2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a recommendation to reappoint Conrad Crawford as a member of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board for a 5-year term, effective Apr 13, 2021.
Referred to NLTP Committee 9-0

Apr 26, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the reappointment of Conrad Crawford to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) Board. Mr. Crawford is a resident of East Cambridge and a father of three children, providing the CRA with a critical family-oriented perspective on the needs of the community. Conrad is trained as an urban planner having studied at Tufts University Urban and Environmental Policy & Planning program. He has previously worked at the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Groundworks Somerville. He brings to the CRA focused expertise in open space and sustainable transportation. He has also served on numerous other committees for the City including the Kendall Square Advisory Committee, the Urban Forestry Task Force, and the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force. Conrad currently serves as the Vice-Chair of the CRA Board.

This request to reappointment Mr. Crawford is supported by CRA Executive Director Tom Evans and Board Chair Kathy Born.

Therefore, in accordance with Chapter 121B of the Massachusetts General Laws, I am submitting Mr. Conrad’s name for City Council confirmation as a member of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. I am further requesting that this recommendation be forwarded to the Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee or other suitable committee for a public hearing as outlined in City Council Rule Number 32C.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-16, regarding creating a Commercial Composting Pilot program. [Report from DPW]
Placed on File 9-0

Apr 26, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-16, regarding creating a Commercial Composting Pilot program, received from Public Works Commissioner Owen O'Riordan.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendment to Section 8.66 of the Municipal Ordinance related to Tree Protection and related Orders. [attachment A][attachment B][attachment C][attachment D]
Orders Adopted 8-1 (Toomey - NO) to (1) pass the amendment through all stages of legislation in one session pursuant to City Council Rule 20, and (2) to extend the temporary moratorium to June 30, 2021.

Apr 26, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached proposed amendment to Section 8.66 of the Municipal Ordinance related to Tree Protection and related Orders, received from City Solicitor Nancy Glowa.

Agenda Item Number 9A     Apr 26, 2021
ORDERED: That the City Council adopts the amendment to Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 8.66 entitled Tree Protection to extend the provisions relating to tree removal in violation of Section 8.66.055 to June 30, 2021.

Agenda Item Number 9B     Apr 26, 2021
ORDERED: That the City Council finds that the need to amend Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 8.66 entitled Tree Protection to extend the provisions relating to tree removal in violation of Section 8.66.055 to June 30, 2021 is an emergency involving the health and safety of the people of Cambridge pursuant to G.L. c.43, §20, and therefore that the City Council may pass the amendment through all stages of legislation in one session pursuant to City Council Rule 20.

10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter an agreement with the Town of Watertown for the purpose of performing sidewalk reconstruction work on a portion of Belmont Street that is located in Watertown.
Order Adopted 9-0

Agenda Item Number 10     Apr 26, 2021

ORDERED: That the City Council authorizes the City Manager, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 4A, to enter into a license agreement with the Town of Watertown, on such terms as the City Manager deems necessary and appropriate, in order for the City to perform construction work on the sidewalk on Belmont Street between Mount Auburn Street and Ericsson Street that is located in Watertown.

11. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to follow-up materials relative to the Green Roofs Zoning Petition. [Report]
Referred to Petition 9-0

Apr 26, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached materials related to the Green Roofs Zoning Petition, submitted by Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq and City Solicitor Nancy Glowa, in response to requests from the Ordinance Committee at its meeting of Mar 31, 2021 and during a subsequent discussion on the matter at the Apr 12, 2021 City Council Meeting.

This is also in response to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 21-26 and 21-27.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

CHARTER RIGHT
1. That the City Council shall have its own budget for outside legal research to be utilized at the discretion of the Council when designated by a majority of members in pursuance of the Council’s authority to exercise the legislative powers of the City as specified in the City charter. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS IN COUNCIL APR 12, 2021]
Amended 9-0; Tabled 5-4 (DC,AM,MM,DS,TT - YES; PN,JSW,QZ,SS - NO)

O-8     Apr 12, 2021
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City charter grants that “The city council shall have and exercise all the legislative powers of the city”; and
WHEREAS: Most City Councillors are not themselves lawyers and seek assistance in exercising their legislative powers as prescribed by the charter in the drafting of ordinances; and
WHEREAS: The City’s legal department has provided and will continue to provide legal research and opinions to the City Council as part of their role in representing the City; and
WHEREAS: At the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee meeting on the topic of adding an outside attorney line item to the City Council budget on December 4, 2019, the City’s legal department and administration affirmed that it had not been, and would not be, their intent to thwart the will of the City Council and committed “to working with the Council to find solutions that work for the Council” on legal research; and
WHEREAS: The legal department has stated that at times the large amount of work that is placed on the department delays their work responding to City Council and community priorities; and
WHEREAS: Other cities and towns in Massachusetts have experienced similar challenges and solved them by the City Council requiring its own budget for legal research to assist with the exercise of their legislative powers as prescribed by the charters in their respective municipalities; and
WHEREAS: Because the legal department represents both the City administration, which is responsible for executing the laws of the City, and the City Council, which holds the legislative powers of the City, there have at times been conflicts with drafting ordinance and policy language that the City Council has requested, such as on supporting restaurants to have acoustic music without a permit, prohibiting the use of tear gas, and limiting campaign contributions; and
WHEREAS: The City Council requiring its own budget for legal research would help solve this issue by providing the Council with a dedicated point of contact to assist with the exercise of their prescribed legislative powers under the City’s charter; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council shall have a budget for outside legal research that shall be utilized at the discretion of the City Council when designated by a majority of members in pursuance of the Council’s authority to exercise the legislative powers of the City in drafting ordinances via an order that is voted upon in public at a scheduled City Council meeting; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the precise amount of the budget line item for outside legal research in the City Council budget shall be determined as part of the FY22 budget process but shall be not less than 5% of the total amount of the legal department’s FY22 budget.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to include in the FY22 City Council budget a line item for outside legal research that shall be utilized at the discretion of the City Council when designated by a majority of members of the Council in pursuance of the City Council’s authority to exercise the legislative powers of the City in drafting ordinances via an order that is voted upon in public at a scheduled City Council meeting; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the City Council to determine the precise amount of the budget line item, which should be not less than 5% of the total amount of the legal department’s FY22 budget, as part of the upcoming Finance Committee meetings ahead of the City Council’s vote on the FY22 budget.

There is a Late Communication from the City Solicitor on this matter noting that this Order violates the City Charter. This was not available to the public or even to all councillors in advance of the meeting.
So much for transparency.

4. A Zoning Petition has been received from Amy Oliver, regarding that the City require the installation of GREEN ROOFS vegetated or BioSolar on future construction and significant rehab of buildings that are 20,000 square feet and larger. [PASSED TO A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL APR 12, 2021 TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER APR 26, 2021]
Amended and left on Unfinished Business for another week

Amended text:

Add the following definitions of “Green Roof Area” and “Green Roof Area, Biosolar” to Article 2.000 Definitions

Green Roof Area. Area atop a roof surface on a building covered by a layer of living vegetation planted in a minimum of four (4) inches of growth medium over a waterproofing system. (Also known as a vegetated roof.)

Green Roof Area, Biosolar. Green Roof Area incorporating or adjacent to a Solar Energy System.

Amend Section 22.30 Green Roofs to read as follows:

22.30 - GREEN ROOFS

22.31   Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to remove potential impediments to the development of green roof systems on new and existing buildings by clarifying that such systems should not count against a building's Gross Floor Area, and by providing for limited access and enjoyment of green roofs by occupants of a building, and to require new buildings of substantial size to include vegetation and/or solar energy roofing systems on much or most of the available roof area.

22.32   Green Roof Area as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance may be accessible by means of a roof entrance.

22.33   Floor Area Exemptions for Green Roof Area.

22.33.1   Spaces meeting the definition of Green Roof Area, which are to be accessed only for maintenance purposes and are not intended to be used by building occupants or others, shall be exempt from the calculation of Gross Floor Area of a building.

22.33.2   Spaces meeting the definition of Green Roof Area, which are intended to be accessed for use by occupants of the building or others, and which are located above the third floor of the building, may be exempted from the calculation of Gross Floor Area of a building only after the granting of a special permit by the Planning Board. The proponent seeking such a special permit must demonstrate that the Green Roof Area is designed such that the vegetation will withstand the foot traffic associated with its anticipated use. The Planning Board shall also consider the potential visual, noise and privacy impacts of the anticipated use on neighbors. Unless such a special permit is granted, any Green Roof Area located above the third floor of a building that is intended to be accessed for use by building occupants or others shall be counted as Gross Floor Area.

22.34   Floor Area Exemptions for Patios or Decks Adjacent to Green Roof Area.

22.34.1   In non-residential zoning districts and in Residence C-1A, C-2, C-2A, C-2B, C-3, C-3A, and C-3B zoning districts, where a rooftop surface above the third floor includes Green Roof Area, adjacent open-air outdoor space intended for use by building occupants or other persons that does not meet the definition of Green Roof Area, such as a patio or deck, shall be exempted from the calculation of Gross Floor Area of the building, provided that the total space exempted in such a manner shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the amount of Green Roof Area on the building and that all such usable outdoor space shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from all outer roof edges.

22.34.2   In residential zoning districts not listed in Section 22.34.1 above, where a rooftop surface above the third floor includes Green Roof Area, adjacent open-air outdoor space intended for use by building occupants or other persons that does not meet the definition of Green Roof Area, such as a patio or deck, may be exempted from the calculation of Gross Floor Area of the building only after the granting of a special permit by the Planning Board. The total space exempted in such a manner shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the amount of Green Roof Area on the building and all such usable outdoor space shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from all outer roof edges. In granting the special permit, the Planning Board shall consider the location and orientation of the patio or deck in relation to adjacent properties and potential visual, noise and privacy impacts of the anticipated use on abutters.

22.35   Green Roofs Requirement

22.35.1   Applicability. This Section 22.35, et. seq., shall apply to any new building or structure of twenty-five thousand (25,000) gross square feet or more, except it shall not apply to the development of affordable housing projects, including those that fall under the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) as defined in Section 11.207, except it shall not apply to affordable housing buildings that either are developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) as defined in Section 11.207 or have a majority of their units permanently reserved for households at or below 100% of AMI.

22.35.2   Requirement. At least 80% of the roof area of the building as measured in plan view, excluding those portions of the roof listed below, shall be devoted to Green Roof Area, Biosolar Green Roof Area, or Solar Energy Systems. For commercial, labs, and all mixed-use buildings with a majority of square footage not dedicated to housing, but exempting any municipal buildings, at least 80% of the roof area of the building as measured in plan view, excluding those portions of the roof listed below, shall be devoted to Green Roof Area, or Biosolar Green Roof Area:

1. Areas having a slope greater than 3 in 12 or twenty-five percent (25%).

2. Areas designed and managed for use by building occupants or the general public.

3. Vehicular parking decks.

4. Chimneys, water towers, air conditioning equipment, elevator bulkheads, skylights, ventilators and other necessary features appurtenant to buildings which are usually carried above roofs and are not used for human occupancy, in addition to conduit, visual and acoustical screening, access routes for maintenance and service, and other areas that must be clear of obstruction to comply with applicable building and safety codes.

22.35.3   Exemption. The Planning Board may grant a special permit to reduce the required Green Roof Area, Biosolar Green Roof Area, or Solar Energy System below the area required by Section 22.35.2, provided that each square foot so reduced be compensated by a unit price contribution to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust. This unit price shall be determined based on the average costs to design, install, and maintain green roofs and rooftop solar energy systems in Cambridge using actual cost figures to the extent possible, shall be subject to annual adjustment based on standard construction cost indices,  and shall be calculated, and recalculated approximately every three years, by the Cambridge Community Development Department. All such funds contributed to the Trust shall be dedicated to the design and incorporation of Green Roof Area, Biosolar Green Roof Area, or Solar Energy Systems into new or existing affordable housing developments.

22.35.4   Effective Date.  The provisions of this Section 22.35, as adopted on June 1, 2021, shall not apply to structures lawfully in existence or lawfully begun before June 1, 2021, or to a building or special permit issued before June 1, 2021, and shall take effect on June 1, 2021.

2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting questions for the COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons ABSENT)

COVID-19 UPDATE QUESTIONS

COUNCILLOR NOLAN
1. At this point in the pandemic, there is extensive evidence on mask use outdoors and the risk of Covid19 transmission. Being outdoors and not in close proximity for a prolonged period is an extremely low risk activity. If Governor Baker lifts the mask mandate statewide for outdoors, will Cambridge follow suit?

2. Now that anyone over 16 can get a vaccine and we are over the 50% initial dose, is there any sense that there is resistance to getting the vaccine? Any thoughts on how to ensure that all residents eligible get the vaccine?

MAYOR SIDDIQUI
1. CPHD staff recently met with several Cambridge restaurant owners to get feedback on strategies to help restaurants with some guidance on air quality or posters that can motivate safe dining behaviors. Improving masks used by restaurant staff and assessing air turnover and placement of HEPA filter units were discussed as positive steps. The panel suggested that these safety measures are crucial to keep restaurants open. The panel also agreed that any way to convince establishments with indoor dining to collect contact info from all parties (or individuals) will be crucial during follow up contact tracing if there are transmission clusters. What are some next steps on these discussions?

LATE COMMUNICATION
3. A communication was received from City Solicitor, Nancy E. Glowa, transmitting Legal Opinion Regarding Request to Have Legal Resources Committed to Assist City Council with Legal Research and Drafting of Ordinances Pursuant to Orders Voted Upon in Public at Scheduled City Council Meetings.
Tabled 5-4 (DC,AM,MM,DS,TT - YES; PN,JSW,QZ,SS - NO)

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Office of the City Solicitor
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

April 26, 2021

Re: Legal Opinion Regarding Request to Have Legal Resources Committed to Assist City Council with Legal Research and Drafting of Ordinances Pursuant to Orders Voted Upon in Public at Scheduled City Council Meetings

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

I. INTRODUCTION.

I write in response to proposed Order No. O-8 of April 12, 2021, which was not voted upon that night due to a Councillor's exercise of the Charter Right to postpone discussion to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council, which is April 26, 2021. The proposed order requested that "the City Council shall have a budget for outside legal research that shall be utilized at the discretion of the City Council when designated by a majority of members in pursuance of the Council 's authority to exercise the legislative powers of the City in drafting ordinances via an order that is voted upon in public at a scheduled City Council meeting," and that "the precise amount of the budget line item for outside legal research in the City Council budget shall be determined as part of the FY22 budget process but shall be not less than 5% of the total amount of the legal department's FY22 budget."

As outlined in the below opinion, I am of the opinion that the City Council's request for a budget to cover outside legal assistance is inconsistent with the provisions of the City's Plan E Charter, that the City Council does not have the authority to make an appropriation for staff which is not recommended by the City Manager, and that the attorney for the City Council is the City Solicitor and those attorneys in the City's Law Department who report to the City Solicitor. However, I have proposed a detailed plan below to address the City Council's concerns related to more timely legal assistance.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.

I first address the question of whether the City Council has the legal authority to appoint counsel, or to have legal counsel dedicated solely to serving the needs of the City Council.

A. Chapter 2.26-Law Department, Section 2.26.030 of the Municipal Code.

Pursuant to Cambridge Municipal Code §2.26.030 (the "City Solicitor Ordinance"), the City Solicitor is the exclusive legal counsel for all City departments, including the City Council:

The City Solicitor shall draft all legal instruments of whatever nature which may be required of him by any ordinance, the City Council, the Mayor, or the City Manager.

The City Solicitor shall prosecute and defend all suits, causes and actions in which the City is a party. He shall represent the City before administrative agencies on any matter in which the interest of the City may be affected. He shall defend the officers and employees of the City for any act or omission in the discharge of their official duties. He shall furnish legal opinions on matters submitted to him by the City Manager, Mayor, City Council, School Committee, or head of department. (Emphasis supplied).

Mun. Code, c. 2.26, §2.26.020-030.

A plain reading of the City Solicitor Ordinance dictates that the proposed duties the City Council seeks to shift to an outside attorney, i.e., performing legal research, are duties that properly fall under the City Solicitor. Indeed, the City Solicitor is the attorney for the City Council, and all legal matters of any City department, including the City Council, are the responsibility of the City Solicitor.

B. The City's Plan E Charter.

Under the City's Plan E Charter, the City Council does not have the legal authority to appoint legal counsel. Pursuant to the City's Plan E Charter, the City Council has the authority to appoint people to three (3) positions - the City Manager, the City Clerk, and the City Auditor. Under the principles of statutory interpretation, if a statute has expressly set out language on a particular matter, that language is viewed as conclusive as to legislative intent. Thus, had the Legislature intended to imbue the City Council with the power to appoint counsel, it is presumed under the principles of statutory interpretation that it would have done so. No statute expressly authorizes the City Council to include in its department an office of counsel to the City Council or to permanently employ its own attorney. In the absence of the statutory authority to do so, it is settled law that a department of a city or town has no authority to employ counsel. Board of Public Works of Wellesley v. Board of Selectmen of Wellesley, 377 Mass. 621, 624-625 (1979); O'Reilly v. Town of Scituate, 328 Mass. 154 (1951). G.L. c. 43 does not expressly grant to the City Council the authority to appoint other employees as may be necessary for the proper conduct of its business. Mayor of New Bedford v. City Council of New Bedford, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 251, 254 (1982).

Additionally, under the City's Plan E Charter, the City Manager is required to " ... supervise the administration of the affairs of the city ... ", and to " ... make all appointments and removals in the departments .. . of the city for which he is responsible .... " G. L. c. 43, §104. Consistent with the City Charter, the City Solicitor is appointed by the City Manager. Cambridge Municipal Code, §2.26.010. The functions of the Law Department and the City Solicitor, including the decision to hire outside counsel, rest within the realm of executive and administrative responsibility specifically placed by the Plan E Charter within the control of the City Manager. This arrangement reflects the reality that the variety and complexity of issues usually involved in litigation and in the rendering of legal advice, the need for client and work product confidentiality, and the need for executive decision-making discretion require that decisions regarding the management and control of lawsuits, and regarding legal representation generally, be made by the person charged with executive responsibilities which, in this case, is the City Manager.

Further, an appropriation by the Boston City Council (which has a different charter whose differences are not material to this particular issue) to hire its own legal counsel independent of the Mayor's approval was found to be an invalid exercise of the Boston City Council's legal authority. In 2003, the Appeals Court reviewed a decision from the Superior Court which had issued a ruling that the City Council for the City of Boston did not have the authority to fill the position of "counsel for the City Council" absent the approval of the Mayor of Boston. City Council of Boston v. Mayor of Boston, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 544 (2003). In affirming the Superior Court's decision, the Appeals Court ruled that:

The duties proposed for legal counsel to the council, as described, would overlap significantly and thereby interfere materially with those that are presently reserved exclusively to corporation counsel. Counsel to the council would be responsible, among other things, for providing legal advice on matters relating to council business, reviewing and furnishing opinions on draft legislation, and representing the council in legal proceedings. These responsibilities would duplicate those already assigned to corporation counsel under CBC §5-8.1, insofar as that section calls upon corporation counsel to advise the divisions of the city on legal matters and to represent them in disputes. Based upon the language of the council's order purporting to establish the new position, we conclude that, as matter of law, the addition of the challenged position of "counsel for the city council" would constitute a reorganization of the office of corporation counsel. Such a reorganization can only occur with the joint approval of the mayor and the council, and the mayor accordingly enjoys veto power over the creation of such a position.

Id. at 545.

In the Superior Court case which preceded the Boston City Council's unsuccessful appeal, the court found that "the duties of Corporation Counsel and those proposed for a private attorney for the Council overlap almost completely ... [including] rendering advice and furnishing legal opinions of law to the City Council." Boston City Council v. Menino, No. CIV.A.0-1267, 2000 WL 744356, *6 (Suffolk Sup. Ct., May 9, 2000) (the "Superior Court Case"). In that case¹ , the Court held that the structure of the City of Boston's municipal charter made it inappropriate for the Boston City Council to retain an attorney to provide legal advice to the Boston City Council when that role was already assigned to the City of Boston's legal department. The Court held that:

[t]he City Charter, as outlined above, mandates a governmental structure organized by departments. The creation of a permanent position or office of Counsel to the City Council disrupts this structure. It puts part of the function of the Law Department in the legislative department and is not lawful.

---

¹ While a decision of the lower court does not have any binding precedential authority, the lower court's decision cited here was upheld on appeal in City Council of Boston v. Mayor of Boston. supra, and is cited for its instructive purpose only in this analysis.

---

The Court went on to further hold that "the establishment of such a position creates a serious potential for confusion and contradiction in the direction of the City's litigation, as well as the potential for disruption of the City's business in the event that the advice rendered differs between each attorney." (Emphasis supplied.) See Boston City Council v. Menino, supra, citing Board of Public Works of Wellesley v. Board of Selectmen of Wellesley, 377 Mass. At 624.

The Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision holding that the Boston City Council did not have the authority under that City's charter to retain legal counsel absent the Mayor's (the executive in the City of Boston) approval to hire such a person. Similarly, in the City of Cambridge, the City Manager is the executive under the City's Plan E Charter. Indeed, under the Plan E Charter, G. L. c. 43, § 104, the City Manager " ... shall make all appointments and removals in the departments, commissions, boards and offices of the city for whose administration he is responsible ... " and under G. L. c. 43, §105 "such officers and employees as the city council, with the advice of the city manager, shall determine are necessary for the proper administration of the departments, commissions, boards and offices of the city for whose administration the city manager is responsible shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the city manager." G. L. c. 43, §§104-105. Thus, in the City of Cambridge, the City Manager, not the City Council, has the authority to appoint outside counsel; however, the City's Ordinances further provide that the City Solicitor serves all of the City's legal functions, and thus, the issue of whether to hire outside counsel in any given situation is within the province of the City Solicitor.

C. An Appropriation for Outside Counsel by the City Council Without the Recommendation and Approval of the City Manager is Unlawful Pursuant to G. L. c. 40, §5.

Pursuant to G. L. c. 40, §5 ("Section 5"), "a town may at any town meeting appropriate money for the exercise of any of its corporate powers; provided, however, that a town shall not appropriate or expend money for any purpose, on any terms, or under any conditions inconsistent with any applicable provision of any general or special law." G. L. c. 40, §5. (Section 5 also applies to cities pursuant to G. L. c. 40, §1 which states that: " ... Except as otherwise expressly provided, cities shall have all the powers of towns and such additional powers as are granted to them by their charters or by general or special law, and all laws relative to towns shall apply to cities." G. L. c. 40, §1). A plain reading of Section 5 dictates that where an appropriation would be inconsistent with a general or special law, said appropriation would be unlawful. Id. In this case, G. L. c. 43, §105 states that: "Such officers and employees as the city council, with the advice of the city manager, shall determine are necessary for the proper administration of the departments, commissions, boards and offices of the city for whose administration the city manager is responsible shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the city manager . . .. " G. L. c. 43, §105. Thus, if the City Council wished to appropriate funds in order to hire outside legal counsel, the City Council may only do so if the City Manager has requested or recommended such an appropriation; otherwise, the appropriation would be unlawful under G. L. c. 43, §105.

III. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN ACHIEVING THE CITY COUNCIL'S GOALS.

A. The Current Circumstances.

The Law Department is aware of and understands the City Council's frustration with respect to its desire to obtain legal assistance on drafting new ordinances and home rule petitions, as well as obtaining legal opinions and advice that is both timely and responsive to the City Council's policy goals. The increase in urgent legal matters that had to be addressed over the last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, compounded by the strain that has been thrust upon the entire City administration as a result of the pandemic, has impacted the ability of the Law Department to timely respond to all requests. For example, the Law Department has prepared a significantly increased volume of Council Order responses in recent months: in 2020, the Law Department submitted 102 Council Order responses, an increase of more than 175% when compared to 2019.

Despite these challenges, the Law Department has continued, as always, to provide high quality legal representation to the City. The Law Department is committed to providing both the level of service and the reasonable timeliness in its responses to which the City Council is entitled. However, it is not possible, legally or ethically, to provide independent legal counsel to the City Council that would not be under the direction of and reporting to the City Solicitor for the reasons set forth above. It could lead to "dualling lawyers", representing different components of the same client - the City of Cambridge - a situation which "creates a serious potential for confusion and contradiction in the direction of the City's litigation, as well as the potential for disruption of the City's business in the event that the advice rendered differs between each attorney." Boston City Council v. Menino, supra.

In addition, as a practical matter, the City Solicitor and those who report to her must gather information from various City departments in order to learn the existing operational implications of the area of law in question prior to responding to a request from the City Council concerning the legality of proposed legislation. For instance, a proposed change to the City's Zoning Ordinance would, at minimum, require that the Law Department consult with the Inspectional Services Department ("lSD") to learn whether the type of activity the proposed change in the ordinance seeks to allow is already permitted as an accessory use in some circumstances, and to learn whether the department that enforces the ordinance, such as ISD for the Zoning Ordinance, would be able to interpret the proposed language in a way that is consistent with the desired result. Because the City Solicitor is the attorney who represents all City departments, boards and commissions in all legal matters affecting the City, any proposed outside attorney would be required to consult with and/or report to the City Solicitor, who would in turn be working with other City Departments in responding to the Council Order. This would not likely make it possible to provide responses to the City Council more quickly and it could moreover create confusion and disruption to the City's business as described above.

It is therefore essential that we find a solution that meets the City Council's objectives while doing so legally, transparently, and productively, and I believe we can do so as described below.

B. Proposed Staffing Solutions.

I have recommended to the City Manager the following procedure. The City Solicitor will appoint an attorney in the City Solicitor's as the main point of contact so that City Councilors will be able to make contact with someone in the Law Department at all times and get timely responses as to the status of work. The City Solicitor and Deputy City Solicitor will also continue to be available to City Councilors with respect to questions as to Conflicts of Interest Laws, Open Meeting Law, and other procedural questions.

With respect to specific work assignments, the procedure will be as follows. After the City Council has voted upon a Council Order, it is referred to the City Solicitor and possibly to other City Departments, given that many Council Orders have compound components and require input from a number of departments. Thus, when the Council Order is assigned to the Law Department, it will be immediately assigned to a specific Assistant City Solicitor, and the Assistant City Solicitor who is assigned to the matter will contact both other relevant City Departments as well as the sponsor(s) of the Council Order or, if it has simultaneously been referred to a Council Committee for consideration, the Chair(s) of that Council Committee, and will establish a projected timeline that is timely and responsive to addressing the policy goals to be accomplished in responding to the Council Order. The appointed point of contact in the Law Department will also be available to confer with City Councilors who have questions.

Recently the Law Department has had some vacancies, which are presently being filled, and new positions are also being added to the Law Department. As the Law Department becomes fully staffed, including with new attorneys, we will better be able to provide the expeditious responses that the City Council desires. In addition to having a main point of contact appointed in the Law Department, we also commit to having the Assistant City Solicitors dedicate a greater percentage of their time to Council Order responses in order to make sure we have measurably more resources dedicated to getting City Council work done.

IV. CONCLUSION.

For the reasons outlined above, I am of the opinion that the City Council's request for an appropriation to hire outside legal counsel violates the general laws of this Commonwealth, the City's Plan E Charter, and the City's Ordinances. However, with respect to the City Council's legitimate request for obtaining legal assistance with drafting of new ordinances and home rule petitions, as well as obtaining legal opinions and other legal advice, I believe the proposed recommended responsive and collaborative measures outlined above will enable the Law Department to assist the City Council in achieving its desired goals.

Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Glowa
City Solicitor

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Apr 26, 2021  Amended
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge declared a climate emergency in 2009; and
WHEREAS: A 2021 report showed that the world’s 60 largest banks have invested $3.8 trillion in fossil fuels since the 2015 Paris Agreement; and
WHEREAS: Knowing the dangerous of the climate crisis and the history that fossil fuel companies have in hiding the damage of climate change, the City of Cambridge cannot in good faith invest tax-payer dollars in those companies; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council has long supported divesting from fossil fuels; the Council passed policy orders in 2013 and 2017 calling for the Cambridge Retirement Board to Divest, and after a report from the Board stating that Divestment is not yet legal, the Council passed a resolution in support of H.3662, which would authorize independent retirement systems to divest from fossil fuel companies and remains in committee; and
WHEREAS: Private prisons helped to create the rise of mass incarceration, and the City of Cambridge cannot in good faith invest tax-payer dollars in an industry that profits from rising incarceration rates; and
WHEREAS: According to the ACLU study “Banking on Bondage,” incarceration is at record levels in the United States, draining the resources of governments, communities, and taxpayers, while the private prison industry, which now holds 16% of U.S. prisoners, has “seen a gigantic windfall” in recent years; and
WHEREAS: A 2012 Supreme Court case ruled that inmates in private prisons, where a disproportionate number of inmates are Black, are not afforded the same rights as federally-run prisons; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge residents should have the right to know that their city’s funds are not being placed in the hands of any money manager or bank that has exposure to the fossil fuel or private prison industry; and
WHEREAS: While strict State Laws (see Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 32, Section 23) dictate what the Cambridge Retirement Board is allowed to invest in or divest from, municipalities’ direct investment funds are subject to different State Laws (see Massachusetts General Law Chapter 44, Section 55) which do not have the same parameters and allow for more leeway in what municipalities can and cannot invest in; and
WHEREAS: The State of Massachusetts list of acceptable investments for municipalities allows investments in companies counter to Cambridge values, including Altria, a tobacco company, Kentucky Utilities Company, whose energy is produced using 80-90% coal, and Bank of America, which despite policies on declining future investments in private prisons and limiting fossil fuel funding has one of the largest fossil fuel portfolios of any bank ($42 billion in 2020); and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Municipal Depository Trust [MMDT] offers municipalities pools of investment that are also allowed by the State, yet includes offerings that fund the fossil fuel industry with 2.5% in energy companies including pipeline builder Kinder Morgan, another 3.1% in utilities including fossil fuel companies, and banking institutions invested in fossil fuels; and
WHEREAS: The Budget Department already seeks to use only local banks when investing CDs and other funds, yet has no policy on avoiding banks that fund the fossil fuel sector or private prisons; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge Budget Book Investment Policy states, in Section III, page 19, “This [investment] policy shall be reviewed during the City’s Annual Budget and Public Investment Program process,” and the budget adoption process will begin over the next month; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to add the following to the City of Cambridge Budget Book Investment Policy:

The City will work to ensure that no investment of City funds shall be made with banks, money managers, or investment portfolios that have any exposure to fossil fuels or private prisons.

For any municipal funds that are invested directly, the Auditor shall use Carbon Underground 200 to evaluate whether a company is engaged in the business of fossil fuels such that investment in that company would be prohibited under this budget policy; and be it further

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council during the 2021 budget hearing process with a timeline on implementation that shall be no more than six months from the enactment of this Policy Order.

O-2     Apr 26, 2021
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Umberto “Roland” Farinato was born in 1947 in East Cambridge, where he grew up to become a leader and role model in the community; and
WHEREAS: Roland was the son of Joseph and Clelia (Capamaccio) Farinato, father to Danielle Farinato and her husband Orlando Jaquez and brother to Frances Salgado; and
WHEREAS: After earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mathematics from Boston College, Roland brought his passion for the discipline back to Cambridge where he taught scores of students including Eric Cornell, who thanked him for helping ignite the initial “spark” after receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics; and
WHEREAS: In retirement, Roland was active in service and faith in Cambridge, contributing his time and energy to the Salvation Army and the SS. Cosmas and Damian Society, which named him 2003’s “Man of the Year” for helping orchestrate the group’s yearly feast honoring the patron saints of Roland’s beloved ancestral homeland of Gaeta, Italy; and
WHEREAS: Even after contracting COVID-19 last spring, Roland spent his final weeks in service to others, counseling and supporting many who were at risk of sliding back into addictive behavior during the early isolating days of the pandemic; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request from Danielle Farinato and Orlando Jaquez for a bench dedication as close as possible to 124 Thorndike Street—if at a park, either Hurley or Silva—or else in the vicinity of the SS. Cosmas and Damian Society on Porter Street; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward this order to the Dedication Committee for their review and approval.

O-3     Apr 26, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Envision Cambridge includes the following goals:

• Racial Justice: End race-based disparities and achieve racial equity

• Affordable Housing: Maintain and expand affordable rental and homeownership opportunities to enable Cambridge to thrive as a mixed-income community that includes very low-, low-, moderate, and middle-income individuals and families.

• Housing Stability: Support the ability for current Cambridge residents and families to remain in Cambridge and contribute to the community.

WHEREAS: Affordable housing is key to supporting and maintaining an ethnically and economically diverse community; and
WHEREAS: We acknowledge that our city is challenged to maintain an ethnically diverse community because of historic discrimination against Black and Brown people by federal, state and local agencies; and
WHEREAS: These racially discriminatory practices denied them access to the housing market; and
WHEREAS: We acknowledge that this discrimination continues to have social, economic, and educational ramifications on the health of our city and our citizens; and
WHEREAS: Increasing the availability of housing that increases affordable ownership opportunities for families denied such opportunities in the past because of their race is a major community need and remains a primary goal of the City Council; and
WHEREAS: The city’s current stock of affordable homeownership units is about 500, or roughly 1% of the total housing stock; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to present a plan to the City Council to increase the affordable homeownership stock over the next 10 years by financing the construction of affordable homeownership units through a bond issue of no less than $500 million; and be it further
ORDERED: That the units funded by this bond issue be made available preferentially to first generation, first time home buyers who grew up in Cambridge, so as to maximize the potential for redressing past racial discrimination; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back prior to the relevant FY22 budget hearings.

O-4     Apr 26, 2021
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: Christine Ann Quinn was born in 1948 in East Cambridge and raised there and in Washington Elms; and
WHEREAS: Christine served Cambridge for over 30 years as a public-school assistant and then teacher at the Harrington School (now King Open School) until her retirement in 2004; and
WHEREAS: Christine was the first of her family to go to college, earning her bachelor’s degree from Wheelock College and her master’s from Lesley University, after which she continued her pursuit of knowledge by attaining 45 additional credits; and
WHEREAS: Christine was a role model to her colleagues, fellow teachers, students, and friends, and fully embodied Cambridge's motto "Literis Antiquis Institutis Decora"—"distinguished for classical learning"; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request from Ashley Quinn Sheplak for a bench dedication in the vicinity of King Open School, Warren Street, or Washington Elms in honor of Christine Ann Quinn; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward this order to the Dedication Committee for their review and approval.

O-5     Apr 26, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City Council received a full inventory of the Cambridge Police Department on July 27, 2020; and
WHEREAS: The inventory includes many assault rifles and shotguns, as well as a Lenco Bearcat armored vehicle; and
WHEREAS: The Lenco Bearcat armored vehicle has been used to intimidate peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters; and
WHEREAS: On Jan 6, 2021 the Public Safety Committee heard from community members and subject matter experts, who argued that there is no credible benefit to the Police Department having this type of military-grade equipment, and that its presence does ongoing harm to the community; and
WHEREAS: On Feb 19, 2021 the Police Department announced it would eliminate camouflage materials and reduce its weapon inventory by 20-30%, a concession that does not go far enough to address the calls to demilitarize the police; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Cambridge Police Department to present a plan to the City Council for demilitarization, including the destruction and recycling of all rifles and shotguns, and elimination of the Lenco Bearcat; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to present a response to the City Council ahead of the relevant upcoming FY22 budget hearings.

O-7     Apr 26, 2021
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The City of Boston is considering further extending its paid parental leave policy for its employees to those who have experienced a loss of pregnancy; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge’s Parental Leave Policy currently provides that eligible employees regardless of gender who have been actively employed for 3 continuous months may take up to a 24-week leave of absence for the purpose of recovering from pregnancy/childbirth and caring for their newborn or newly adopted/placed child or children , including 8 weeks of paid parental leave after a natural birth by any method, adoption or foster placement of a child, surrogacy, or stillbirth; and
WHEREAS: Under current policy, employees dealing with the loss of a pregnancy due to miscarriage or termination would have to utilize bereavement, vacation, or sick time to receive the care and time they need to heal; and
WHEREAS: It’s important for the City to support its employees undergoing great personal loss and hardship due to a miscarriage, termination, or instances involving dilation and extraction; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Director of Personnel and the Law Department on updating the City of Cambridge’s Parental Leave Policy for City of Cambridge employees and report back to the City Council on this matter as soon as possible.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Housing Committee will conduct a public hearing to receive updates from the Community Development Department, the Cambridge Housing Authority, Homeowners Rehab, Inc., and Just-A-Start on the work they are currently engaged in, and the impact of the continuing Covid-19 pandemic upon their operations.

Date: Tues, Jan 12, 2021, 1:00pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Simmons (Co-Chair), Sobrinho-Wheeler (Co-Chair), McGovern, Zondervan, Mallon
Absent: None
Also Present: Siddiqui

I. Discussion

A communication was received from Mike Johnston, Cambridge Housing Authority, presenting a presentation for the Housing Committee Meeting held on Jan 12, 2021.

A communication was received from Carl Nagy-Koechlin, Executive Director, Just-A-Start Corporation, regarding Renderings shared at today's Housing Committee hearing.

A communication was received from Deputy City Clerk, Paula M. Crane, transmitting presentations regarding the Housing Committee Hearing held on Jan 12, 2021.

The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Jan 12, 2021 at 1:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber to receive updates from the Community Development Department, the Cambridge Housing Authority, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc., and Just A Start on the work they are currently engaged in, and the impact of the continuing Covid-19 pandemic upon their operations.

Participating in the hearing via Zoom were Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor Siddiqui; Chris Cotter, Housing Director, Community Development Department (CDD); Maura Pensak, Housing Liaison to the City Manager; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk; Neal Alpert, Aide to Councillor Simmons; Mike Johnston, Executive Director; Margaret Donnelly Moran, Director of Planning & Development, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI); Carl Nagy-Koechlin, Executive Director, Just-A-Start (JAS); Daniel Davis; and Valerie Bonds.

Councillor Simmons read the Governor’s Executive Order regarding remote participation and requested that the Deputy City Clerk call the roll to indicate a quorum for the hearing.

Councillor Simmons read the Call of the Hearing and read prepared Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that he was thinking about the Cambridge Residents Survey that came out a couple of weeks ago where residents were asked what their biggest concern is and the one that they want the City to focus on and 30% of the residents surveyed stated affordable housing. He said that to put that into context, it was almost twice as high as the next highest concern, which is the Covid pandemic. He said that this highlights the impact that housing has on so many people. He said that the work of the affordable housing partners and City staff is incredibly important. He noted that affordable housing is key for social distancing, and because so many of our vulnerable residents live in affordable housing.

Mike Johnston stated that the CHA staff is working remotely. He noted that they had software systems set up and were able to start working remotely due to Covid. He said that he has announced to staff that they will remain status quo at least through the end of March, at which point they will re-assess. He noted that CHA offices are closed to the public. He stated that during the summer months, they were able to go back to regular work orders at the sites and were able to get some work accomplished. He explained that with the increase in Covid numbers, they have gone back to skeleton staffing at sites in order to maintain a presence at sites. They are currently working on emergency work orders only. He said that maintenance staff is working primarily on sanitizing and cleaning common areas and high touch points throughout their buildings. He noted that common spaces remain closed in the buildings. They are working with Food for Free on food distribution. He noted that at the family sites, the USDA had basically stopped providing food. The CHA has been paying to continue food deliveries for December and January and will continue going forward until they see the light at the end of the tunnel. He said that food insecurity is very important issue and many residents need this service. He said that they have started a phone buddy system between elderly residents and CHA staff. He said that CHA has made great strides in trying to ensure that the City of Cambridge has deeply affordable housing stock for the foreseeable future. Mr. Johnston stated that from 2012 to present, the CHA has spent almost half a billion dollars, touching over 2,000 units throughout their portfolio. He said that because of renovations on these 2,000 units, these units will be deeply affordable for the next 30-40 years. He said that there are over 20,000 people on the waiting list for housing.

Mr. Johnston then highlighted information on slides related to the power of housing bonds (ATTACHMENT B) which preserve and create affordable apartments in Cambridge alone. Mr. Johnston summarized that Covid has slowed the work of the CHA down but keeping all of the construction going has been very important and is part of the mission of the CHA. He stated that if the CHA does not meet certain deadlines to get units done, there are significant financial impacts. He said that Covid has been a detriment, and they have worked hard setting up strict Covid protocols separating the construction from the residential side.

Councillor Simmons invited questions from the Committee members.

Councillor Zondervan asked Mr. Johnston to explain the financing mechanisms that are being used, particularly for the Truman Apartments. Mr. Johnston responded that the primary driver of construction for affordable housing is low income housing tax credits. He said that the State of Massachusetts gets about $550 million dollars’ worth of private activity bonds that gives CHA access to tax credits. He said that the State of Massachusetts gets, in total, about $5.5 million dollars of private activity bonds that the CHA, HRI, Just A Start, or other builders all want to get a piece of because with those private activity bonds, you can actually obtain low income housing tax credits which is kind of like free money as long as certain guidelines are met. He said that investors are buying tax credits and they are counting on using those tax credits to offset their profits. He said that there are very strict rules attached. He said that there are two places to get private activity bonds, Mass Housing and Mass Development. He explained that Truman came through Mass Development. He said that Mass Housing had over $1 billion dollars of projects in their pipeline. He said that everyone is fighting to get a piece of the pie which is maybe $400 million. He explained that Truman had a promise for last year, but the CHA had to close by December 31st. He said that the CHA did start notifying residents that because of Covid, they felt that the two-phase approach would not work. He said that if the CHA gave up their slot for tax credits, they may not have been able to get back in the pipeline for 2021, and maybe not for 2022, so they have to grab it when they can and make it work.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked Mr. Johnston if he could explain more about the Truman Apartments relocation process. Mr. Johnston pointed out that the slides that were shown were put together for a Bill that was filed by Congresswoman Clark. He explained that the proposed Bill exempts the work of the CHA or HRI, to exempt some of their housing from the cap so the $550 million dollars that the State gets would not take away from someone else, it would be added to the State cap. He said that it did not pass in Congress and will be refiled this year. He said that they are trying to figure out a way to solve the bottleneck. Regarding relocation, they have been holding units throughout their portfolio at all of the elderly/disabled stock and were planning on units coming back at Millers River. Covid hit and Millers River is not as far along as it was hoped to be. Margaret Donnelly Moran said that the CHA is contracting with the Marriott Residence Suite Hotel in Kendall Square given its proximity to Truman. She said that there is a full kitchen and residents would still be able to continue their meals. She said that they are looking for a handful of people to move there while they wait for either units at Millers River to become available or units at locations where the residents have specified interest in. She said that they did expect more units to be available from Millers River but because they had the two-month stoppage at the beginning of the pandemic, the schedule slipped two months. She explained that they carefully selected where to offer residents interim accommodations with the idea of making the transition as seamless as possible. Mr. Johnston stressed that Truman Apartments is undergoing modernization because HUD deemed the property obsolete. It is beyond its useable life. He said that it is the job of the CHA to make sure that 30 years from now, these properties and units will be serving low income households in the City of Cambridge.

Councillor Simmons asked about the property at 116 Norfolk Street. She said there are currently 37 units. She asked if it is the intention to keep the same population. She said that there is a lot of land at St. Mary’s and she questioned if there is a thought to increasing SRO opportunities on that site. Mr. Johnston stated that they could be studios or small one-bedrooms. He said that the CHA is actively meeting with Ms. Semonoff and CDD staff. He said that CHA believes that it can serve that population and expand and meet the need that the City has for the unhoused or chronically unhoused.

Peter Daly, HRI, stated that his comments are similar to those of Mr. Johnston. He said that Covid has hit hard and they are continuing to do as much as can be done during this time period. He said that HRI is at skeleton staff and only meeting with clients by appointments. He said that the management companies are down to a small number of staff that are doing emergency and non-emergency work. He explained that the biggest focus for HRI is the health and wellbeing of its residents. He said that to date, HRI and their partners have distributed over 12,000 masks. He said that they have distributed $35,000 for emergency rental assistance and have worked with the City and State to help people keep their rental obligations going. They have made 3,000 well-being telephone checks to residents, distributed 1,427 boxes of food to residents, 1,724 meals have been delivered, 115 electronic tablets for doctor’s visits and communication with others, 16 senior residents are receiving regular social calls from volunteers, and the arrangement of socially-distanced events for children. Mr. Daly said that one of the biggest challenges is trying to understand where Covid is in their buildings. He explained that due to HIPAA rules, the only time they found out if there is Covid in one of their buildings is if it is self-reported by a resident. Mr. Daly said that Food For Free has done a fantastic job, but food insecurity appears to be growing. He said that are in regular contact with residents to determine what issues they are having and what other resources they can be plugged into. HRI is asking their management companies to refer residents to the resident service staff. He explained that they are starting to see mental health issues due to the isolation. He said that elderly residents are asking about the Covid vaccine and the possibility to have vaccines available at their buildings. Mr. Daly said that if the City is looking for a production method, HRI can get a lot of people in one building to distribute the vaccines. He noted that his request is to seriously look at the potential to provide on-site vaccinations for the elderly population. As it relates to rent arrearage, Mr. Daly said that they are grateful for City and State resources, but they are continuing to see massive lay-offs taking place and they are grateful to hear that there is $50 billion coming through the stimulus act, and they are working to come up with a streamlined mechanism to get those funds out. Regarding development activity, Mr. Daly said that the biggest project is 808-812 Memorial Drive. This is a three-phase development: garage work, interior rehabs to units, and exterior work. There are 15 accessible units that are planned. Three have been completed and these units will give a great benefit to those in need. He said that this project will continue through next year and will wind down at the end of 2022. He noted that a lot depends on Covid. Mr. Daly said that on Columbia Street, they are working on a three-family house and they are currently going through the insurance process to get the building back in shape. The timetable on that project is unknown. Mr. Daly spoke about CASCAP, which has fallen upon difficult times. He said that their portfolio has been struggling, and they have asked HRI for help. HRI is currently in the process of assessing the needs of that portfolio. He said that they struggled with self-management.

He explained that HRI brought in professional management and is going building by building to find what recapitalization is needed in order to bring the properties back to the level that is necessary. Mr. Daly said that as far as new projects go, they are looking at a lot of buildings and they are finding a lot of owners who feel that AHO is an upzoning for them, and they are entitled to a higher price than regular zoning. HRI is doing everything that they can to make sure that these owners understand that that is not the way it works, that they get base zoning for the value of their property. He stated that HRI is preparing offers on a couple of properties over the next few weeks. Mr. Daly talked about new resources that are coming available, one of which is with the federal government fixing the 4% tax credit. He explained that essentially, 4% does not mean 4%. When working at 808 Memorial Drive, it meant 3.18% which is a difference of $9 million dollars. This was passed as part of the stimulus bill and will bring in an extra resource. He stated that due to the recent election, they feel that there will be more resources coming down from the federal government for housing.

Councillor Simmons said that she would like to extend thanks and appreciation to Mr. Johnston and the CHA for allowing Cambridge use of the Pisani Center for an extended period of time for Covid testing.

Carl Nagy-Koechlin of JAS stated that he appreciates the cooperative and collaborative environment in Cambridge. He said that there has been a lot of footwork, adjusting, and pivoting through the pandemic to maintain their properties, re-start construction, and keep tenants and crews safe. He said that what has been impressive about how JAS and its colleagues is that they operated on three levels: responding to the emergency and stepping up to the needs of tenants and program participants in tangible ways, keeping the pipelines, programs and activities going as best as possible and continuing to move forward longer-term things such as real estate development. Regarding emergency response, Food for Free has been a great partner. He said that they distributed masks to all tenants and households. He said that people are in a bind in terms of staying afloat, and they sprung into action in March and raised $160,000 for the Safe and Secure Fund from local foundations and individuals in Cambridge to quickly deliver relief, usually in increments of $500. He said that in general, this money was used for food, utilities, and was not being used for rent arrearages. He said that the resident services people have been heroic in keeping in touch with residents. He agreed with Mr. Daly’s suggestion to have vaccines delivered on-site. He said that despite the pandemic, they have managed to keep things moving. The project under construction is Squirrelwood in the Broadway area. He said that this is 88 apartments, 23 of which are new construction units. He said that the new units and everything in the pipeline is slated to be to the passive house standard which adds cost but is consistent with the priorities around reducing the carbon footprint. Mr. Nagy-Koechlin presented slides and gave an overview of upcoming projects in the JAS pipeline (ATTACHMENT C) including Broadway Park which is a 15-unit affordable home ownership project.

He then talked about the permitting of the Rindge Commons project, which is a two-phase project on the parking lot of 402 Rindge Tower. There will be 24 apartments and space for education and training programs. He explained that 52 New Street will be around 107 affordable apartments with a substantial number of family-sized apartments. He stated that there is a pipeline in Cambridge of affordable housing development projects that is impressive. He noted that almost all of these projects require funding from the Department of Housing and Community Development. He said that he does get concerned about the pipeline moving along, and that a bottleneck in that pipeline, and the limitations in resources that the state has (as well as rules around how many projects per organization) could really back the City up. He said that the Department of Housing and Community Development is the agency that doles out federal money, so the more that we can get our delegation and get the federal government to ante up and catch up with construction costs and inflation in terms of allocation of tax credits will be important to keep the pipeline moving along.

Chris Cotter stated that Covid has certainly impacted the work, but they have been able to keep most of the work operational. He said that there has been a lot of outreach to residents living in homeownership and inclusionary rental units to inform them of resources that are available, most notably the Housing Stabilization program, which opened the door for a third round of funding. In this round, the City is expected to see an increased number of homeowners living in affordable units. He said that this has been an invaluable resource for residents. As it relates to what is upcoming, Mr. Cotter said that starting with the inclusionary rental housing, the City continues to be very busy with units that are being filled. There are a number of units that are being filled, including on Concord Avenue and Concord Turnpike. He said that they are seeing that they are able to serve smaller households very quickly now. He said that they are preparing to begin to work with the developer and manager to lease up a new building in Kendall Square at 50 Rogers Street called Prism through the inclusionary program. He said that in addition to the standard inclusionary housing for low- and moderate-income households, there will also be middle income units.

He explained that this is the second component of the Mini Street PUD with middle income housing so they will have 26 middle income residential of 1- and 2-bedroom units at that location. He said that the demand numbers that are being seen for middle income households, which is going up to 120% of median, are not at the same level that they see for low and moderate households, so they expect to serve some people that may be applying now for these units. He said that this is a good opportunity and they are trying to get the word out about these new units. As it relates to new offerings coming in home ownership, Mr. Cotter said that they will be increasing the eligibility limit for the HomeBridge Program to 120% of median and they are working on that change now. Mr. Cotter said that they will soon be marketing affordable home ownership units in two new inclusionary buildings outside of Inman Square and outside of Porter Square. He said that this will begin sometime in February as they are putting together the process and detail together. Mr. Cotter said that they are now offering resale units for home ownership. He said that one area that has been hamstrung by Covid is the resale program because they did not have a reliable way to show units without having a lot of interaction with people at the site. He said that over the last couple of months, CDD has put together a new contactless way to conduct resale showings with homebuyer applicants. Applicants have been informed of the changes and have been walked through the new process. He said that there are about 20 units that are at some stage of the process coming through the retail pipeline.

As it relates to development and preservation, Mr. Cotter explained that the most important thing that is going on is the continued work to complete the preservation for the Fresh Pond Apartments. There are 504 units at Fresh Pond. Of those, 338 were preserved last year when the owner entered into a contract for those units with HUD. Since that time, they have worked with the owner to finalize the terms and commitment to preserve the other 166 units. He stated that over the last couple of months they have pulled in CHA and secured enhanced vouchers for those 166 units. He said that most recently, CHA has been meeting with residents to look at individual household eligibility so people can understand what they are eligible for and what choices they have. They are getting updates from CHA about their work over the last month on this issue. CDD will then bring the information to residents to so they understand what choices they have, and they will then be asked to make that choice. From there, they will finalize the terms of the preservation transaction with the owner and also put in place the new use restriction with HUD. This will take another couple of months to come together.

Mr. Cotter said that they are working with developers to finish the Frost Terrace development in Porter Square. He said that there was a deadline for applicants for 40 affordable units that has been extended to Feb 12, 2021. A lottery will take place for these units. As it relates to the plans for 2072 Massachusetts Avenue, there is a pending request for a comprehensive permit before the BZA in early March. He said that CDD is looking at a number of options to create housing for those that are unhoused and coming out of homelessness. Mr. Cotter said that in inclusionary, CDD is now working with a developer to look at the affordable housing components part of the 40 Thorndike Courthouse redevelopment. He stated that this is the one that has 48 affordable units that will have inclusionary-like restrictions in place. They are looking at the affordable component and will expect that to move forward sometime in the next couple of months. Lastly is a study of resident experiences living in inclusionary housing that in underway. Mr. Cotter explained that they brought a consulting team from Case Western Reserve on board last fall, and CDD has been working with them to lay the groundwork on the study. They will be reaching out to residents sometime in February regarding past experiences as well as reaching out to residents in non-inclusionary affordable housing. He said that this is about a year-long study.

Maura Pensak said that the Housing Stabilization Program has been re-started with a few changes. She said that they are now able to assist people with a mortgage stipend if they are in a home subject to long-term affordability. They have also reduced the rent threshold from 40% to 35%. This offers a deeper subsidy to people. Regarding this program, Ms. Pensak stated that from the Mayor’s Disaster Relief Program to the last iteration and now this third iteration of both proactive funding, it is unique to the City but the proactive funds have served the residents well and have been an incredible resource for residents. She explained that in the first iteration from July through December 2020, the City administered approximately $1.2 million dollars to approximately 40 households and the same is expected in the coming months. She said that people are eligible for up to six months of assistance. She said that the Multi-Service Center team and others have been working to partner with these families if they have arrears to ensure that they are providing these financial resources. Ms. Pensak said that one of the positives that can be seen from this work is that it is pretty clear that the new court actions filed are very low in Cambridge as compared to neighboring communities. Ms. Pensak said that the City did hire a Housing Stabilization Advocate who has been meeting with some of the City’s most vulnerable tenants. She said that it has been a challenge with Covid to ensure that the City is doing the hands-on work while taking extra precautions and following safety protocol. She highlighted the need for deeply affordable housing.

Councillor McGovern stated that it would be helpful to get a list of projects, number of units, address, how much is being invested, and when units are coming online from all of the organizations that do this important work, as there is a lot happening. He said that if this information could be in one spot that could be shared with people, it would be extremely beneficial. He said that he appreciates the tremendous amount of work that is being done and the effort by all. Councillor Simmons said that it would be helpful to add the population served to the request of Councillor McGovern.

Vice Mayor Mallon thanked all those present for the amazing snapshot of what is happening in the City. She said that as of last week, Frost Terrace received almost 300 completed applications for 49 units. She said that for Finch’s 100 units, they have received over 2,000 applications. She said that the need is tremendous, and it is imperative to get some of these affordable units online as quickly as possible. She said that she concurs with Councillor Simmons to put forward a Motion from this meeting to have the City and the Public Health Department directly work with the CBOs here this evening. She said that she would like to see Covid vaccinations onsite at elderly buildings. She said that in Mr. Daly’s presentation, he mentioned that he is working on a streamlined version of rental assistance and trying to get the Governor to approve those so that all the money is coming in from the latest federal assistance package is not dumped into RAFT. She asked him if there is there is anything that the City Council or the Housing Committee can do to help support this effort. Mr. Daly responded that this is at an early stage and currently they are trying to see if it gets any legs. He said we are not at the stage where additional pressure from the City Council is needed, and that he will get back to the committee with updates as this develops. He said that the good news is that the Governor is strongly committed to getting this money out. Vice Mayor Mallon said that RAFT has not been infused into the community as quickly as it is needed and anything that can be done to expedite this process is imperative.

Councillor Simmons then opened the hearing to public comment.

Daniel Davis, Chauncy Street, talked about housed and unhoused residents. Councillor Simmons instructed Mr. Davis that the Call of this hearing is with community-based organizations on their work and the impact of the continuing Covid 19 pandemic upon their operations and instructed him that his remarks must fall under this Call. Mr. Davis yielded his time.

Valerie Bonds read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT D) regarding issues with contractors adhering to proper Covid 19 safety protocols and guidelines.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a motion to close Public Comment.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEA: Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mallon, McGovern, Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
and Public Comment was closed.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that another piece that has come through the Legislature in the past week or so as part of the Housing Choices and Economic Development Bill is the Tenants Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) component. He said that he is curious if affordable housing partners or City staff has started to think about this and its potential implications. Mr. Cotter responded he is less familiar with the TOPA component. He said that the TOPA piece is interesting as it was added in at a later point and it has been successful. He said that one of things that has been seen as successful in the distant past is working with residents to purchase buildings through non-profits and other things. He said that there certainly could be value there if we can connect tenants with affordable housing providers if they have that opportunity.

Councillor Zondervan said that he is dismayed and disappointed to hear that the AHO is causing a rise in the price of land, as that’s one of the concerns that we have. He said that it is a market-based mechanism that can have this effect. He said that he hopes that the committee will be updated going forward on whether or not this continues or if we are able to acquire more land. He said that it also speaks to the need for the City to use its purchasing power to continue to acquire land and build more housing. He said that he has heard today that a lot of the federal programs and bonds, etc. have become terribly complicated and very limited and puts a lot of challenges on the organizations and the tenants to work within those constraints. He echoed Councillor McGovern’s request for a written update so that the City Council can keep up with all of the great work that is being done. As it relates to Eversource and the issues with some of their projects, Councillor Zondervan asked Carl Nagy-Koechlin of Just A Start if these issues have been remedied. Mr. Nagy-Koechlin responded that the issue has not been resolved when he last spoke with the Project Manager on the issues.

As it relates to the Affordable Housing Overlay, Carl Nagy-Koechlin said that it is important to say that an asking price and a sale price are two different things. He said that there is a finite universe of people playing in this market and sometimes the best approach is to walk away. He said that it is not surprising that there is the inflated sense about what things are worth. Peter Daly said that it is better to be patient than to pay more than a property is worth.

Mike Johnston stated that he appreciates Mr. Daly bringing up the subject of vaccines. He suggested that it is important to start getting a coordinated message out now to residents. There are residents that are saying that they are reluctant to have the vaccine, and some type of coordinated PR would be beneficial so that everyone could be sharing the same message. He said that people get confused and then do not trust the information they’re hearing. He said that it is important to get that coordinated PR out quickly. Councillor Simmons said that she will work with Mayor Siddiqui and Vice Mayor Mallon to develop a Policy Order to support this effort for a coordinated message. She said that the effort and intent is heard.

Councillor Simmons made the following motion:
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Public Health Department has spoke of its intention to reach out to underrepresented groups in Cambridge to ensure they are vaccinated in due order; and
WHEREAS: The Affordable Housing Providers of Cambridge have acknowledged a desire to assist the City with reaching out to their residents, particularly their senior residents, in establishing a firm plan of action to getting them vaccinated; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Public Health department and the affordable housing CBOs to develop a plan to reach out to the city’s senior population, as well as to our minority communities and our underrepresented communities, that will establish a framework for the orderly vaccination of these groups.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that the conversation was around onsite vaccination. She asked if something in the order can signify same. Councillor Simmons suggested adding the words “on site vaccination plan” in the last paragraph. The amended motion read as follows:
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Public Health Department has spoken of its intention to reach out to underrepresented groups in Cambridge to ensure they are vaccinated in due order; and
WHEREAS: The Affordable Housing Providers of Cambridge have acknowledged a desire to assist the City with reaching out to their residents, particularly their senior residents, in establishing a firm plan of action to getting them vaccinated; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Public Health department and the affordable housing CBOs to develop an onsite vaccination plan to reach out to the city’s senior population, as well as to our minority communities and our underrepresented communities, that will establish a framework for the orderly vaccination of these groups.

Councillor Simmons stated that this motion will be submitted as a Policy Order for the next City Council meeting.

Councillor Simmons stated that there was also a request by Councillor McGovern that the CBOs provide the City Council with a report on all the housing programs that are being developed to include populations served, address and location, number of units, cost, and date of completion.

Councillor Simmons stated that this will also be submitted as a Policy Order for the next regular City Council meeting.

Councillor Simmons thanked all those present for their work.

Councillor McGovern made a motion to adjourn the hearing.
The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEA: Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mallon, McGovern, Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
and the hearing was adjourned.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, Co-Chair