. Then on that motion to amend, let's call a quick roll call.

Right. On the motion. Councilor Davis.

Melvin.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Strazo? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Councilor Jungkampin?

Yes.

Chair Scott?

Yes.

With that, everyone is in favor of the motion.

Wonderful. On the, is there any further discussion on the home roll petition or any other concerns? Otherwise, I'm inclined to move for approval this evening. Giving it once.

Sure. I'll ask the question because why not? I wanted to ask through you, mister chair, to director Ziegler. What once and hopefully, fingers crossed that the home rule petition passes and all thumbs up. What timeline do you envision modifying the new structure of of fines?

And has the city considered the the rollout of or even conceptualize that as of yet?

Yeah. I can try to fill that out. Sorry. The through the chair to you, counselor, Matthew Zano, deputy director of inspectional services. We've had some internal discussions for ISD, specific violations early as to, like, which ones we would think are appropriate for the new fine structure.

There hasn't been any substantive discussions with other departments on enforcing caps that they have even though ISD does do do a lot of enforcement. We would upon passage of the home rule, we would have, you know, our priority violation types that we think would be appropriate. We would try come to you as probably as soon as possible. Props to Colin and Alicia, for really pushing this. I mean, specifically, the the impetus for it was specifically rodents, but, obviously, keeping it broad for other violation types is definitely appropriate. But, obviously, the rodent specific ones, would be high on our list, for the first ones, but we would try to come before you for the ones that we think were, priority ones, as soon as practical.

Thank you, mister chair, through you, to director well, assistant director Zaneo. Thank you.

Alright. Sounds good. And, I'd point out that once the, fine maximums are raised, you know, I probably have a list of things that I'd like to see the fines increased on. And thanks to my role as city councilor, I'd be able propose those amendments as well. So everybody You're here. Start building your wish list. Alright. So given that, let's go ahead. I will move for approval of the Homer petition as amended. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, let's go ahead and take a roll call.

Alright. On the item as amended, councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Strazo?

Yes.

Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Councilor Ewen Kampen?

Yes.

Chair Scott?

Yes, please.

Alright. That was everyone in favor.

Alright. Wonderful. Thank you. That'll be recommended out for approval at our next council meeting. And thank you, of course, to manager Zeigler and deputy director Zane for being here on this.

Let's see here. Moving on to our final substantive item on the agenda. That's item number four, requesting ordainment of an amendment to section seven and section one dash 11 b of the code of ordinances to require notification to tenants of parking permit restrictions in transit areas. Hopefully, we can pull that up on screen as well. I'm pulling the text up myself, and I see oh, that's not the right one. There you that's also not the right one. There we go. And I see, miss Tagnari with us. So hello. Hello.

Thank you for joining us. This is a this is a fun one, I think. So perhaps you could introduce it for us.

Yes. Thank you. Through the chair, just making sure you can hear me. Of course. Yes. Thank you. So through the chair, Jackie Signary, project manager in the parking department. So just gonna give a little background and context on this item. Hopefully, this sounds a little familiar. I believe all of the committee members were counselors in 2019 when the new zoning ordinance was passed.

So part of the zoning ordinance was a restriction on, eligibility for parking permits for residents of new developments within half mile of a transit station. And I do wanna note that restriction does not apply to properties that are zoned neighborhood residents or NR. And so in addition to this being included in the zoning ordinance, a subsequent traffic regulation was passed by the traffic commission, again, enabling this restriction on parking permits for specific addresses, in transit areas. And so a major component of the restriction is that prospective residents should be informed before they sign a lease or buy a unit that they would not be eligible for parking permits. And the idea is that they'll have, you know, informed choice about their housing and, you know, can make an informed decision based on their individual needs, you know, for a car or, you know, if they're car free.

And so while the zoning ordinance language places specific conditions about advertising and disclosing this restriction, to projects that apply for a discretionary administrative permits, or what we refer to as special permits. So projects that go to planning board, etcetera. There's currently no avenue for the city to enforce this regulation for projects that are by right. And so right now, at the direction of our legal department, the strongest thing that we have kinda tool that we have at our disposal right now is to send certified letters to property owners of, again, projects that are by right, and we can suggest that they notify tenants prior to signing a lease or buying a unit. But that obviously does not offer, you know, the guarantee that they will be informed of this restriction, which is what we wanna make sure is happening.

And so this has, again, created a separate kind of rules for special permit projects versus buy right projects even though both types of projects are subject to this parking restriction. And so tenants, regardless of if you're living in a special permit building, you know, a building that was built through special permit or by right, again, you are not eligible for parking permits. And so the goal of this ordinance is to strengthen the advertisement and notification requirements for these property owners and to close the existing loophole and give us the ability to enforce this restriction for all projects equally. And it'll bring it to we've included that there's a form prescribed by the parking department. And so, again, developed, by parking and approved by inspectional services as well.

We'll make sure that the projects are using, again, a standardized form that has been approved by city staff so that all tenants are receiving the same language and that we make sure that, you know, they're all getting the same information. And this was, yeah, this was a joint effort between parking, ISD, legal, IGA, and the clerk's office. So I also wanna thank, my colleagues in those departments for, you know, their effort on this. And, yeah, with that, I will you know, we're here to answer any questions that you may have.

Alright. Thank you for that. So just as a summary, this is, very much in accordance with the, intent that went in with our original, drafting, and with our zoning ordinance. But this simply covers the gap for projects that are by right, which currently is predominantly urban residential projects, which are apartment buildings up to four stories that would be allowed by right. But there is also, I know, great interest from some of my colleagues and members of the public in making more projects available by Wright as opposed to through special permits.

So this would also ensure that all of the communication that we've intended as a council is uniformly executed. So, hopefully, that's a useful summary. I want to open it up to, colleagues on the committee before, before I go into anything else further. Any colleagues on the committee with? The alright. Councilor Ewing Campan?

Mister chair, I support it.

Alright. Councilor Davis.

Thank you, mister chair. I just wanna make sure that I I heard the discussion right, and I I maybe I just missed a detail here. But when you said when when we're talking about enforcement against buildings that are by right, that's enforcement of a notification or enforcement of actually, like, not issuing parking permits?

Of the notifications.

Yeah. Okay. That's what I thought I heard. I wanna make sure. But, you know, with or without the the issue the issue that this is trying to solve it, and I appreciate this being brought up, sounds like a perfect perfectly good idea, is that, you you know, folks folks are are entering into leases, let's say, and they're just not aware that they can't get a parking permit. They still can't get a parking permit. It's just that they didn't know that. Right? That's that's the the wrinkle work that we're trying to the loophole we're trying to close here. I have that right through you, mister chair?

That is correct. We would like to prevent people from buying a pig in a poke, as they said, where I grew up.

Very well. Thank you.

My apologies for my folksy aphorisms, folks. Alright. Are there any questions? Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Councilor Mbaugh?

Yeah. Chairman Scott, what what's what is the statement you just made?

A pig and a poke. It's it's a old country saying, you don't buy a pig and a poke. So if somebody was going to sell you a pig, you would not want to just have it be in a bag. You would want to see it first.

Got you. Got you. Thank you.

My apologies once again. It's the hour seems late. Let's see here. I did see one item from our legislative and policy analyst that was again, it looks like a drafting and clarification change according to the ordinance template. Let's see here on the in the preamble, here, be it further, ordained, by the city council that, this section is hereby amended Instead of saying as follows, our analyst recommends instead is hereby amended by inserting the following.

Is this, another, clarification and style guide issue, analyst Salisbury?

Mister chair, through you, this is one that I missed, I will admit. When I was updating this template, I included that sort of, Boolean and or in the first preamble, but neglected to in the second. And it was raised to be by the city clerk that we do not want a situation wherein somebody misinterprets this and says, oh, no. As as drafted, this ordinance actually deletes the entirety of the table and inserts just this in its place. While I think that that would be a bit of an absurd interpretation, it is without question that that is an interpretation that somebody could come to.

And so in the interest of clarifying and making making it unquestionable what our intent is here, I have updated the template. Going forward, this will not be an issue again.

Alright. Well, if only to ease the possibility of anyone's agenda, I'm I'm open to, making that amendment here on the fly this evening. The amendment to this proposed ordinance would be in that first, in that first sentence, the preamble above section seven dash two.

Mister chair, if I can interrupt, it's actually the second preamble, before section one eleven b.

Oh, before one eleven b. My apologies. Let's see. Is where is the second preamble?

It is below the substance of seven two.

There we go. There we go. There we go. It's just a little bit, off the bottom of the page here. There we go. Be it further ordained by the city council that section one dash 11 b of the code of ordinances is hereby amended, we would strike as follows there and substitute the words by inserting the following, which would have the substantive impact of ensuring that we do not simply erase the entire code of penalties and fines in the city's ordinances, in order to get this one. So moved. So moved by councilor Davis. On that amendment, is there any discussion? Alright.

I would just point out that, everybody looking at this on the screen, this is one of those things where there would be a $100 first defense, penalty. And if our previous home rule petition passes, I would look forward to increasing that. Alright. Seeing no discussion on it, let's go ahead and take a roll call on the amendment to this amendment.

Right. The amendment. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strazo? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes, please.

Councilor Yun Kampen?

Yes. Chair Scott? Yes, please.

Alright. That is everyone in favor of the amendment.

Awesome. Then on the ordinance as amended for recommending approval, is there any further discussion on this tonight? Otherwise, I'll I tell you what, I'll go ahead and move for approval and then ask if there is any comment on the motion. Alright. Seeing none, let's go ahead and take a vote on the motion to approve recommend item number four for approval.

Alright. On the item as amended. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strazo? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Councilor Yuan Kampen?

Yes.

Chair Scott?

Yes, please.

Alright. With that, that is everyone in favor.

Alright. So that item will also be recommended out of, the committee at our next council meeting, at which point it will be an ordinance amendment for the entire council, to be voted on for, enrollment and ordainment. So thank you very much. I believe that is all. Thank you, manager Stagnari.

Appreciate it. And appreciate all the all the work from city staff and colleagues tonight. That brings us to the end of our agenda in a very brisk seventy five minutes and productive, might I also add. So seeing no further business before the committee this evening, I believe I see councilor moves to adjourn. On the motion to adjourn, is there any discussion? No? Alright. Then let's go ahead and take a roll call on the motion to adjourn, please.

Perfect. On adjournment, counselor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strazo? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes, please.

Councilor Ewen Kampen?

Yes.

Chair Scott? Yes, please.

Alright. And with that, it is 07:16PM, and we are adjourned.

Thank you very much to, of course, once again, all city staff and support here. And, to my fellow legislators, way to legislate. I will see you all very shortly.

Thank you, chair.

Bye.