Legislative Matters Committee

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the City of Somerville's City Council meeting of the Legislative Matters Committee. It is Tuesday, December 2nd at 6.01 p.m. Pursuant to Chapter 2 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've 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 the minutes of October 20th. I'll move to approve those. Is there any discussion?

All right, then let's go ahead and lay that motion on the table for approval 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 Councilor Clingan's submission. And while... It's been in committee for a little while and is ready to go out as drafted. We did also receive a memo today from analyst Salisbury with an extensive rewrite for I'm told style guideline reasons.

I'd love to start off first with Director Zaino, if there's any context or anything from ISD on enforcement and the writing on it. I'm sorry to spring this on you, Deputy Director Zaino, but there's a lot of new text here. Good evening. Good evening, Chair. So you have reviewed this and gone over it, I presume, with the Councilor Clingan 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 are comfortable with the text. as written to be something that IST can enforce. And then to clarify too, 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 Strezo? Present. Councilor Mbah?

Present.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Here.

Councilor Scott? Present. All councilors present move quorum.

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

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. 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. There we go. Thank you. I'm officially, could you please make that a little bigger, years old? I guess I just want to put out for my colleagues, I know we've been working on this, I know we've had this conversation before, but The effect of this is that for a private homeowner, if I understand correctly, and please, Dr. Zena, correct me if I'm wrong... If a homeowner or a renter who has in their lease a responsibility to clear the snow, lives on a corner and we have any moderate size snow and our plows come around and do their job that can result in some pretty big snow piles and as we know as we're experiencing today sometimes

Snow rain lines move back and forth. We've certainly all seen the scenario where it snows. If you're lucky, you get out there and move it before it freezes, and then that giant pile freezes. I got to say, I'm a little hesitant to put this on our residents to be trying to deal with it, to be at risk of fines, to be trying to deal with 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, not make this amendment and, you know, commit to investing more to taking care of ourselves as a city, which frankly is what I think we should be doing in the first place. So I want to put that out there for my colleagues. I don't think I'm on board with this still. I think I raised this concern the first time we talked about it.

I don't think I've heard a good response but if I did and I've just forgotten then I'll apologize I look forward to hearing it again but that's kind of my concern there I just think this is potentially putting and likely putting a pretty significant hardship on folks that really is something the city ought to be taking care of. And to be clear, not to suggest that we shouldn't clear the paths and have accessible sidewalks. There's a very real scenario where this just really isn't practical for some renter with a snow shovel from Star Market.

All right, thank you, Councilor Davis. Councilor Mbah, I see you. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Scott, and thank you, Director Zahner. I just, I think, Councilor Davis, you know, when He started speaking, I thought maybe he brought it home for me, but I want to still make sure that I'm pretty clear because when I saw this myself, You know, one of the things I'm reading, I'm like, how will adding, including, aborted... Curb Curse if applicable, change how residents or even developers comply with this section 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 owners like the good councilor mentioned. You know, I have not also like heard exactly what and also like just lastly, how will implementation be monitored, Ewen?

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

Absolutely. There's so many things going on through my head. Let's say, for example, thank you, Chair Scott. 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 about 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 how will, thank you Chair Scott, how will implementation be monitored?

Director Zaino?

Mbah. I mean, it would be implemented as... 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, 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, I mean, 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'm open to hear what my colleagues have to say on this. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Councilor Mbah. I see Councilor Strezo next.

Thank you, Mr. 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 a Someone with 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 and in the winter and as far and so the members of the task force were saying how this is This impacts them if 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 on other stuff too, of course, we know. But on this element of their lease, because they need an apartment... and it's in their price range, et cetera, but then they're forced to sign a part of their lease that they are responsible for this. How exactly would that play in to future leases and tenant rights, et cetera?

In addition to that, I don't even think it's legal for that to be included in a lease for our tenants, and that brings a whole other issue with housing rights, and that's a different... We can address a different time, but how would this, and this is a rhetorical question, how would this, in addition to that, impact renters and those leases, etc.? So I have great pause with that. Thank you.

All right, thank you. I see Councilor Davis wants a second bite at the apple there, or was that a left over hand raise?

Yeah, on two of those points, Mr. Chair, if I may. Actually, well, it's sort of in... Follow up to my own point, something that I remembered after I stopped talking and further to Councilor Strezo's point. My recollection is that we have had a discussion about that specific issue in terms of the passing down of the obligation in a lease and that we've been advised by the law department that that is perfectly legal. It's a private transaction. I do see that we have Assistant City Attorney Shapiro here. I don't know if he can speak to that off the cuff or not. But the other thing, and this also would relate to the Law Department, I'm now recollecting that when we... Or at least I think I remember that when we talked about this last time...

We posited that perhaps this could be applied to larger buildings. 4 unit count or 5 years, X unit count or above and not to the smaller buildings. 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 Thank you very much. and I recognize I'm putting Mr. Sparrow on the spot here, but I would like to ask first, does any of that ring a bell to you? To the Assistant City Attorney. And if not, no worries.

But is that something that maybe we could look into if it's not the will of the committee to move forward with this proposal this evening?

To the Chair, it does ring a bell. I actually remember that one, believe it or 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. ST, other question about private transactions and follow up to Councilor Strezo's point. I can double check this. But my recollection is that the state sanitary code may have some restrictions on what you can and cannot put into a lease regarding snow shoveling. I do want to double check it. But I believe that Councilor Strezo is correct, purely off the top of my head, but I do want to double check that aspect and I will do that tomorrow and let the committee know whether there is a restriction under the law about

What you can and cannot put into a private lease involving snow shoveling and that sort of thing. But I remember something from 10 years ago. I just don't remember exactly what the current state of the law is in that.

So follow up Mr. Chair if I may. So thank you, Attorney Shapiro. So I guess on the first point, I guess we just know it kind of must have slipped through the cracks between then and now and you know here we are but I still think would much prefer to see something that was applicable I think we need to find a way as a city to clear these spaces and I recognize that's expensive but You know, and perhaps it's similar to the...

The approach of Councilor Mbah will recall invasive species, where we decided not to make an ordinance and impose fines on people for doing stuff, but to teach and encourage, you know, to take the approach and 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 just... I shudder to think about what the email is going to 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 none of us could remove it without a jackhammer. On the second point, you know, through you, Mr. Chair, to the Assistant City Attorney,

If it does prove to be accurate that there's some limitation as to the extent to which a landlord can require tenants to comply with a snow removal ordinance, gosh gee, it sure seems like they do that all the time. So if that's the case, then what? I think we need to come up with a real aggressive plan to undo that wrong because... My understanding is that's very commonplace. We hear it all the time that it's pushed down to the tenants. I'll leave it at that. I see that Dr. Zaino has his hand up, so maybe there's some correction or follow-up to... I maintain my concern with this as it's drafted and I think I'd like to see it revised to apply to not to the little folks before we move forward.

All right, appreciate that. Director Zaino, is this in direct response? I do want to get to Councilor Ewen-Campen as well. Director Zaino, why don't you take it right now and then we'll move on.

Thank you, Chair. It's pretty close through the chair to Councilor Davis. Just as like from a practical enforcement standpoint, Perspective from ISD only, nothing about what you guys from a legislative want to and you're well 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'll do it. It just creates some practical implications for enforcement for the differences to be able to make sure that we're accurately doing it for those ones versus other ones.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, thank you to Councilor Davis for raising these concerns, which I certainly share. I think we all want these corners to be cleared, obviously. That is 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 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 think I agree kind of as it's drafted. To me, it makes me concerned that too many people are going to get tickets despite maybe their best efforts. So yeah, I wish I had more kind of productive ideas. Applying it to larger buildings that might help address it. you know if there was some way to have this be kind of more clearly a last resort um for Serially delinquent properties where they're kind of getting complaints over and over and over about a situation not being addressed reasonably. But as it is, I think the cast is too wide a net is my concern.

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

All right. Appreciate that, Councilor Ewen-Campen. I appreciate this. It does remind me of that discussion, Councilor Davis, that I had forgotten about. I just I'm thinking about we are here in the first not quite snow, snane, wintry mix of the season. And I've seen Union Square over and over and over again be basically untraversable. 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? Commercial or mixed use, that is to say anything that has a commercial use on the ground floor.

and then we can come back to the question of larger apartment buildings but I think I think it is an important piece of being a good neighbor uh good being good businesses to be a good neighbor so uh 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 Zaino, and then I see Councilor Strezo.

Sorry, Chair. Just to back up one second to address the concerns about the wall of ice potentially going back on the curb cut and whether or not good efforts would be considered. Sufficient I do I can comment on general practice that the term 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 Reasonable effort and meeting still the ordinance that wouldn't be ticketed. Just to comment on that.

Yeah, appreciate that. I've not known ISD to be interested in bringing people up unnecessarily. Councilor Strezo.

Thank you, Mr. 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 anything. The Shoveling. So yes, let's start with exactly what you say. I think that's a wonderful springboard and we can take it from there.

Okay, I see Councilor Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I have no concerns with applying this to commercial properties. My feeling right now is that we have the conversation about larger buildings. We know that we treat larger buildings different for trash removal. I think the cut-off there is six units. This will have to be reworked to incorporate commercial buildings. The drafting isn't easy to just because of the way it's drafted, you really need to break out a separate section or something, I think. And my inclination would be to just commercial buildings or buildings with six or more units with Someone's confirmation that that's where we draw the line on municipal trash collection seems like a good place to draw the line here too. And I don't think that'd be too difficult to do. And if we could...

As far as the enforcement goes, I think that'd probably be relatively straightforward. And if there's a few mistakes on the margins, then we can figure out a way to make it easier for you all to deal with that. But if we can sort it out for trash collection... By address, then I assume we've got a list somewhere, so maybe we use that. That would be by inclination. Let's not leave the door open here if we have a reasonable solution. and let's also do a better job cleaning the rest of the corners ourselves as a city.

All right, thank you, Councilor Davis. Councilor Strezo.

Thanks on that point, through you too, 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, with buildings with six or more units, I wouldn't feel comfortable. Getting into... How are tenants, are they responsible for, in addition to that, 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 average on that? I don't actually know the answer to that. We can...

Thank you for watching! But heading back into the least conversation, there we go again.

All right. Mr. Chair, on that fair point, you convinced me. I think if there's a question about whether we would inadvertently be still putting on tenants in those large apartment buildings, then fair enough. Let's Let's punt that one, sort it out, and I would support just the added commercial. Thank you for that point, Councilor Strezo. I agree with you.

All right. Well, in that case, let me ask a question to Analyst Salisbury then. Annalise Salisbury, do you think you'd be able to work up the language on your new form here to create an obligation to clear the... Accessible curb ramps where applicable for commercial properties only. I know it would probably require a 12-8B 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, Mr. 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... I move that this committee requests our policy analysts 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.

Chair, could you say that language again for me? So if you are making that request, I can have it exact in the minutes.

Sure. I mean, I don't think it's super necessary, but I do. Why not? Let's say that the committee requests Annalise 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 recommendation, so work completed is not a disposition. So I will let you go over that.

Davis. Sure. I I might suggest maybe we discharge this from committee without a recommendation with that request that 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. Thank you so much for joining us. Polish it up and have it ready to go for the council. And then, you know, if it's the will of the body at that time, then we can put it into place for the winter. If it's actually going to 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 Deputy Director Zaino 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 of the city council, a city clerk worked with the council to amend the code of ordinances to better regulate the sale of secondhand goods and then the response.

to that request, which is 251686, amending Chapter 8, Article 3, pertaining to secondhand dealer licenses. There is a lot of red here, but I know that our city clerk and our analyst Done a lot of work on that. Clerk Potier, are you here to talk about that one? Mr. Chair, through you, yes, I am. All right, great. Please take it away.

Mr. Chair, through you, 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 been lowered into Section 862. A few 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 Somerville Police in advance.

we also clarified some of the identification and record keeping requirements um most of the changes in additions with that regard come in the um in an effort to sort of help prevent theft and resale even if the 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 de Oliveira here in this meeting. 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 all right 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 threshold for, let's say I operate a vintage clothing store. 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. Mr. Chair, through you, based on the way that this is written, that would be a requirement. The idea is... The straight answer to your question is technically yes. The way that we envisioned this as drafted was more with regard to the storefront and would 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 record could be kept or the age of the person could be verified if they're, you know, the The shop owner may be hesitant to purchase something from someone who's a minor, for example, but technically that would be a strict enforcement of it. If they were to go to a yard sale and purchase, they would want to see the ID of the person they're purchasing from.

Yeah, I think there is a difference between folks that are operating out of a pawn shop 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 offered up to colleagues here. Is there any other thoughts from colleagues? Councilor Mbah, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good to see you, Mr. Potter. I guess one of the things also, almost the same... Thank you so much for joining us. So how will your office or inspection office ensure compliance? And two, what is happening in neighboring communities? I'm sure we don't live in a bubble. Like any neighboring community, how is that being regulated?

All right. I guess I'd put that out to Clerk Patera.

Mr. Chair, thank you. To 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 enforcement comes in the renewal process. So effectively, the requirement of transmitting to SPD Aboff, Ballantyne, Brockelman, Burnley, Richards, Sait, Schuster, Schuster, Schuster, Schuster, that the shop owner, the licensee has been in compliance with that as a condition of renewal.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

All right. There we go. Thank you. Appreciate it, Councilor Mbah.

Yeah.

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

Mr. Chair, if that's directed to me, absolutely, that's well within your discretion. the dollar amount would also be within your discretion and 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. Now, I am mindful of the gift card transactions and how much gift cards get used in the pawn and resale world. So I'll send it to Councilor Davis and then back to Councilor Mbah. Councilor Davis?

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

I'd put it in 861C, 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 re-thrifting so uh I'm trying to find some way to allow those shops to continue to operate without having to document 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'm pretty sure folks have a tax sale or... Sorry. There's a little circle around Western Mass where we call them tax sales. I learned that wasn't everywhere. A yard sale, a garage sale. Probably not doing it under license, so I'm not sure that would be, but I see your point. And so, yeah, let me ruminate on that. Thank you.

Ewen-Campen.

Well, just Mr. Scherer, on that, if I'm understanding the discussion, 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, that to me seems... Not like something that I would like to put on secondhand shop owners. You know, I'm not naive to some of the issues. Without naming names, I used to work at a record store when I was a teenager that would Regularly take possession of stuff. Thank you for watching!

This to me, you know, just knowing plenty of people who run vintage shops or anything like that, it's, you know, the way they make their business is they go around to flea markets and yard sales and estate sales and the idea that they would... You know, ask people for ID when they're buying stuff to then sell, just... So could I just throw you, Mr. Chair, currently we don't require any of this. Is that correct? For secondhand shops, it's just kind of the largely unredlined paragraph B there in 861? Is that correct?

No, there's required record keeping farther down in the old 865. Okay. And it has the same language in there about requiring it. As I recall, Councilor Ewen-Campen, this resurfaced in part because a couple of vintage dealers in town who are not running pawn shop style storefronts, were wanting to do the right thing, wanted to be licensed and wanted to be compliant, but were just running into the enormous overhead of having to document every year. So that is a requirement that currently exists. We have an opportunity here to clean that up and relieve that frequency.

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

All right. Well, it sounds like there's... I know I have that concern. I appreciate Councilor Ewen-Campen and Councilor 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, whatever, I'd love to hear it. We can hopefully find some creative ideas and come back and next time we visit this hopefully be ready to amend and approve. Is there anything further on discussion for this evening? All right, then let's go ahead. We'll keep that one in committee, Mr. President. I sure hope items are getting renewed in January 1st, but that'll be at your discretion.

I can speak to that just 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 at the discretion of the chair or The maker of the motion or sponsor of the item or anyone to revive things that are in a committee box and my understanding is that the clerk's office and or Mr. Salisbury and or others are already working on a list of stuff so we all have access and nothing gets missed.

God bless. All right. Let's see here. I don't see anybody else on this. So let's go ahead. We'll keep 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 ordainment of an amendment to section 2-309.9 and 2-309.10. of the Code of Ordinances to clarify term length and appointment process for the Community Preservation Committee. There was a CPC memo that is attached here as a handout to the meeting. And I guess I will go to... 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 webpage. We think this is a barrier attracting potential candidates and not in line with our current practices.

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

Good evening, Mr. 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 the question?

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

You would be correct, Mr. Chair. The charter has taken effect already. It does. The provisions of it took effect with the exception of any 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.

All right. 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? All right, well, seeing none, I'm inclined to approve this. I think it's a very simple thing, and hopefully we will approve this now and have it be overwritten or obviated forthwith shortly. All right. 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 525-1652, Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strezo?

Yes.

Councilor Mbah?

Yes, please.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councilor Scott? yes with all members in favor that is recommended to be approved all right 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 to section 12-178 of the Code of Ordinances to remove the prohibition on sourcing Neonicotinoid treated plants. I'm going to brush off my shoulders presuming that I said that correctly. Is there any... I see Director Oliveira here. 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 want to 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 for it.

Good evening. Yes, can you hear and see me?

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

Sure. My name is Luisa Oliveira. I'm the Director of Public Space and Urban Forestry. And through the chair, we are... Eliminating this sunset clause that we are not allowed to use any or to source any plants that have neotenictinoids or for the ease of speech, we'll call them neonics. beginning in January of 2026. While neonicotinoids 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 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 Right now, neotenectinoids 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, it's 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 of 2026.

So the projects that we are putting up, and I'm just looking for that right now, the projects that we are going to be going out to bid. 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 19 oak trees and 150 little bluestems 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 Somerville Junction Park, that park has 91 trees and 6,000 plants. At the moment, we are not saying you cannot use neotenictonides. If we said that, it would be very difficult for them to be able to complete our projects. and I want to just run through the projects that are in jeopardy. So again, there are small local nurseries that many of our projects we can get. For example, we have done five habitat projects this year, adding habitat to different plants. 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 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 Stormwater 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 of 26. We are not going to, we're either going to See much higher prices because as soon as 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.

All right. Well, I appreciate it. I see you, Councilor Davis. Before I go, I just want to 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 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, There are a couple of larger scaled ones, but they're not selling the quantity of plants. And they may sell some of them. So we might have a plant list where they have 30 of one thing. Thank you for watching. that they not be treated with neonics means the contractor will have to do a lot of work in finding the ones that exist that are neonic free and then the ones that are don't they cannot find that don't have neonics will not be planted

All right. I see Councilor Davis followed by Councilor Ewen-Campen. Councilor Davis, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Director Oliveira, as always, for your attention to all these matters. They are a lot more important than I think a lot of people... I appreciate it, but I appreciate it, and I'm glad that we're talking about it. I have some questions, I have some thoughts, and as always, I'm I welcome the opportunity to be convinced that I'm wrong and to have my mind changed. So first off, so the neuconictinoid pesticides specifically, are they... Obviously, as you said, they're... You didn't say this specifically, but I think it's fair to say they're still very commonly used in the nursing industry, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's clear from your statement.

For my understanding, why is that? I mean, is it... My understanding is that what I use at home, neem oil and insecticidal soap, I guess I could editorialize and... and comment on the effectiveness given that I seem to be doing that on a multi-weekly basis and still having the bugs in my inside plants but that's Maybe that just goes to support your point that there's maybe not good alternatives. So first of all, those types of things do not contain this chemical, is that correct? Or this type of compound?

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 U.S. of A. And they're prevalent not only in the nursery industry, but in agriculture as well.

Yeah.

So yeah, the search engine for what it's worth and its AI capabilities Assistant is telling me, as you noted, they're banned in the UK, that there are some that some of the large big box nurseries are committed to phasing it out. But, you know, Great to tell us what you do. So that all tracks. So then let's flip the conversation then. I totally am with you on not having it such that our RFPs are going to come back way over budget and we're ultimately not going to be able to do things. But I know you've thought about this. I have no doubt. So tell me your thought process in terms of...

Rather than just taking this out and saying we're going to do our best, which the ordinance would still say, we're going to prioritize sourcing native plants that have not been treated. We'll still do that, and that's good. Given the impact that neoconnectinoids have on pollinators, especially as you said bees, wouldn't it be better to just maybe plant fewer? Have a more sparse planting plan than kill a bunch of bees, to put it bluntly. It's oversimplified, I guess. What's the thought process there? Or maybe to mix in a few more non-natives, mix in a few less plants rather than say, oh, well, I guess we're going to use these pesticides and some bees will die. Maybe it's not. I mean, I guess just like I said, I'd love to hear your sort of thought process on that.

Through the chair, so a couple of things. Non-natives are also treated with neonicotinoids, so it's not a question of nativity. And the native plants are specifically being planted to host our native pollinators that we know are in decline. So there's small amounts, like I said, Allison Maurer on our team has done a great job of Finding Nurseries That Don't Use Neonics. And some of the advocates have also then supplemented that with more lists. So we are starting to have a really great list of nurseries that 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 neonic-free plant directly.

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 Neonics don't stay in plants forever. 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. I've had long conversations with him about it. Thank you for watching!

Thank you so much for joining us. A change in our planting specifications and seeing how difficult that makes the projects, right? So if our planting specifications say they have to be American Nursery Certified, etc, etc, etc. Thank you for joining us. What kind of a difficulty does that cause? Does it give us some pushback? We've had conversations with 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't, 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 nurseries saying I'm looking for neonics. Thank you for watching. 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

Aboff, Ballantyne, Thank you for watching. Like everything, it's about money and about production. Nursery people get very testy about this suggestion because I think it is much harder to grow, especially in large industrial quantities. um which brings up the other part about trees when you do research into the supply chain of the trees they often are grown in these one like uh Central area that I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this and I now I'm realizing Vanessa explained it to me in depth, but 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 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 going to be able to do them by January 1st.

Okay, so I thank you for that. I guess, Mr. Chair, if I may just follow up. And, you know, more searching at your favorite corporate web engine platforms. Thank you for joining us. I'm hesitant to take this out. I think for all the reasons that you articulated it sounds like changing the date might might be a fair consideration. But for all the same reasons that you just made, keeping this conversation going and keeping the pressure on, I don't want the headline to be Somerville removes prohibition, right? I want the headline to be Somerville pushes it, at worst, Somerville pushes it back, right?

And, you know, I'd rather see no trees than trees that are going to kill the bees. If it's a non-native or there's nothing there. That's better than a tree that was going to wipe out a local ecosystem of pollinators or significantly impacted. And so if we can't in these larger projects, if we can't source plants that we know aren't going to be or are less likely to be harmful 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 the in the planting and in the designs and the plans and you know using that prioritizing it like you said but I don't know I just to me it just still it doesn't it doesn't kind of align to say well

Thank you for watching! Maybe it's some combination of far, far, far fewer plants that have been treated. Maybe it's digging harder. Like I said, I don't know if this is true about Home Depot, but it seems to say 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. The internet could be wrong on all that.

We are aware of all of that. However... All, you know, 50, you know, also the research we've done is like 51% of bee-friendly plants use neonics. So I'm not really confident that Home Depot or Lowe's is actually doing that because where are they buying them? They're not going to the smaller focused native stuff. So I don't really believe that. I think the question is, The neonics we know are in the plant for a particular amount of time, one season, two seasons. and it does sacrifice the insects that are landing on it at that time but once the neonics are out of the plant then it's actually providing valuable habitat so I don't think that it is um Thank you for watching.

You're killing the pollinators for two years, but then what about the other years 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 is a real... Trade-offs 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 doing nothing or doing less.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Director. I'd like to see this pushed out and not just removed altogether. I think we need to keep the pressure on the industry. I'm reading a Lowe's policy right now that seems clearly focused on We don't know how long they'll last, the plants. Thank you for joining us. It's expensive and hard to buy them, so we'll just go ahead and use them 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 want to oversimplify here.

I do appreciate and I know the intentions are pure and good and that there's financial challenges. I think you know at least at worst I'd like to see this day just push back rather than take it out altogether to me I think Thank you so much for joining us. To me, I think that that would be my preferred approach.

All right. Thank you, Councilor Davis. I see Councilor Ewen-Campen, then Strezo, then Mbah. Councilor Ewen-Campen, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Thank you, Director, and thank you, Councilor, for that. That was really helpful. And let me also just say I have a former constituent who has published extensive research on neonicotinoids. Let me just read you the title of one of his papers that's been cited over 300 times, Ward 3, 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 functions of colonies and overall health of the animals. With all that said, I am reluctantly convinced that January 1, 2026 is not the date. I concede that point as much as I don't want to. I also do agree with my colleague. I think when we first started talking about the native plant ordinance, I think there were a lot of similar concerns that the industry wasn't there.

I have just been totally blown away by... the shift that has happened kind of in the public consciousness and you know now you go to Mahoney's and there's huge signs on all the which plants are native and there has been the kind of Movement and Shift 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 would certainly support pushing this back. I really do kind of... respect obviously the expertise of the department and you know I don't think that the folks who just wrote the pollinator plan are blowing smoke that this isn't going to work by January 1st of next year. So I would also support pushing this back for three years, whatever that number is. I'll leave it there. Thanks, Chair.

All right, thank you, Councilor Ewen-Campen. Councilor Strezo, you are up.

All right, thank you. A quick through you to Director Oliveira. I had a few quick follow-up questions on what you've mentioned. I'm not on finance so I don't and I don't I haven't looked at the order and purchases that Peace Up does with what specific where they where you specifically purchase your um 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 purchased 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 this nursery. and there's always an as equal clause. That is mass state procurement law. When we purchase PSUF, when we do smaller projects, for example, the pollinator garden in front of City Hall, or the five pollinator additions that we added to different parks this year.

We purchased them from a variety of smaller nurseries that we know do not use pesticides. So part of the problem is We cannot control where our contractors are purchasing them. DPW, I believe, has open POs with a number of different nurseries to get plants at. I couldn't tell you 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 has cost and time implications. And people will say, well, Thank you for watching. 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 appreciate that. And that's what I was looking for. With that, Mr. Chair, through you 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'm trying to suss out. A little more depth to the... Can you give a guesstimate of percentages of, like, how much of the purchase that, like, PSUF or the city purchases versus how much, how, um... How is supplied with the contractors or the bidders? of how much stock is being planted here in our city.

I say stocks as plants 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 bushes, there's trees, et cetera. I know it's very complex. I was trying to get a briefer sense of time on this. Can you give a guesstimate of a percentage of how much PSOF 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 PSUF side, we are talking about maybe 8,000, 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 is agriculture growing the food that we're eating without them. So that's essentially the problem.

Mr. Chair, through you too, Director, thank you very much. That's helpful. And has there been, I know that there are Mass Gen Law, Restrictions on Preferences of Companies, etc. And I know there are laws in that, but has PSUF or within this conversation Have you reached out to and had conversations specifically with the nursery here and the adjacent nursery next door and also in Boston? on their thoughts 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 Somerville would order and they could deliver?

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

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

Through the chair, absolutely. We could not... 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 they would be a lot more expensive if they were organic. This is an 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.

Mr. Chair, through you, to Director, yeah, I get that. I hear what you're saying. I'm trying not to name them because, too, Nacho, Preference, etc., even though it's very clear that we have a nursery or a small plant cellar in our city. And my hope is always loyal to our local community. Thank you so much for having me. 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 want to be at. Going forward, that's of course not what we're going to be deciding tonight or not, but where we need to go and how we pull in people to get on with our vision. and collaboratively work with that. Perhaps it's more of a rhetorical open-ended question, but how do we get people on board and help them

help us and help us all succeed and then also pull together for our environment and our world directly in front of us.

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 going to 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 it be great for them to start selling Neonic free things and for everybody in Somerville to only want to 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.

Mr. Chair, thanks for indulging me. One more question to Director on this, through you to Director. I hear you. What I mean is more, yeah, I get it. They're a different, I get what you're saying, a different business philosophy. I get that. What I'm also saying is in a, In a future conversation, can we find ways to bring them on board so maybe a small percentage of their plants are wholesale that we can help them make that transition as well? and pulling in another department such as economic development and small business and different ways that we help guide our Somerville businesses. to get in vision 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 inside of 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 want to 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 work with you on. in the future. All right. Councilor Mbah, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Scott. Good to see you, Dr. Oliveira. Appreciate all the work you're doing and your thoughtfulness around I guess, here in this conversation, one quick one that I have is that, is it possible to make the neonate apply to street trees only?

Through the Chair, 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 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 saying that this should apply to the trees?

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

To the chair. So just to clarify, you are saying that we Yes. Yes.

Gotcha. And also, I also just 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 plants that are Neonics free, you know, but... you know it's uh because like I think Councilor Ewen-Campen said like usually we can actually push for some of this stuff but again you know the space you know the Thank you for watching! If there's no precedence, we can actually set one. I'm not interested in what the UK is doing.

It's about the practicality of what is within our scope.

Through the chair, there is no other city that I know of in Massachusetts that has done as much work on this issue as we have. And even with the native species ordinance, 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. Thank you for watching. Trying to find more and more plants that are neonic-free. I do not think that we should say... I mean, we can. We can say we're never planting anything that uses neonics, but then we're not planting. So there is a balance here and there's some nuance. I think there's a lot of work that can be done. We're hopeful that our...

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 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, none of them has gone as far as we have. Yeah, we could be the first and say we have no neonics, but that also means that we're not able to plant our projects. So there's a little bit of a... Trade-off and also practicality in terms of do we still want to have wonderful parks?

Trujillo, Chair, Director Oliveira, I still want to have wonderful packs. Thank you.

Me too. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Councilor Mbah. 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 finally passed it in March of 2021. So I'd be comfortable. I understand the concern. It sounds like we're making great progress towards having an industry where we will be able to source at scale. And I think the way to do that is to, as some of my colleagues have said, to keep the pressure on. I'd be inclined to support Councilor Davis's suggestion to move the date out, but... I see Councillor Ewen-Campen and Councillor Davis. Gentlemen, after the discussion, motions to amend are, of course, in order. So, Councillor Ewen-Campen, you have the floor first.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We want to 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 we are in agreement that we want to push back the date rather than get rid of the sentence, I was going to suggest 2029 and hear what the committee has to say. You know, I don't. Coming up with that in the course of this meeting, and I welcome any feedback.

All right, Councilor Davis.

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

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

Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I may, I think procedurally, because we have a proposed amendment before us, and the clerk, please correct me if I'm wrong, I think the motion would be to amend the proposed amendment before us by replacing the final amendment. The final bit of the previous sentence that is struck beginning with the word provided and ending with neocardinoids but changing the date 2026 to 2029.

All right, sounds good. I think you are right about the procedural order of operations there. Councilor Strezo, before we get into the procedurals.

Yes, thank you. I am going to 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 think... If we need to come before and have this discussion again in 2027 as 2028 is hovering above us, then we can push it to 2029. I, so if I understand if 2028, I'm sorry, 2029 is before us. But I would be interested in, well, convincing my colleagues to 2028. And if not, I would, if that doesn't, I guess we can vote on it. I don't know. Chair, you tell me.

All right, so 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 it and 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 2029 in that sentence. So let's vote on that amendment first.

I believe I need to, I know you just read it, but I believe I need to read it into the record as I do it. So just bear with me. So on the motion by Councilor Ewen-Campen, to amend Section 12-178 by replacing the sentence that is struck and replacing it with provided that as January 1, 2029, the city shall not source native plants that have been treated with neonicotinoids. Councilor Davis.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Approved.

All right, thank you. Before we move for recommendation on this, would you like to make a proposed amendment to 2028, Councilor Strezo?

Mr. Chair, yes, I would. And my colleagues have voted, but I won it on record. And I do think it's a good point. So let's go with that. Thank you.

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

On the motion, Mr. Chair.

On the motion, Councilor Bates.

Thank you. Through you to Director Oliveira, given the nature of the projects that we have lined up, and the expected timeframe on those. 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 sort of could take it there if we were to go to 2028 on this. 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 partner with other groups and other professional organizations nursery organizations In order to push this is, in my mind, a better idea than sooner. The extra year could be used for that, yes.

Let me ask it differently, Mr. Chair, if I may. Projects that you noted, the larger projects that we hope to have out to bid early in calendar year 26, do we expect those to go into calendar year 29? Sorry, calendar year 28? Through the chair, yes.

Yes. And once this ordinance, once the contract is out, we couldn't then add a specification afterwards. So in other words, let's say 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 I guess what you're saying then is if this... Provision is not in place in January of 26, and we put stuff out to bid. If this date were changed to January 28, the effect would be that the contracts that were bid prior to that sunset period would not apply. Those bids would be what they are. So going to the 2028 timeframe wouldn't affect the contracts that are bid next year. It would only affect the contracts that are bid after that. 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 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 real question would be, you know, how the law would work. Thank you for that explanation. That's all I needed to hear. I'm sorry. inclined to stick with the original 28 that I had suggested that Councilor Strezo then motioned. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And Mr. Chair, if I may. But 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 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. 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.

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

All right. So Councilor Strezo, before we go to a roll call.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Final words on this. Like I said, just quick reminder, colleagues. I'm fine sticking with 2029, but I think keeping it or proposing 2028 and even if it fails, that's fine. But I want at least a chance. Thank you for watching! Move it to 2029 then. I think it's a good checkpoint for us and it keeps the dialogue happening and it's a good goal to reach. And that's why I'm proposing it. I'm sticking with it, even if I'm the lone wolf voting for it. Ready to go, Mr. Chair.

All right, thank you. So on that motion, Madam Clerk.

Strezo has made a motion to amend the amended version of section 12-178 to replace 2029 with 2028 on the motion. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strezo? Yes. Mbah?

No.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

No.

Councilor Scott?

Yes. Let's go with yes.

With three councillors in favor, that motion has passed.

All right, I appreciate everybody's time tonight. This is, I think, a good opportunity, as said, to keep the conversation vital in future legislative sessions. 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 6 to be recommended as amended. Councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Strezo? Yes. Mbah.

Yes.

Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Yes.

Councilor Scott.

Yes.

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

All right. 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.

Mr. Chair, you know me so well. An opportunity to speak. To introduce these for you, 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 sort of thrust of this is, of course, that 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 um 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 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 14 days notice in compliance with the provisions of the Access to Information Act.

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 as president pro tem until the election of a president and vice president. which I'm 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.

& Co.

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 with 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 included posting to the website. as being sufficient for posting and dissemination of information. And so the requirement that printed copies 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 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 a simple copy paste. 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 a copy and paste job 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 29B to reflect the New section where the Charter Right lives. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

All right. On this submission of the clerks. All right. Councilor Davis.

I waited to see if anyone wanted to raise their hand first. So I wasn't always the kid in the front row, but here I am.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Salisbury, for this. I had a couple questions. I think you answered one of them for me, but let me just make sure I... I'm reading this correctly because I now remember this piece of the charter. So in Rule 55... and I think you know so there was there was also a question of that 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 um was not taken up by the council, although I think the rules are what they are. My view is that if it's not put to the council for a vote, then at the next meeting, this rule certainly could be could be exercised otherwise it would seem to have um well anyway so so that that's for what it's worth that's my reading but that's neither here nor there um

I don't think. I think that the key point here that I wanted to ask about is just the second sentence, if two or more members object. The distinction there is that if one person objects, then... That's the difference between the first two sentences.

That is correct, Mr. Chair. Councilor Davis, my apologies. Old habits. To put a sort of fine point on it, if one member objects then there is certainly a world where that item could be taken up again within 48 hours at the call of a special meeting. With two members objecting it does put 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. Either longer than two weeks or shorter than two weeks if it was at the end of October. Precisely. Okay, very well, thank you. And then the last question, so this is in Rule 59, the I'm not sure that I agree that the addition of or their designee in the second sentence And maybe this isn't the intent, but I don't think it, you know, stands in the place of what the last sentence provided. Because, you know, the second sentence is specifically to, you know, attending the meetings, recording, etc., etc., etc. but the first sentence talks about other stuff and so I guess let me just put it if there if the clerk was absent for some reason um

and hadn't designated someone to attend the meetings or had designated 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 just not reading it the same way you do?

The last sentence. Admittedly, I don't think we're reading it exactly the same way. My understanding is that this and that are the same thing because 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. I apologize if that did not answer your question clearly.

Now, I guess, I don't know. I just, I think the way it reads that, you know, the second sentence, by only including designee in the second sentence, to me, it reads that that is the only, you know, clause to which that concept could apply. you know I think the several sentences that follow sort of naturally apply to the meanings but I don't know I guess I I feel like there's some ambiguity there by just saying, and they or their designee shall attend meetings. 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'm not sure I'm comfortable that that's clear enough, I guess is what I'm saying.

Certainly, and Mr. Chair, through you to Councilor Davis, I will note, of course, that 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 I will say is 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 that's not overstepping my position.

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

All right. Makes sense to me, Mr. Davis. Councilor Davis. All right. So is that all?

That's it. That's it for me. I see my colleagues have questions. Soon I'll hold the motion for the moment to let other folks ask questions.

Appreciate that. Councilor Mbah, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair. I just also want to thank Dr. 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 want to understand, you know, clearly, like I've seen that, you know, you stroke through multiple lines. You know, like the council date of our meeting, 2nd and 4th Thursday and all or not. I'm not sure, like... you know what are you saying that there was like some this current rule that you're striking there was some misalignment with each other and if so, what operational or procedural challenges have this discrepancy created? I'm seeing you striking a bunch of stuff here.

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.

Mr. Chair, through you, my apologies, Mr. Chair. If you would prefer to answer the question, I'm happy to defer. Seeing that Mr. Chair threw you to Councilor Mbah, 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 date and time of the meetings, that would be inappropriate and in conflict with the charter. 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 not much more that I can explain. We simply made these changes to make sure that we are not... Out of compliance with the charter.

As I had noted earlier in the meeting, certainly there is a provision within the 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 second and fourth Thursdays will continue until or unless a proposed amendment to the ordinances changes that practice.

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

All right. Thank you, Councilor Mbah. All right. 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 Strezo? Yes. Councilor Mbah?

Yes.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councilor Scott? Yes. All counselors in favor that is recommended to be approved.

All right. Thank you very much. And now we come to the final four items of our agenda. This is 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 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 of what the city intends to do and what technologies they intend to use. which are then approved by the City Council, not modified.

So I want to open it up to any questions about any of these four reports. Councilor Ewen-Campen. Mr.

Chair, I just have a kind of general statement on all of them. So 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 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 underdoor cameras, I'm not particularly concerned with the kind of Big picture, civil liberties, privacy issues. I know my colleagues often have really helpful feedback on kind of the details of the STIRs, of the impact reports. But just kind of big picture, I'm comfortable with these technologies and don't have issues with their use in Somerville.

All right. Thank you very much, Councilor Ewen Campen. Davis. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I feel like Councilor Ewen-Campen was deliberately queuing me up there, so I'll oblige. I did read through these and I want to thank Captain Sheehan and everyone else who who put time into these. Every time we come to these, it's worth taking a moment to just say how much I appreciate the collaboration from the beginning of this process. How much I like that we have this ordinance and how important it is that that we do have that cooperation because it wouldn't really be very meaningful otherwise. And this is a perfect example. These are as we saw in the memo in the The audiences are technologies that did exist, but sort of on reflection, the department decided, you know, these probably should put in a stir for these. And so, great, perfect. That's how it's supposed to work.

Better if it comes in initially, but certainly it seems to have been no attempt. I think, as my colleague from Ward 3 noted, there's... There's sort of 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 I agree that it's appropriate to have a stir for them and I appreciate that we have those now. I did want to ask, I do have a few specific points that I want to kind of flag. And the first one is specific to the mini ball camera. But they all really apply to all three of the ordinances. And none of these are like, you know, Thank you very much.

Permit or ability to make permanent recording or data that is created. 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 an ability to record video and potentially audio in some of them that that video could then be produced. in certain circumstances as talked about. So that's where I start to look a little bit more closely. So in the... For the ball camera, in the response to question 3C, 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 default setting. So that they could be replayed and or deleted by the user.

And then the second is a cloud option where the third party provider has a streaming service or sort of a cloud storage But it indicates that that subscription will not be purchased. We're not going to provide the cloud storage. but then there's other discussion either actually before and after the talks about uploading and downloading videos from the device data that could be shared on investigation you know And so I'm not clear what is the download scenario, right? I think if there's only two storage options and one is on the device itself and the other is a cloud and rocket into the cloud, It sounds like maybe that's not actually entirely accurate, that maybe there would be video stored in some other...

I want to further understand how that would work if X period of time down the road there's an investigation Do we just leave the video on the ball itself and hope we don't need to use it again? Or would it be downloaded and stored in safekeeping somewhere else? And if so, what are the parameters for that? Because we don't really talk about that in here. So it seems like there's maybe a... A little bit of piece missing. Does that make sense, Captain Sheehan?

Yes, through the chair to councilors. I'm going to actually defer to Lieutenant DeOliveira, who wrote the stir 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 wouldn't be a shared drive. It would be a separate computer that the SIT 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 saved in 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 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.

That's a great answer as is almost always the case with these. I'd love for it to say that so people fully understand because we're doing exactly, this is exactly how it should be handled. That's the kind of thing I I think it would be great to add in here. So if we do a revision, if you're willing to do a revision, I would love to just see a little more clarity there, just explain exactly what you, Almost verbatim what you said, I think would be a perfect response and really provide that explanation. Then the other comments I think are applicable to all three. And so Mr. Chair, if it's okay, I mean, just in the interest of time, Maybe I'll make these and to the extent that there's some adjustments that can be made to all of them because I think the answers were somewhat similar.

And there are similar comments to, at least one of them is similar to some discussion we had on a recent... One of the more recent ones, STIRS, that was submitted. Now, it's been a bit since we've had one of these. But in subsection E, so I guess it would be, what, three? 3E. The question specifically asks for the... A required legal justification and legal standard necessary, right? And I think in the past, that response has said, if it would be under a subpoena or in accordance with, et cetera, et cetera. That piece is really missing. And I think in all three of the responses,

I understand that it's their region because I've seen enough of these and I've talked to y'all about it and I know how it works. But I think if a member of the public picked this up, I'm not sure that they would interpret it the same way I do. And I think I... I think I'd like to see that, you know, because like I said that The questions here are in the statute. We went back and forth about these a lot, and they're crafted to make sure that certain specific information is included. And so I think having that you know what their justification would need to be and a legal standard necessary would is is important to have in here if for no other reason than that they would then be consistent with you know with the others where we included that um You know, And I note that the response here, data could be shared depending on the investigation.

In the middle, images could be shared if there was a joint investigation. It could be shared as a pretty broad concept, right? When, under what circumstances, under what legal, like that's what I think, you know, I read these through the eye of a member of the public who hasn't had these conversations and might be looking for a gotcha. Right. So, you know, not that I think our constituents are doing that. Right. But if what we want to draft is so that anyone can be comfortable reading them and they're not going to write something. I think I think somebody could definitely read that sort of could be shared and say, well, wait, that's not really a legal standard. Could mean anything, right? So I... As I said, the answer to this question in some of the other STIRs, I think once they were revised, the legal standards were stated a little more clearly.

and then at the end, shared with the members of the investigative group who had permission to use the services, what permission from whom, what would those circumstances be, right? Same concept. and that's true of all three of these so I think you know whatever the answer is can probably be you know leveraged for all of them I don't want to you know that we need to go through them all and I don't want to make more work for you but I think that is a relevant point and then The other thing, all three of these, and I know we've done this in the past, and it may just be that I didn't pick up on this, but I want to put this out there just... For your thought, because as the counselor from Ward 3 noted, these do feel like different types of technology than many of the other ones we've talked about.

And so where we reference the surveillance technology use policy and specifically the video surveillance technology data and use by the police department, which on 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 putting rules and regulations in place for using surveillance technology. and that's to the credit to the department I think it's worth noting as well so folks understand that that's where this came from you know we sort of revised a little bit and poured it 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 kind of things that Councilor Ewen-Campen noted at the outset. I don't think it really applies to these specific things the way that one would assume just from reading it. You know...

and maybe a member of public would go pull up and you can find that policy pretty easily, which is also good, just through a web search. The video surveillance system that's talked about in the technology data and used by the police department policy, I don't think that's talking about these things because it's pretty robust and it has a whole bunch of... You know, steps and things that I think we probably don't need for this stuff, right? So I just want to throw that out there and ask you to maybe take another look at where you've leveraged just references to that general policy and, you know, and Consider whether it applies or not. And I don't, I'm not the expert, right? So I defer to y'all whether, you know, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't want to suggest how it should be changed because, you know, as I said, it's not...

Thank you for joining us. is meaning the same thing for these three really sort of discrete use types of technology. So maybe there's a simpler answer that actually is on point because as we noted, these are Really for specific use in a specific scenario if we ever need it, God forbid. And I think that would... Thank you for watching! Those are my only comments. If you're willing to, I'd love to see a revision. I think that... I acknowledge that we've had these technologies in place.

And so I think if there's an exigent circumstance that you felt it was needed in an emergency, I certainly wouldn't make a mistake if you needed to use them between now and January when we can talk about this again. I want to say that because by no means do I mean 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 an emergency situation so um Let that be clear. But for the sake of kind of just dialing in a little bit, I think there might be a few tweaks that could be made to some folks that are digging through these 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 that transparency will serve its purpose.

Thank you for that, Mr. Davis. I'm going to hand it over to Captain Sheehan in a second, because it looks like he has a direct response. But I actually went and pulled up the covert device. Surveillance Technology Impact Report, and the language in 3E there specifically talks about shared as the district attorney's office as part of submitting evidence for a criminal case, et cetera. So I think the language is there. in other ones, so it shouldn't be that hard of a revision. Captain Sheehan, in response there?

Oh.

Or not.

Yeah, exactly. I just wanted to, through the chair, to the Councilor Davis and to you, Councilor Scott, We do appreciate working with the council. Obviously, a lot of this stuff is new to us. These reports, we're getting the hang of it. We're more than welcome to work with you as we have in the past. We will put together, as Councilor Scott, the Chair, you did indicate, that language is there because we have worked on this. 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.

Mr. Chair, quick follow-up, if I could, just to acknowledge it. Absolutely, totally get it. Appreciate it. This is great. What's there already is perfect. I'm just, like I said, looking to maybe avoid any questions. But by no means, you know, do my comments suggest that this was, you know, there was any failure to do it right or anything that, you know, we're still refining this process and y'all are just really knocking out of the park in terms of collaborating on this. So I really, really appreciate it. So thank you.

All right, 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 and update in the new year? Or would you like to I recommend against approval of these and just take up the new ones when they appear on our agenda Mr.

Chair the the 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 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 this is the piece of the Surveillance Technology Ordinance that we do need to approve ultimately. and so I think the the most recent preference is to simply place the once a new one comes in to place this on file or mark work complete or you know some Some disposition in that manner and then take action on the replacement one. We used to think the administration used to withdraw the initial one, but we're not doing that anymore. Unless we've changed our mind, either way works, but we don't have to do anything with this right now. At least my view would be, and as I said, I would certainly look at it as if something needed to be, you know, the Surrealist technology ordinance does have an exigent circumstance. Provision in it.

And certainly, you know, I would not look askew at all if something needed to be used in an emergency between now and January. Hopefully not. But, you know, I don't have any concerns with them. with that potential scenario and just keeping these here until we get the revised versions. That's my preference, but it's your call.

Now, 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. We're not quite in Scrivener's Era territory here, but as you said, these reports have been getting better and better every time they get submitted, so I really appreciate it. 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 want to use the technical term on it, but as part of a tactical situation. So 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, I'm sorry, is it Sergeant or Lieutenant?

Oops.

Uh, Mr. Chair, Lieutenant Oliver, apologies, I was having a problem with my computer, yeah.

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... 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. and 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've forgotten.

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 8 through 11.

Apologies.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I may. Sure. And I thank the director for flagging that actually. My thought, I read through that one too, that as you I'm sure saw, it was really specific to... 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 you're so inclined.

Okay, I love that. All right, so let's, a motion has been made to approve or recommend approval on item 11. 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 motion to adjourn.

Chair Scott, 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.

All right. Then let's go one at a time. Why not? 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. 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 discharge without a recommendation. 5 was recommended for approval 6 was recommended for approval as amended 7 was recommended for approval 8 through 10 is kept in committee and then we will still take the vote on 11 recommended for approval

All right, so with that summary, we will, I believe, take two roll call votes, correct? One on... acceptance of eight through ten and then a second one for accepted approval of the minutes how do you want to divide that up we can yes we can do two we can do two we can do

I can do it right now on the acceptance of agenda item 1, approval of the minutes of legislative matters committee meeting on October 20, 2025, and the approval of agenda item 11. approval of the surveillance technology impact report for use of an unmanned aircraft system at the high school. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Strezo? Strezo, Councilor Mbah, Councilor Ewen-Campen, Councilor Scott, and with four councillors in favor those motions are approved and then on agenda item and adjournment to discharge without a recommendation. Councilor Davis.

Yes.

Councilor Strezo. Excuse me. Councilor Mbah.

Yes.

Councilor Ewen-Campen.

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.