Legislative Matters Committee

Governing Body: City Council, Legislative Matters Committee Meeting Type: Committee Meeting Meeting Date: December 02, 2025, at 6:01 PM Attendees: Councilor Lance Davis, Councilor Kristen Strezo, Councilor Will Mbah, Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen, Councilor J.T. Scott (Chair) City Staff Present: Deputy Director Zaino (ISD), Assistant City Attorney Shapiro, Clerk Michael Potier (Licensing Operations Manager), Analyst Annalise Salisbury (Legislative and Policy Analyst), Director Luisa Oliveira (Public Space and Urban Forestry), Lieutenant DeOliveira (SPD), Captain Sheehan (SPD), Director Singh

• Discussion: The Chair moved to approve the minutes. No discussion occurred.
• Action: Motion to approve the minutes was laid on the table for a single vote at the end of the meeting.
• Outcome: Approved (4-0-0)

• Context: This item proposed amending the ordinance to include "including abutting curb cuts if applicable" for snow removal responsibilities.
• Staff Input:
  • Deputy Director Zaino confirmed ISD's ability to enforce the text as drafted, including stylistic updates.
• Quorum Roll Call:
  • Councilor Davis: Here
  • Councilor Strezo: Present
  • Councilor Mbah: Present
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Here
  • Councilor Scott: Present
  • Outcome: Quorum established with all councilors present.
• Councilor Davis's Concerns:
  • Expressed hesitation about placing the burden of clearing large, frozen snow piles from curb cuts on private homeowners or renters, citing potential hardship and risk of fines.
  • Suggested the city should invest more in snow removal rather than relying on residents.
• Councilor Mbah's Questions:
  • Asked what specific issues or disputes the language intended to resolve.
    • Response (Chair Scott): To ensure snow and ice removal from handicap ramps and crosswalks for accessibility.
  • Inquired how implementation would be monitored.
    • Response (Deputy Director Zaino): Implementation would follow current practice, with inspections and ticketing based on complaints or observations.
• Councilor Strezo's Concerns:
  • Highlighted potential negative impacts on renters, especially those with ADA needs, due to landlords including snow removal responsibilities in leases.
  • Questioned the legality of such lease clauses, though Assistant City Attorney Shapiro noted state sanitary code might have restrictions.
• Assistant City Attorney Shapiro's Input:
  • Confirmed that treating different-sized buildings differently (e.g., larger buildings vs. smaller) for snow removal ordinances is legally permissible.
  • Stated he would double-check the legality of landlords requiring tenants to perform snow shoveling under state sanitary code.
• Deputy Director Zaino's Clarification:
  • From a practical enforcement standpoint, limiting the ordinance to certain building types could complicate enforcement.
  • Noted that "reasonable effort" to clear snow, even if a "wall of ice" remains, is typically considered sufficient by ISD and would not result in ticketing.
• Councilor Ewen-Campen's Concerns:
  • Shared apprehension about enforcement, fearing too many residents might receive tickets despite best efforts.
  • Supported more city resources for snow removal and suggested applying the ordinance to larger buildings or using it as a "last resort" for serially delinquent properties.
• Chair Scott's Proposal:
  • Suggested restricting the ordinance to commercial properties or mixed-use properties (with ground-floor commercial use) to address issues in areas like Union Square.
• Councilor Davis's Response:
  • Supported applying the ordinance to commercial properties.
  • Suggested also including buildings with six or more units, aligning with municipal trash collection policies.
• Councilor Strezo's Counterpoint:
  • Expressed discomfort with including buildings with six or more units due to potential impacts on tenants and lease agreements, reiterating previous concerns.
• Councilor Davis's Concession:
  • Agreed to remove the suggestion for six-unit buildings, supporting only the commercial property application.
• Analyst Salisbury's Feasibility Assessment:
  • Confirmed ability to draft language for commercial properties only by the next council meeting, noting it would require more than simple text addition due to existing subsections.
• Motion (Chair Scott): "The committee requests Annalise Salisbury to draft language creating an obligation on commercial properties to clear abutting accessible curb ramps."
• Motion (Councilor Davis): To discharge the item from committee without a recommendation, allowing for a new submission with the revised language.
• Action: Motion to discharge without recommendation was laid on the table for a single vote at the end of the meeting.
• Outcome: Discharged without recommendation (5-0-0)

• Context: These items address proposed amendments to the secondhand dealer licensing ordinance.
• Clerk Michael Potier's Introduction:
  • Explained that the "red" in the document primarily reflects language clarification and reorganization.
  • Highlighted key changes:
    • Capturing sales for profit, regardless of purchase, to ensure all relevant businesses apply to City Council after police review.
    • Clarifying identification and record-keeping requirements to prevent theft and resale of improperly obtained goods.
    • Expanding record transmission language from "Chief of Police" to "SPD" for broader liaison work.
  • Noted penalties remain unchanged.
• Chair Scott's Question:
  • Asked if a vintage clothing store owner buying from a yard sale would need to obtain a valid government-issued photo ID from the seller.
    • Response (Clerk Potier): Technically, yes, as written. The intent was more for storefront transactions, but the language would strictly apply.
• Councilor Mbah's Questions:
  • How will compliance be ensured?
    • Response (Clerk Potier): Enforcement occurs during the renewal process, with SPD liaisons reviewing compliance.
  • How are neighboring communities regulating this?
    • Response (Clerk Potier): Not specifically familiar with other cities' regulations.
• Chair Scott's Suggestion:
  • Proposed adding a dollar limit (e.g., $50 or $20) for purchases before ID requirements apply, to ease burden on vintage shops.
    • Response (Clerk Potier): This is within the committee's discretion; the dollar amount would be subject to licensee judgment and SPD review.
• Councilor Davis's Clarification:
  • Asked where such language would be inserted (suggested 861C).
• Councilor Ewen-Campen's Concerns:
  • Expressed concern about requiring ID checks for purchases at flea markets, yard sales, or estate sales, calling it an undue burden on secondhand shop owners.
  • Noted that current regulations already require record-keeping, and this amendment is an opportunity to refine it.
• Action: Items held in committee for further discussion and potential revision, particularly regarding the ID requirement threshold.

• Context: This item proposes changes to the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) ordinance.
• Director Singh's Introduction:
  • Outlined two proposed changes:
    • Allowing CPC members to serve two full terms in addition to any partial term, aligning with current policy for multi-member bodies.
    • Eliminating the requirement to advertise all candidates on the city's webpage, as it acts as a barrier to attracting candidates and is not in line with current practices.
• Chair Scott's Question:
  • Asked about the interaction with the new city charter.
    • Response (Analyst Salisbury): The charter's provisions, including continuance of existing laws, mean ordinances remain in effect until an administrative code is established. The changes are compliant.
• Discussion: No further discussion from councilors.
• Action: Motion to recommend the amendment for approval.
• Vote:
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
• Outcome: Recommended for approval (5-0-0)

• Context: This item proposes removing a sunset clause that would prohibit the city from sourcing neonicotinoid-treated plants starting January 2026.
• Director Luisa Oliveira's Introduction:
  • Explained that while neonicotinoids (neonatics) are a significant problem for pollinators, the nursery industry is not yet able to supply the quantity of neonic-free plants needed for large city projects.
  • Removing the sunset clause is necessary to avoid jeopardizing upcoming projects (e.g., Kennedy Schoolyard renovation, Mystic River Outfall, Morris Ave Linear Stormwater Drainage, Blessing of the Bay Greenway) due to higher costs or inability to source plants.
  • Noted that smaller projects can source neonic-free plants, but large-scale projects face significant challenges.
• Chair Scott's Question:
  • Asked if more neonic-free suppliers exist now compared to when the ordinance was first passed.
    • Response (Director Oliveira): Yes, but not at the scale required for large city projects.
• Councilor Davis's Questions and Concerns:
  • Asked why neonics are still prevalent in the nursery industry and if alternatives like neem oil are effective (Director Oliveira confirmed neem oil is not a neonic).
  • Expressed hesitation about removing the prohibition entirely, suggesting that planting fewer plants or non-natives might be preferable to using neonic-treated plants that harm pollinators.
  • Response (Director Oliveira): Non-natives are also treated with neonics. Planting less would reduce habitat for pollinators. While neonics harm insects for a period, the plants eventually provide valuable habitat. Sourcing neonic-free trees is particularly difficult, and removing the prohibition is necessary to plant the 350 trees annually.
  • Suggested pushing back the sunset date rather than removing the prohibition entirely to maintain pressure on the industry.
• Councilor Ewen-Campen's Input:
  • Acknowledged the harm of neonicotinoids, citing research on their impact on bumblebees.
  • Reluctantly conceded that January 1, 2026, is likely not feasible for full prohibition.
  • Supported pushing back the sunset date to continue encouraging industry change.
• Councilor Strezo's Questions:
  • Asked where the city purchases its plants.
    • Response (Director Oliveira): For large projects, contractors source plants after a bid process; procurement laws prevent dictating specific nurseries. For smaller PSUF projects, plants are sourced from smaller, neonic-free nurseries.
  • Asked for a guesstimate of plant quantities purchased by PSUF vs. contractors.
    • Response (Director Oliveira): PSUF purchases thousands, while contractors for large projects purchase tens of thousands.
  • Inquired about conversations with local nurseries regarding compliance.
    • Response (Director Oliveira): Local nurseries are not wholesale and generally do not source neonic-free plants due to cost and availability.
  • Suggested future collaboration with economic development to help local nurseries transition to neonic-free options.
• Councilor Mbah's Questions:
  • Asked if the neonic prohibition could apply only to street trees.
    • Response (Director Oliveira): Sourcing neonic-free trees is the most challenging aspect due to the nursery industry's practices.
  • Expressed belief that a sunset clause forces sourcing of neonic-free plants.
    • Response (Director Oliveira): Somerville is a leader in this area, but without state-level bans or significant market demand, the industry won't change quickly enough. A balance is needed between environmental goals and the ability to complete projects.
• Motion (Councilor Ewen-Campen): To amend Section 12-178 by replacing "2026" with "2029" in the prohibition clause.
• Vote on Amendment (2029):
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
• Outcome: Amendment to change date to 2029 passed (5-0-0).
• Motion (Councilor Strezo): To amend the amended version of Section 12-178 by replacing "2029" with "2028."
  • Discussion: Councilor Davis asked Director Oliveira if a two-year extension (to 2028) would be sufficient for current projects. Director Oliveira stated that an extra year (to 2029) would be better for awareness and industry pressure, and that contracts signed before the prohibition date would not be retroactively affected.
• Vote on Amendment (2028):
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Mbah: No
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: No
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
• Outcome: Amendment to change date to 2028 passed (3-2-0).
• Action: Motion to recommend approval of the amendment as amended (prohibition date changed to January 1, 2028).
• Vote:
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
• Outcome: Recommended for approval as amended (5-0-0).

• Context: This item proposes amendments to the City Council's rules to conform with the new city charter.
• Analyst Annalise Salisbury's Introduction:
  • Explained that the changes ensure rules do not conflict with the charter.
  • Highlighted specific changes:
    • Rule 1: Removed language setting meeting times, as the charter requires this to be done by ordinance (an ordinance is being drafted).
    • Rule 6: Changed "solicitor" to "attorney" and "one week's notice" to "14 days notice" for compliance with the Access to Information Act.
    • Rule 8 & 9: Changed "attorney."
    • Rule 10: Changed president pro tem selection from "oldest in age" to "most years of service."
    • Rule 17 & 18: Minor form changes.
    • Rule 30: Clarified procedure for recommending "not approved" to align with current practice.
    • Rule 53: Aligned with charter changes for website posting as sufficient dissemination, though printed copies remain available upon request.
    • Rule 55: Incorporated charter language regarding postponement of measures, removing the ability for multiple postponements.
    • Rule 56: Incorporated charter language on mayoral approval of ordinances and veto override procedures.
    • Rule 59: Clarified that the City Clerk's designee can clerk meetings without being sworn in as Clerk Pro Tem, reflecting the clerk's non-three-year term.
    • Rule 62: Amended Section 15 reference to Section 29B for charter right.
• Councilor Davis's Questions:
  • Rule 55: Clarified that if one member objects, an item can be taken up again within 48 hours, but if two members object, it pauses for a minimum of two weeks.
  • Rule 59: Expressed concern that the language "or their designee" in the second sentence might not clearly extend to all duties of the clerk listed in the rule, suggesting ambiguity.
    • Response (Analyst Salisbury): The charter would prevail if there's ambiguity; offered to discuss further changes to Rule 59 if the committee felt uncomfortable, but preferred not to hold up the entire set of amendments.
• Councilor Davis's Suggestion:
  • Moved to recommend approval of the amendments with the caveat that Rule 59 could be re-examined for clarification before the full council meeting.
• Councilor Mbah's Questions:
  • Rule 1: Asked about the reason for striking language regarding meeting dates.
    • Response (Analyst Salisbury): The charter now requires meeting dates and times to be set by ordinance, making the rule's previous language inappropriate and in conflict. An ordinance is being drafted.
• Action: Motion to recommend approval of the amendments.
• Vote:
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
• Outcome: Recommended for approval (5-0-0).

• Context: Review of four Surveillance Technology Impact Reports (STIRs). The Chair noted these are for documentation and approval by the City Council, not modification.
• Councilor Ewen-Campen's General Statement:
  • Expressed comfort with the mini ball camera, thermal imaging monocular, and underdoor camera technologies, stating they do not raise significant civil liberties or privacy concerns from his perspective.
• Councilor Davis's Comments:
  • Thanked Captain Sheehan and staff for their work and collaboration on the STIRs, acknowledging the department's proactive approach to surveillance technology.
  • Noted that these technologies existed previously but the department appropriately decided to submit STIRs for them.
  • Specific Concerns (Mini Ball Camera - 3C Data Retention):
    • Questioned the download scenario for video data, as the report states local storage and no cloud subscription, but also mentions uploading/downloading for investigations.
    • Response (Lieutenant DeOliveira): Confirmed videos can be downloaded to a separate, controlled computer for investigation purposes, and would be deleted if not needed for evidence.
    • Councilor Davis's Request: Asked for this clarification to be added to the report for public understanding.
  • General Concerns (All Three Reports - 3E Data Sharing):
    • Noted that the reports lack specific legal justification and standards for data sharing, which were present in other revised STIRs.
    • Stated that phrases like "data could be shared" are too broad and lack clarity for public understanding.
    • Response (Captain Sheehan): Acknowledged the need for clearer language and committed to working with the council to revise the reports for submission in January.
  • General Concerns (All Three Reports - Reference to Surveillance Technology Use Policy):
    • Questioned whether the general "video surveillance technology data and use by the police department" policy, referenced in the STIRs, truly applies to these specific, discrete technologies, or if a more tailored policy is needed.
• Chair Scott's Input:
  • Referenced the "covert device" STIR as an example of clear language for data sharing (e.g., "shared with the district attorney's office as part of submitting evidence for a criminal case").
• Councilor Davis's Suggestion:
  • Recommended keeping items 8-10 in committee for revision, but approving item 11 (UAS at the high school) as it is straightforward.
• Action (Items 8-10): Held in committee for revision.
• Action (Item 11): Motion to recommend approval of the Surveillance Technology Impact Report for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) at the High School.
• Vote (Items 1 & 11):
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
• Outcome: Item 1 (Minutes) and Item 11 (UAS STIR) approved (5-0-0).

• Action: Motion to adjourn and discharge Item 4 without recommendation.
• Vote (Item 4 & Adjournment):
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
• Outcome: Item 4 discharged without recommendation, and the meeting adjourned (5-0-0).