Legislative Matters Committee

Meeting Minutes: Committee on Legislative Matters

Meeting Date: June 27, 2024 Governing Body: City Council Committee on Legislative Matters Type of Meeting: Remote Participation Attendees:

Lance Davis, Chair
Kristen Strezo, Councilor
Ben Ewen-Campen, Councilor
J.T. Scott, Councilor
Brendan Salisbury, Legislative and Policy Analyst
Alan Schachter, Director of Office of Housing and Sustainability
Morena Zelaya, Housing Policy Coordinator
City Attorney Amara

Executive Summary: The Committee on Legislative Matters met to discuss and vote on amendments to the condo conversion ordinance, specifically Ordinance 25-1044, aimed at reducing tenant displacement and updating relocation payments. The proposed changes include increasing relocation payments to $14,000 (or $18,000 for protected tenants) and extending the notice period for vacant units that were formerly rentals from one year to two years. The committee voted to recommend approval of these amendments. Additionally, the committee discussed the feasibility of disincentivizing mopeds on the community path, referencing Boston's ordinance, and placed two other items on file or marked as work complete.

1. Roll Call and Approval of Minutes

Roll Call:
- Councilor Strezo: Present
- Councilor Mbah: Absent
- Councilor Ewen-Campen: Present
- Councilor Scott: Present
- Chair Davis: Present
- Outcome: Quorum established with four members present.
Approval of Minutes from May 13, 2025:
- Motion: Councilor Scott moved for approval of the minutes.
- Discussion: None.
- Vote:
  - Councilor Strezo: Yes
  - Councilor Mbah: Absent
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor Scott: Yes
  - Chair Davis: Yes
- Outcome: Motion passed (4-0).

2. 25-1044: Requesting Ordainment of Amendments to Sections 7-64 and 7-65 of the Code of Ordinances to Reduce Displacement of Tenants and Update Relocation Payments

Introduction:
- Chair Davis introduced the item, noting it addresses challenges with tenant displacement during condo conversions, particularly when properties are sold prior to conversion.
- Brendan Salisbury, Legislative and Policy Analyst, highlighted the collaborative effort with administrative staff.
- Director Alan Schachter from the Office of Housing and Sustainability, along with Housing Policy Coordinator Morena Zelaya, presented the proposed amendments.
Presentation by Morena Zelaya, Housing Policy Coordinator:
- Background on Condo Ordinance:
  - Two types of permits: rental conversion and non-rental conversion.
  - Focus of amendments is on tenanted or formerly tenanted units.
  - Current protections for tenanted units include:
    - Written notice from the board.
    - One-year or five-year notice period.
    - Right to purchase unit at "as is" price.
    - Relocation payment (current amounts displayed on screen).
    - Right to cancel lease with 30 days' notice.
  - For vacant units (last used as rental within 12 months):
    - Owners notify former tenants via letter.
    - One-year notice period begins when the board issues a preliminary permit.
- Main Issue: Condo conversion laws primarily protect current tenants, but intent to convert is difficult to establish. Owners often vacate buildings before sale, leading to displacement without tenant protections.
- Proposed Changes:
  1. Increased Relocation Payments:
    - $14,000 for tenants not entitled to enhanced protections.
    - $18,000 for seniors, disabled tenants, or low-to-moderate income tenants (enhanced protections).
  2. Extended Notice Period for Vacant Units:
    - Change from one year to two years for vacant units that were formerly rentals.
    - Goal: Encourage property owners to keep tenants, as the tenant notice period remains one year.
- Pros and Cons of Two-Year Notice Period:
  - Pros:
    - Could deter emptying properties prior to sale.
    - Greater opportunity for tenants to purchase units.
    - Opportunity for tenant organizing or non-profits to purchase for affordability.
    - More manageable timeline for tenants to vacate.
  - Cons:
    - Tenant properties are harder to sell, potentially increasing development costs.
    - Developers might keep properties vacant, leading to higher housing costs and unused units.
    - Somerville already has stringent bylaws, increasing potential for litigation.
- Data: Prior to 2019 change, 92% of applications came to the board vacant; after, 80% still came vacant, indicating continued displacement.
- Recommendations:
  - Effective Date: October 1st, to allow staff time for outreach and education.
  - Typo Correction: Section 7-64A1A to read "non-rent paying tenant" instead of "non-tent paying tenant."
Committee Discussion:
- Councilor Ewen-Campen: Asked how changes make it harder to secretly evict tenants.
  - Morena Zelaya: Aims to change the financial calculus for owners, making it more beneficial to keep tenants due to the longer waiting period for vacant units.
  - Director Schachter: Explained that the two-year period for vacant units disincentivizes developers, making conversion more expensive and potentially encouraging landlords to keep tenants for the shorter one-year notice period.
- Councilor Strezo: Asked about incentivizing Section 8 stock expansion during the waiting period.
  - Morena Zelaya: Clarified that the Anti-Displacement Task Force and working group did not specifically address Section 8 stock expansion, but rather deepening affordability in inclusionary units.
  - Chair Davis: Cautioned against straying from the specific amendment, suggesting a separate discussion for Section 8 expansion.
- City Attorney Amara: Confirmed the Law Department reviewed the proposed changes and believes they are on solid legal ground. Offered to discuss further with councilors directly.
- Director Singh: Noted outreach from constituents and suggested keeping the item in committee for additional feedback.
- Councilor Scott: Praised the working group's efforts. Stated the changes are straightforward (increased relocation costs, extended notice period) and should be passed.
- Brendan Salisbury: Advised against adding an effective date directly into the ordinance text due to drafting complexities, as it would make the ordinance unwieldy. Suggested an administrative decision to delay implementation if desired.
- Councilor Ewen-Campen: Questioned why an effective date for amendments would be impossible, given it's common in ordinance drafting.
- Chair Davis: Suggested that if a streamlined way to add an effective date is found, it could be presented at the full council meeting.
Motion to Recommend Approval:
- Motion: Councilor Scott moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment.
- Discussion: None.
- Vote:
  - Councilor Strezo: Yes
  - Councilor Mbah: Absent
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor Scott: Yes
  - Chair Davis: Yes
- Outcome: Motion passed (4-0).

3. 24-1740: Companion Item to 25-1044

Disposition: Recommended to be placed on file as work complete.

4. 24-0256: City Solicitor Discussion on Boston's Road Safety Ordinance for Delivery Providers and Disincentivizing Mopeds on the Community Path

Introduction:
- Chair Davis introduced the item, noting it was suggested by Councilor Burnley to explore Boston's ordinance for disincentivizing mopeds on the community path.
- Brendan Salisbury: Noted that Boston's ordinance primarily focuses on accountability and insurance for delivery drivers in crashes, not disincentivizing mopeds on paths. Expressed concerns about logistical challenges.
Committee Discussion:
- Councilor Strezo: Asked if Boston's ordinance passed and about MBTA ownership of the community path.
  - Brendan Salisbury: Confirmed Boston's ordinance passed on April 2nd with minor amendments.
  - City Attorney Amara: Stated the land for the community path is owned by the MBTA. The lease prohibits motorized vehicles, and mopeds are not allowed. E-bikes are allowed by state statute.
- Chair Davis: Asked about augmenting signage for clarity on "motorized vehicles."
  - City Attorney Amara: Would need to review the lease and consult with the MBTA regarding the city's rights to independently place signs.
- Councilor Strezo: Suggested placing temporary "no mopeds" signs and apologizing later if necessary, prioritizing safety.
- Councilor Scott: Requested a citation on what constitutes a "motorized vehicle" for legal purposes and offered to review the community path lease. Concluded that the Boston ordinance is not directly relevant but signage ideas could be pursued via a separate council order.
Disposition: Item to remain in committee for future discussion, allowing for further research and potential separate orders regarding signage or other measures.

5. 25-007: Chris Duan Submitting Comments Regarding Urban Forestry Committee Recommendations

Disposition: Recommended to be placed on file as the recommendations have been codified and passed.

6. 25-0154: Order for Director of Economic Development to Present a Plan to Ensure Compliance with Section 8-18 of the Code of Ordinances

Disposition: Recommended to be marked as work complete, as the topic was extensively discussed in the Licenses and Permits Committee.

Adjournment

Motion: Councilor Scott moved for adjournment.
Vote:
- Councilor Strezo: Yes
- Councilor Mbah: Absent
- Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
- Councilor Scott: Yes
- Chair Davis: Yes
Outcome: Motion passed (4-0).
Time: 7:05 PM.

Podcast Summary