CITY MANAGER’S AGENDA
1. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $37,750,000 to provide funds for various water pollution abatement projects, including construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the City's Agassiz Neighborhood, Alewife Watershed, Area IV Neighborhood, and Harvard Square areas as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program.
Passed to 2nd Reading

May 4, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $37,750,000 to provide funds for various water pollution abatement projects, including construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the City's Agassiz Neighborhood, Alewife Watershed, Area IV Neighborhood, and Harvard Square areas as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program. This order is being submitted for the May 4, 2015 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on June 1, 2015, which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY16 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on May 4, 2015, this will allow the City to comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on June 1, 2015. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY16 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY16 Capital Budget is scheduled for May 14, 2015.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

---

Agenda Item No. 1A     May 4, 2015
ORDERED: That $37,750,000 is appropriated, in addition to any amounts previously appropriated, for the purpose of financing the design and construction of various water pollution abatement projects, including but not limited to:

Construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the Agassiz Neighborhood, Alewife Watershed, Area IV Neighborhood, and Harvard Square areas as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program.

including without limitation all costs thereof as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 29C of the General Laws; that to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $37,750,000 and issue bonds or notes therefore under G.L. c.44 and/or Chapter 29C of the General Laws or any other enabling authority; that such bonds or notes shall be general obligations of the City unless the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager determines that they should be issued as limited obligations and may be secured by local system revenues as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 29C; that the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow all or a portion of such amount from the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust established pursuant to Chapter 29C or the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and in connection therewith to enter into a loan agreement and/or a security agreement and/or financial assistance agreement with the Trust or the Authority and otherwise to contract with the Trust and the Authority and the Department of Environmental Protection with respect to such loan and for any federal or state aid available for the projects or for the financing thereof; and that the City Manager or any other authorized City official is authorized to enter into a project regulatory agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection, to expend all funds available for the projects and to take any other action necessary to carry out the projects.

2. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,000,000 to provide funds for a Comprehensive Facilities Improvement Plan.
Passed to 2nd Reading

May 4, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,000,000 to provide funds for a Comprehensive Facilities Improvement Plan. The City is working to develop performance metrics and targets for its building systems, including mechanical systems, accessibility, life safety, building envelope, and energy performance. Buildings will be prioritized for capital improvements. This order is being submitted for the May 4, 2015 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on June 1, 2015 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY16 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on May 4, 2015, this will allow the City to comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on June 1, 2015. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY16 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY16 Capital Budget is scheduled for May 14, 2015.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

---

Agenda Item No. 2A     May 4, 2015
ORDERED: That $5,000,000 is appropriated, in addition to any amounts previously appropriated, for the purpose of planning and financing building renovations, including but not limited to the following projects:

Comprehensive Facilities Improvement Plan

Consultant services to develop performance metrics and targets for its building systems, including mechanical systems, accessibility, life safety, building envelope, and energy performance. Buildings will be prioritized for capital improvements

and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $5,000,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

3. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,600,000 to provide funds for surface improvements to the Harvard Square area including Eliot Street, Eliot Plaza, Brattle Street, and Brattle Plaza.
Passed to 2nd Reading

May 4, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,600,000 to provide funds for surface improvements to the Harvard Square area including Eliot Street, Eliot Plaza, Brattle Street, and Brattle Plaza. Renovation design will also be incorporated at the Out of Town News kiosk and the adjacent plaza in Harvard Square. This order is being submitted for the May 4, 2015 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on June 1, 2015 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY16 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on May 4, 2015, this will allow the City to comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on June 1, 2015. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY16 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY16 Capital Budget is scheduled for May 14, 2015.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

---

Agenda Item No. 3A     May 4, 2015
ORDERED: That $4,600,000 is appropriated, in addition to any amounts previously appropriated, for the purpose of financing surface improvements to the Harvard Square area, including Eliot Street, Eliot Plaza, Brattle Street, and Brattle Plaza. Renovation design will also be incorporated at the Out of Town News kiosk and the adjacent plaza in Harvard Square; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $4,600,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

4. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $150,000 to provide funds for the purchase and installation of mechanical components to ensure the operational integrity of the elevator at the Robert W. Healy Public Safety Facility.
Passed to 2nd Reading

May 4, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $150,000 to provide funds for the purchase and installation of mechanical components to ensure the operational integrity of the elevator at the Robert W. Healy Public Safety Facility. This order is being submitted for the May 4, 2015 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on June 1, 2015 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY16 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on May 4, 2015, this will allow the City to comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on June 1, 2015. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY16 Submitted Budget for additional information on this project. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY16 Capital Budget is scheduled for May 14, 2015.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

---

Agenda Item No. 4A     May 4, 2015
ORDERED: That $150,000 is appropriated, for the purpose of financing the purchase and installation of mechanical components for the elevators at the Robert W. Healy Public Safety Facility; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $150,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

5. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $15,700,000 to provide funds for various School building infrastructure projects including the design and construction for the King Open/Cambridge Street School and Community Complex, roof replacement at the Kennedy Longfellow School, and a new boiler at the Fletcher Maynard Academy.
Passed to 2nd Reading

May 4, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $15,700,000 to provide funds for various School building infrastructure projects including the design and construction for the King Open/Cambridge Street School and Community Complex, roof replacement at the Kennedy Longfellow School, and a new boiler at the Fletcher Maynard Academy. This order is being submitted for the May 4, 2015 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on June 1, 2015 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY16 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on May 4, 2015, this will allow the City to comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on June 1, 2015. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY16 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY16 Capital Budget is scheduled for May 14, 2015.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

---

Agenda Item No. 5A     May 4, 2015
ORDERED: That $15,700,000 is appropriated, for the purpose of financing building renovations, including but not limited to, the following projects:

Design and reconstruction of the King Open/ Cambridge Street Upper School and Community Complex;
Roof Replacement at the Kennedy Longfellow School; and
Boiler Replacement at the Fletcher Maynard Academy

and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $15,700,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

6. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks.
Passed to 2nd Reading

May 4, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks. This order is being submitted for the May 4, 2015 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on June 1, 2015, which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY16 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on May 4, 2015, this will allow the City to comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on June 1, 2015. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY16 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY16 Capital Budget is scheduled for May 14, 2015.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

---

Agenda Item No. 6A     May 4, 2015
ORDERED: That $4,000,000 is appropriated for the purpose of financing the repair and/or reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $4,000,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

10. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $6,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account to facilitate necessary initial capital improvements to the Foundry building consistent with City Council Policy Order O-16 adopted on Mar 17, 2014, and to support the reuse of the building according to the vision and objectives identified through a robust community process.
Referred to May 4 Hearing (this meeting)

May 4, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $6,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account to facilitate necessary initial capital improvements to the Foundry building consistent with City Council Policy Order O-16 adopted on Mar 17, 2014, and to support the reuse of the building according to the vision and objectives identified through a robust community process.

Funds will be used for initial capital improvements to the building to help meet code and accessibility requirements and represents the estimated cost of internal demolition; upgrades to entrances and egresses; elevator; toilets and plumbing; fire and sprinkler system; and exterior walls and insulation. Demolition is expected to start in June 2015.

It is anticipated that a separate development entity will fund the remaining building improvements through a sublease with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

11. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a proposed framework for your consideration concerning the goal of setting Cambridge on the trajectory to becoming a "net zero community", with focus on carbon emissions from building operations.
Referred to Health & Environment Committee

May 4, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am submitting a proposed framework for your consideration concerning the goal of setting Cambridge on the trajectory to becoming a "net zero community", with focus on carbon emissions from building operations.

The proposed framework is the result of a collaborative stakeholder process with the City's Getting to Net Zero Task Force which, over the course of the last 15 months, sought to respond to the need to reduce the carbon footprint of the city's built environment and map out an aggressive course to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Task Force, with support from city staff and members of the consultant team, have worked with stakeholders including the public, local institutions and businesses, and advocacy groups, to ensure a collaborative and inclusive process. The result of this process is the development of a vetted 25-year action strategy that sets the foundation for ongoing governance and collaboration among all sectors of our community, leading the City to our climate goals.

The Task Force advises the City to endorse a recommended set of actions and a process that engages stakeholders over time. The proposed set of actions are comprehensive, practical, implementable, and at the same time bold in their vision.

An executive summary of the proposed set of actions is attached including a letter submission from members of the Compact for a Sustainable Future as well as a detailed action plan for further reference regarding the proposed actions (Appendix G).

Should the Council endorse the recommended set of actions and stakeholder engagement process, it would enable the city and the community to plan more effectively to get Cambridge on the path to net zero. Further, endorsement would advance Cambridge's role as a regional and national leader in climate action and be a model for other communities.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Civic Unity Committee held a public hearing on Apr 7, 2015 beginning 5:34pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

Present at the hearing were Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Marc McGovern; Vice Mayor Benzan; Councillor Leland Cheung; Richard C. Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Robert Haas, Police Commissioner; Chris Burke, Superintendent; Chris Elow, Deputy Superintendent, Cambridge Police Department; Sheila Keady Rawson, Personnel Director; Duane Brown, Affirmative Action Director; Christina Giacobbe, Director of Emergency Communications; Michelle Farnum, Assistant Director of Children, Youth and Families, Human Services Department; Iram Farooq, Acting Deputy Director, Community Development Department; Taha Jennings, Assistant to the City Manager; Andrea Spears Jackson, Chair of the License Commission; Neal Alpert; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Marie Killackey, Sylvia Barnes, Carol Cheung, Yola Dubois, and John Hawkinson.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and explained the agenda for the hearing. (Attachment A). She reminded attendees that a quorum of two committee members is required for the meeting to formally stay in session, and that the meeting would need to be adjourned at 7 pm if another member of the Civic Unity Committee did not arrive by the time that Councillor McGovern exits to attend a prior commitment at that time. She then gave opening remarks and read from a prepared statement. (Attachment B). Councillor Simmons then opened the meeting asking if anyone would like to participate in public comment at 5:42pm. Hearing none, public comment was closed at 5:42p.m. Councillor Simmons introduced Richard Rossi and asked him for opening comments.

Mr. Rossi opened his remarks by providing some context and history, harkening back to hearings that were held in the summer of 2013 wherein Councillor Simmons and other councillors expressed concerns, ideas, and suggested improvements that could be made by the City in the arena of diversity and fairness. He noted that he and his staff were asked to formulate plans around these issues. Mr. Rossi explained that he and Ms. Peterson began the process by addressing all department heads to explain the goals of the administration. He explained that they reinforced the importance of fairness and equity in the workplace and urged department heads to read the book entitled Blind Spot, which speaks to the hidden biases that we all have. He asserted that this book is valuable in resonating with people and underscoring why these are good conversations to have. He stated that he directed all department heads to read the meeting minutes of previous Civic Unity Committee meetings addressing the subject of fairness and equity. He stated that department heads were urged to address workplace conflicts early, before they became larger problems. He added that when addressing department heads they stressed the key tenants of having a workforce that is culturally aware. He stated that the administration emphasized the use of diverse screening panels in the hiring process, and advised that the administration has worked with the Personnel Department on recruitment strategies. He stated that the City has increased the pool of diverse candidates in hiring. He stated that he takes every opportunity to talk to department heads about being good leaders and setting the pace on how to be a good leader and how to treat one another in the work place. He stated that as a follow-up to a previous suggestion by Councillor Simmons, he and Lisa Peterson have visited most of the city departments and spoken to staff to explain their vision of the city, as well as their expectations of city staff. He stated that they talked about diversity and what can happen when small squabbles turn into larger issues. He urged department heads to be proactive to set the pulse and tone of city departments. Mr. Rossi explained that the administration made it very clear to employees that he and the Deputy City Manager would be available to employees to meet with individual employees in the event that they felt that issues were not being dealt with appropriately in their respective department. He stated that there have been instances where he has met with employees who had concerns and, through informal procedures, they were able to resolve some issues that were troubling to the employees. Mr. Rossi noted that the City uses outside mediation when appropriate. He affirmed that there are changes being made to the Employee Handbook based on feedback from employees. Mr. Rossi noted that the administration has encouraged departments to cross train their employees at good skills development and lessons that are of value to all. He noted that exit interviews are taking place and asserted that these interviews provide valuable information.

Mr. Rossi explained that the city administration has discussed different options when thinking about promotions within the Police Department. He stated that there is now the opportunity for command staff promotional candidates to be evaluated in many areas. He stated that the basis for promotions is not only focused on what a candidate can memorize. He noted that he is working with the Police Commissioner in his efforts to make the upper leadership promotional process more meaningful with the hope that they can positively engage the unions in these discussions. Mr. Rossi stated that he was proud to read an article in the Associated Press that was published in September which stated that Cambridge was noted as one of the most racially balanced police departments in the country and the only one noted in the Northeast.

Ms. Peterson stated that building a culturally competent workforce is critical for the city's goal of delivering excellent services. She stated that ongoing training and dialogue is key. Ms. Peterson highlighted some department specific training which were new initiatives since 2013:

Department of Human Services Programs (DHSP)/Community Engagement Team. Ms. Peterson stated that this team has expanded its training. She stated that the training was designed in FY14 and piloted in FY15. She stated that a primary goal for the training is to support Cambridge in continuing to be a model for effective and culturally inclusive community engagement.

Council on Aging: Cambridge Elder Abuse Prevention Coalition. Ms. Peterson stated that the Council on Aging took the lead in convening this Coalition. She stated that it is a community based team of organizations and individuals committed to providing staff training and public education, outreach and resources to prevent and respond to abuse, neglect, fraud and financial exploitation of all seniors in Cambridge. She noted that the focus is on public education regarding the notion that "Domestic Violence does not end at age 60." She stated that the Coalition will also be looking at same-sex relationship in regards to intimate partner abuse in elders.

Department of Human Services Inclusion Initiative. Ms. Peterson stated that the Inclusion Initiative, now staffed by two full-time employees, provides support for DHSP out-of-school-time programs. The addition of the second full-time employee has enabled more focused on-site coaching and modeling for staff and staff trainings on Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Joint Staff Training. Ms. Peterson stated that in 2015 the full-time staff of Cambridge Youth Programs and the Cambridge Police Department Family Service and Community Relations Units participated in a joint training titled "Culturally Proficient Youth Work" facilitated by Dr. Ulric Johnson. She stated that the goals of the workshop were to build awareness and understanding of personal diversity; increase knowledge about the importance of diversity and patterns of inclusion and exclusion in organizations and the broader community; develop a common language and framework for discussing and understanding diversity, inclusion and "isms"; identify the impacts of diversity and inclusion on interpersonal communication, teamwork and organizational success and to prove an opportunity to have a shared experience and enhance relationships across the departments.

Department of Human Services Program Equity and Access Project. Ms. Peterson stated that DHSP has been engaged in a project aimed at examining DHSP's internal process and structures with the goal of increasing access to programs for low-income families and families of color not currently being served by their programs. She stated that staff workgroups have been meeting over the past two years to identify current barriers and create solutions. She stated that one group is focused on building culturally rich organizations and is looking at building out the professional development efforts including the family engagement project, OSST Symposium and program assessment tools.

Department of Human Services Program's race and culture discussions. Ms. Peterson stated that DHSP continues to engage their staff to understand the impact of race, class and culture have on the department in order to create the best possible work environment for all employees and to most fully serve the residents of Cambridge.

Department of Public Works Respect Training. Ms. Peterson stated that the Department of Public Works (DPW) has developed and implemented Respect Training for all DPW employees about creating and sustaining a respectful workplace. She noted that the Teamsters have been a collaborator and a great supporter of this effort as well. She noted that the training specifically addresses how best to handle conflict in the workplace, a commitment to addressing disrespectful behavior immediately and proportionately and the promotion of greater collaboration between the management and the union in dealing with situations as they arise throughout the organization.

Ms. Peterson stated that the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) has been on the forefront of providing training to its personnel around diversity issues, and has also promoted that training outside the sphere of its own agency. She highlighted some examples:

Police Legitimacy/Procedural Justice. Ms. Peterson stated that the CPD was among the very first agencies across the country that developed a training curriculum on Police Legitimacy/Procedural Justice. She stated that Procedural Justice does not only have an external component in terms of how Cambridge police officers treat the public, but an equally important internal component which addressed how they treat one another within the department, with the command staff setting the example.

Fair & Impartial Policing. Ms. Peterson stated that the CPD has led most other police departments in tackling the issue of implicit bias, and promoting a method of enhancing how officers recognize implicit biases that we all possess, as well as promote a greater impartiality, equity, and fairness in how the officers exercise their discretionary authority.

GLBT Training. Ms. Peterson explained that this training curriculum was developed for the entire Cambridge Police Department, and it has promoted a much greater understanding and appreciation for individuals who identify themselves as GLBT. This is an ongoing training practice that is shared with all new employees and has been introduced it to the curriculum at the regional basic recruit training program. The CPD has also introduced this training to the Cambridge Fire Department and the Middlesex County Sheriff's Department.

Supervisory Liability Training. Ms. Peterson stated that more recently, the CPD has introduced a new training block to all of the supervisory personnel which addresses their responsibility toward ensuring a workplace that is respectful to all employees. This training stresses how important it is for all supervisors to maintain a certain standard within the department that is welcoming and respectful to all employees.

Ms. Peterson stated that city wide they are working with GLBT to develop cultural competency training for municipal employees, in particular, promoting understanding and respect regarding the transgender community.

Ms. Peterson noted that as a result of the City Council expanding the training budget in FY15, the city is about to start on a new Cambridge Leadership Initiative. She explained that in its first phase, 100 senior managers in the city will undergo training to ultimately ensure cultural competency at all levels of employees. She noted that this the start of an ongoing training effort on this topic. Mr. Rossi added that this needs to be a continuing effort. He noted the importance of being willing to resolve issues before they become major issues. He added that he and Ms. Peterson attend and support the Employees Diversity Committee, and this is just one way in which they work to show employees that they care.

Duane Brown then gave a brief overview of the City's workforce as of Apr 2, 2015. (Attachment C). He stated that the City's workforce is comprised of 2,452 individuals. Of that figure, 35% are persons of color and 43% are female. He stated that all new hires in all categories include 51% persons of color and 54% female. He stated that there were 143 total promotions from July 1, 2013 to Mar 31, 2015, which include 28% persons of color and 43% female.

In response to a question from Councillor Simmons regarding the inclusion of School Department employees in this data, Mr. Brown stated that the data does not include School Department employees.

Councillor Cheung stated that he would like more detailed information regarding demographics. He stated that he would like individual statistics for the different categories and categories of employment.

Sheila Keady Rawson stated that as it relates to recruitment, there were two focus areas: recruitment of managerial staff and recruitment of public safety personnel. In terms of managerial staff, she noted that she has been charged with making sure that the workforce reflects the diversity of the city. She stated that the City has joined the Professional Development Network which looks at jobs and puts them on several culturally distinct websites including iHispano.com, BlackCareer Network, NAACP JobFinder, WomensCareerChannel.com, Military2Career.com, ProAble,net. AsianCareerNetwork.com and OutProNet.com. She stated that the city has signed up to have an e-mail campaign which will allow the city to send targeted e-mails to let people know of jobs that are available with the City of Cambridge. Ms. Keady Rawson pointed out that there were over 2,000 hits between from January through March on these sites. Ms. Keady Rawson stated that the city has joined the Commonwealth Compact which targets professionals of color who are seeking opportunities in Massachusetts. She stated that Commonwealth Compact has a resume bank wherein the city can list available jobs. She noted that the city regularly places jobs in print in publications such as the Bay State Banner and Bay Windows. She stated that social media is being utilized regularly. She added that job postings are listed on the city's website. Ms. Keady Rawson added that education jobs in the Department of Human Services Program are placed on the School Spring Network. She noted that 20% -30% of the applicants have been persons of color.

Ms. Keady Rawson stated that the Personnel Department works with specific departments such as Finance, the Cambridge Police Department, Community Development and the Department of Public Works to create internship opportunities to provide real-life work experience. She noted that this has been a great way to bring in a diverse number of students to learn about the city. The other area that they have spent a lot of time on is public safety which has been a challenge due to state restrictions. Because there is a residency preference for employment as a police officer in the city, they try to hone in on Cambridge residents who qualify. She stated that Facebook is utilized. She added that the Police Department has created a wonderful recruitment video which is on this site as well. She stated that the Police Department has partnered with the Mayor's Summer Youth Employment Program (MSYEP) to get the word out to graduates of the program. She stated that the Police Department also utilizes its Resource Officers and Community Relations Officers to get the word out through various community groups. She stated that the department hosts a prep course by an independent consultant for Cambridge residents who are taking the police examination. She noted that there are 40-50 people signed up for this course, with 125 signed up for the police examination. She noted that 50% of the exam takers are persons of color and 25% are female.

Ms. Keady Rawson highlighted that the administration has been cognizant of the need to recruit and retain. She stated that the Personnel Department has been granted an additional position that will focus on recruitment, training and staff development. She noted that she is actively recruiting for that position.

Councillor McGovern stated that he and Vice Mayor Benzan recently had the pleasure of attending a performance at the high school which was centered upon the story of a mixed race woman growing up in Cambridge. At the end, many people who spoke talked about diversity and the sense of Cambridge not having issues around race and class. Councillor McGovern stated that as a former School Committee member, he has certainly seen issues around race and class, and that is one of the reasons that he appreciates these conversations. He asked Mr. Rossi about the process if an employee feels that they are being discriminated against by a supervisor or another employee. He stated that he is always worried about people feeling safe to speak up, whether their fears about speaking are based in reality or not, because certainly their perceptions are important. He stated that he has heard that people fear retribution in all places of employment. He questioned what the city does to ensure that its staff feels safe and comfortable. Mr. Rossi responded that he has made clear that there is a process in place, but if an employee does not feel comfortable with the process, they are more than welcome to meet with him or Ms. Peterson. He stated that some employees have asked that their supervisors not be made aware that they have met with him. Mr. Rossi stated that he would discipline any department head that retaliated against an employee.

Councillor McGovern asked if there a sense of how many complaints or issues there were prior to training under the current leadership. Mr. Rossi stated the importance of city employees knowing that he is available to meet with him. Mr. McGovern suggested the possibility of an anonymous survey for city staff to ensure that they feel comfortable with the system currently in place.

Councillor McGovern stated that the School Department has a goal as it relates to diverse hiring. Councillor Simmons added that she believes that the School Department has a 30% diverse hiring goal. Councillor McGovern stated that as it relates to training, follow-up on that training is a key factor. He asked what can be done to ensure that trainings are carried out and then become part of the culture. Ms. Peterson responded that part of the process will be to develop mechanisms to continue the training. She stated that the administration is trying to build a culture with constant reinforcement.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that while recently going through his files at home he came across six letters from the City of Cambridge dating back to 1996 indicating that he did not get a job that he had applied for. He stated that it is incredibly difficult to become employed by the City of Cambridge. He noted that there is a lot of frustration in the community as it relates to not being able to find employment with the city, especially if the applicants are qualified, former students, etc. He stated that there are people who are competent and could be excellent employees, but that these people can't get their foot in the door. He stated that much of his work on the City Council consists of trying to create as many opportunities as possible. He stated that when we put people of color in management positions, they oftentimes find themselves under attack. He questioned if more is expected of them. He stated the importance of ensuring that the city hires persons of color and that they feel supported in their positions. He stated that as it relates to protective services, seeing more people of color in high ranking positions is very important. He stated that the command staff has to reflect the community it serves. He stated that his hope is that Mr. Rossi has taken the steps to ensure that people feel comfortable speaking with him. He added that continuation of training is essential.

Councillor Simmons stated that when thinking about why we have the Civic Unity Committee meetings, what can we learn from what happened in the Monteiro case with the view of trying not to replicate that type of situation again. She stated that this came at the same time that the Executive Department was undergoing transition. She stated that the goal is to learn how to become the Cambridge, the tolerant and progressive community that we say we are. She stated that it is not enough to have diversity, you have to have embedded in the idea of diversity that people feel valued. She said that, even within the Sullivan Chamber during this meeting, there was a diverse group of people, but that this outward diversity was not sufficient, because we might not all feel that we are being treated fairly in our roles. She asked how the city can develop well thought out plans, with measureable goals, to develop an open, fair, and diverse workforce. She stated that it is important to figure out what the city is trying to achieve, and to have an objective, measurable way of determining if we are meeting our ultimate goals. She explained that these conversations are moving toward finding a mission statement that all city departments adhere to. She acknowledged the fact that Mr. Rossi and city leadership have done the type of extraordinary outreach that has not been done in the past. Yet she also stated that this will not be easy work because fairness is very hard to do. She noted the importance of changing the cultural DNA if we are going to be the model that we want to be. She stated that every department, every department head, and even the City Council should receive diversity and cultural competency training.

Councillor Simmons affirmed that strides have been made. She applauded the Department of Human Services Program, the Cambridge Police Department, and the Department of Public Works. She added that diversity has to be a systemic approach. Councillor Simmons noted that the Department of Human Services Program is the most multi-cultural department in the city in terms of people of color.

Councillor Simmons stated that the work of diversifying and increasing fairness must be clear, transparent, ordinary and regular. Mr. Rossi stated the leadership team meets monthly and they in turn share information with their respective department.

Councillor Simmons stated that some questions that need to be answered at the next meeting include:
What is the change we are trying to have?
What is the problem we are trying to solve?
What are some of our best practices?
What do we need to improve?
How do we get there?
How do we maintain it?

Councillor Simmons stated that she would like development of a plan to get to a positive end place. She stated that she would like to hear more about Executive Training. She stated that it is extraordinary that Mr. Rossi and Ms. Peterson have made themselves available to employees, but she stated that some people still have fear and trepidation about exercising the option to speak with them. Councillor Simmons stated that an employee advisory committee that would report to the City Manager could be beneficial. She stated that she looks forward to further discussion on this important topic. She stated that the environment does not get sick overnight, and it will not get healed overnight. She stated the need for clear guidelines and the need for a shared vision and commitment.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that it is a struggle to get more people of color across the board. He stated that while recently visiting Boston City Hall, he was in five different departments and these departments were not a reflection of the communities in Boston. He would like to see the City committed to going out into the community telling residents that they can work for the City if you prepare for our workforce. He stated the need to send positive messages to the community. He asserted that if the City is out front with a positive message, more people will want to apply. He stated that yes, the City of Cambridge wants the very best employees, but that we most likely have these people living right here in Cambridge. He stated that when attending a 2024 Olympic meeting with Mr. Rossi, there was a large group of men in attendance. He explained that there were only four men of color in attendance at that meeting. He pointed out that the problems that we are facing in the city are also problems in other areas of society.

Councillor Simmons stated that fairness is something that we have to work on. She asked Ms. Peterson when the Cambridge Leadership training will take place. Ms. Peterson responded that they are in the process of a hiring consulting firm and trainers and hope that the start of the training will take place this fiscal year. She noted that this is the start of an ongoing training program with topic areas including cultural competence and managing a diverse workforce, leadership styles, communication, consensus building and collaboration, coaching and change management. Councillor Simmons noted that she sees this as an organizational dynamic and questioned how to spread this training further. Ms. Peterson responded that this training is a first step with a goal of reaching all city employees. She noted that this is a substantial and on-going commitment.

Councillor Simmons thanked all those present for their participation.

The meeting adjourned at 7:08pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 22, 2015, beginning at 5:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber, City Hall, 795 Mass. Ave.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussion on the incentive zoning study from the Community Development Department.

Present at the hearing were Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Marc McGovern; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Mayor Maher; Councillor Leland Cheung; Richard C. Rossi, City Manager; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Jeff Roberts, Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Neal Alpert; Mike Connolly; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Kevin Sheehan, Boston Properties; Alexandra Lee, Kendall Square Association; Sarah Gallop, Co-Director, Office of Government and Community Relations, MIT; Kelly Thompson Clark, President and CEO, Chamber of Commerce; Arthur MacEwan, Professor of Economics Emeritus, UMass Boston; John Hawkinson; Hasson Rashid; Michelle Malvesti; and Cheryl Ann Pizza-Zeoli.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and read an opening statement (Attachment A) and gave an overview of the agenda for the meeting (Attachment B). She asked the Community Development Department to review the items that were discussed at the Mar 19, 2015 meeting, and to update the committee with any new information it may have.

Chris Cotter thanked Councillor Simmons for holding this discussion, and he stated that he was pleased with Mr. Seidman's presentation at the Mar 19, 2015 meeting. Mr. Cotter said that Mr. Seidman is present at tonight's meeting to answer any questions that may arise. Mr. Cotter said that the Mar 19th meeting was a very good discussion and there were a number of good questions raised at it. He said that, in preparation for tonight's meeting, the CDD has tried to summarize answers to the questions that came up, and that those are being provided as an FAQ handout sheet at this meeting (Attachment C). He gave a brief summary of same.

Mr. Cotter explained that Incentive Zoning and Inclusionary Zoning are both zoning requirements that promote affordable housing in the city. He stated that Incentive Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1988 and applies to certain non-residential developments and establishes a per square foot rate that is paid to the City to mitigate the impact of new developments on affordable housing. He stated that the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, adopted in 1998, applies to residential development and establishes a set-aside of units within a residential development that must be affordable to low and moderate income households.

Mr. Cotter explained that the Nexus Study for the Incentive Zoning Ordinance recommends updates to the existing incentive requirements. He stated that this study analyzed and quantified the impact of non-residential development on the demand for affordable low, moderate and middle-income housing. He stated that a housing contribution rate to offset these impacts was recommended along with additional updates to the Ordinance. He noted that the Nexus Study has recommended an increase in the contribution rate from the current $4.58 to $10-$12 per square foot, expansion of the uses that would be subject to the ordinance, removal of the special permit trigger which currently limits the applicability of the incentive requirements to projects needing certain special permits, elimination of the 2,500 square foot exemption, continuation of the 30,000 square feet building size threshold, maintenance of a uniform housing rate for all uses and continuation of adjustments to the contribution rate by the Consumer Price Index.

Mr. Cotter stated that most national programs that require housing contributions from commercial development have the same basic structure of assessing a fee on certain types of commercial developments with some variations when looking at the types of projects the fee applies to.

Mr. Cotter stated that the Nexus Study by Mr. Seidman examined only the housing needs created by new non-residential development. He stated that this study did not consider a jobs linkage fee. He added that a living wage requirement was not considered in connection with this Nexus Study and that adoption of such a requirement would require a separate legal analysis and additional study.

As it relates to the threshold of 30,000 square feet, Mr. Cotter explained that this has been the threshold since the inception of the Ordinance. He stated that raising the threshold could exclude large developments from the requirement despite their impact on housing needs. Lowering the threshold could be problematic for substantially smaller developments and would be inconsistent with requirements in nearby communities. He stated that it is recommended that the threshold remain unchanged. He noted that the Ordinance currently exempts the first 2,500 square feet from incentive zoning rates and that the study recommends that this exemption be eliminated.

Mr. Cotter explained that that currently the Affordable Housing Trust can increase the contribution rate annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). He stated that the study recommends that annual adjustments based on CPI continue. He stated that continuing CPI adjustments by the Affordable Housing Trust will allow for an efficient and predictable means to maintain a system of regular adjustments. He stated that in addition, the Affordable Housing Trust has recommended an increase on the base rate of $1 per year for the first three years if the incentive rate is set within the recommended range of $10 to $12 per square foot. Mr. Cotter stated that it is advisable that a review of the ordinance and determination of whether a new study is appropriate take place every 3-5 years. He stated that the Affordable Housing Trust has suggested that the Trust conduct an annual review of the incentive requirements and advise the City Council when they believe a new study is warranted based on the program activity, economic trends and housing needs. He stated that the study recommends that the City Council adopt a single fee for all uses and added that CDD recommends a single rate for all of Cambridge as varying fee requirements in different parts of the city may have unintended consequences on location decisions and discourage development in areas where it is most appropriate or desired.

In response to a question by Councillor Simmons regarding the rate increase of $10-$12 and how this will meet housing needs, Mr. Cotter stated that funds generated by the incentive zoning payments are a key source but are not the only resource for affordable housing development. He stated that other city funds include Community Preservation Act funds and federal grants such as HOME and CDBG and are used to finance housing development.

Councillor Simmons stated that her hope is that the Housing Committee can, either at this meeting or at the next one, make recommendations that can then be taken up for discussion by the Ordinance Committee, and that the City Council could then take action on the final recommendations at the City Council's special summer meeting. She gave an overview of some of the recommendations that she would like to forward to the City Council. (Attachment D)

Councillor McGovern asked about the 30,000 square foot trigger and stated that if it were lowered to 25,000 square feet, is there a sense of how many additional buildings would be impacted, and how much more money this might generate? Mr. Cotter said that it would not be a big difference. He stated that there would be no effective difference. Councillor Simmons asked what if it were lowered to 10,000 square feet. Mr. Cotter said that lowering it to 10,000 certainly could make a difference. He stated that if you go too far it may be counterproductive. They can conduct further research on this. Councillor McGovern said he would be interested in lowering the number if it was going to yield community benefits. He stated he wants to know how to maximize community benefits while ensuring that development can still move forward. He stated that if dropping the amount of square footage will yield more money for the city, so long as it wouldn't hurt small businesses, he would drop it to 15,000 square feet. Mr. Cotter said that he would look at that. He stated the recommendations do represent the best advice of the CDD. He stated that the threshold, the exemption, and the rate are being looked at so as to be best tailored to provide public benefits. Mr. Cotter said that he will put a summary together. Ms. Farooq added that in the incentive ordinance, they need to maintain realistic as of right options for developers in the ordinance. She said that we don't want to put in so many constraints that it impacts all development.

Councillor Mazen focused on Question 18 from the FAQ sheet, noting that it says the cost of commercial development ranges from $329 to $395 per square foot. In Question 17, the CDD stated that the maximum recommended rate of subsidy is $24.30 per square foot. He said that this informational sheet states that "it is estimated that if that increase is passed on to tenants, rents would be raised by $2.29 per square foot, based on a 10-year lease." He asked if this ten-year projection is typically how these kinds of determinations are reached. Mr. Seidman said that it varies and that different leases have different time periods. Councillor Mazen asked if the effective lifetime of the building is 10 years. Mr. Seidman said that the effective lifetime is longer. He said that the useful life of a building can be somewhere over 50 years as a possibility. Councillor Mazen stated that the ways the costs are passed on to developers do not account for the lease rate. Mr. Seidman stated that it is in a developer's interest to pass cost onto tenants.

Councillor Mazen asked what is the actual cost per square foot? Mr. Seidman stated that rents vary according to where you are. He said that in East Cambridge, it would be in the $50-60 dollar range. He said that in West Cambridge, the rents are lower, closer to the $25-30 range. Councillor Mazen stated that the geography maybe ought to have an impact, even though he understands that Mr. Seidman has recommended against that. He said that $2.29 per square foot per year would be extreme in West Cambridge, but that it would be trivial in East Cambridge. Councillor Mazen stated that if we adopt a maximum right now, it would not be a problem. He said it's in the interest of developers to try to keep the rate down, and to raise the specter of competitiveness. He stated that maybe it shouldn't be the maximum for many reasons. He said that setting the linkage rate at $10-12 is ok, and we can go better, we could go to $15. He said he does not feel they absolutely need to land on $10-12. He said the difference between $12 and $15, whether to a tenant or to a developer, is going to be small.

Mayor Maher thanked the Community Development Department. He said that he had a general question he was looking to clarify: if someone is sitting on a large parcel of land and they are covered by incentive zoning, anything that they do outside of housing is covered. Is this correct? Ms. Farooq responded by saying that if this person had a parcel and wanted to do a building that is 10,000 sq feet, they would not be subject. She said when you hit 30,000, it becomes subject to the requirements. Mayor Maher stated that if one had a 50,000 square foot parcel, and if the FAR was 3.0, any project on that parcel is going to be covered by incentive zoning, correct? Ms. Farooq confirmed that such a project would be subject to the requirements. Mr. Seidman stated that it boils down to determining whether it is considered "a taking" of a person's property or not. Mayor Maher reflected on the 30,000 square foot threshold and said he would like to understand the reason that we have arrived at that size as the figure. For example, on Fresh Pond Parkway, where the new vitamin shop and mattress store are, that building is not 30,000 sq ft. It is a busy street and new development, and why would we have a policy that doesn't impact something like that? What do we think we are preventing by lowering that by 5,000 square feet or 6,000 square feet? Mr. Seidman responded that one consideration is that we want to have some capacity for property owners to build and not be subject to incentive zoning, from a legal perspective. There is a fairly small number of developments under 30,000 square feet, so there is not a lot of revenue that the city is foregoing at that threshold. That was the thinking behind that number, and he said that Somerville also has that threshold.

Councillor Simmons asked if it is also 30,000 just in Somerville, or if that threshold applies to all surrounding communities? Mr. Seidman responded by stating that Boston's threshold is 100,000 square feet.

Mayor Maher stated that he was still thinking about the issue around non-profits, and how some of the largest universities are in fact non-profits. He said there is a difference between community-based non-profits and heavily funded non-profits. He said that he might still want an exemption built in to protect smaller non-profits. He stated that in many instances we are trying to get non-profits to buy property to be able to remain in the city. In thinking about how often the City should engage in doing a full nexus study, he noted that it has been a number of years since one was done, that mandating a new one every three years seems to be maybe too quick a turnaround, and that every five years may make more sense. Mr. Seidman stated that his recommendation at the last meeting was for one every five years.

Mayor Maher stated that the question is about finding the right balance. He said one important thing to keep in mind is to remember that residential tax rates in the City have remained low, based on the strength of the commercial tax base. He said we must remember this is a very fine balance, especially for seniors in the city, who depend on knowing that their taxes are at least somewhat predictable.

Mr. Rossi, referring to the Mayor's concerns, stated it would be a beneficial exercise if people from the Assessor's Office and the Finance Director were given the opportunity to present to the City Council, to discuss the balance between commercial and residential. He said we are seeing a lot of growth in residential development, and if we do things to disincentivize that development, he would be concerned. He said that it would be wise for the City Council to hear from finance staff as it relates to growth in development dollars. He said that he wasn't preaching doom and gloom, but he stated that it would be a wise exercise to understand the market and what would happen.

Councillor Mazen asked if we know the differential rate of growth of residential development versus commercial development currently. Mr. Rossi stated that in the last couple of years there has been increased residential growth and it is outpacing the growth on the commercial side. Louie DePasquale stated that one of the things that his department is cautious of is how the tax rate works. He stated a shift could go back to the residential bill. The last time there was a shift in that direction was in 2005. In 2005, there were almost 2,000 abatement applications. We want to ensure that this scenario does not happen again. This could happen if commercial slows down and residential continues. Over the past nine years, they average 110 abatement applications. We want to be cautious to prevent that from happening.

Councillor Mazen stated that he assumed when there is increase in residential development that would not be so much of a burden because they are paying a higher rate than some 2-3 families that are getting mitigation on the full rate. Mr. DePasquale stated that he is talking about the overall assessment. If residential development continues to grow and a number got high enough to slow down commercial development, the burden shifts to residential tax. Councillor Mazen asked why we wouldn't then just put the residential tax burden on those with the greatest income, who would not be burdened by this, and Mr. DePasquale said that is something we could look at. Mr. Rossi stated that he is not preaching doom and gloom and predicting worst case scenarios, but this is another piece of information that everyone should look at as they come to conclusions about what is a good, informed decision.

Councillor Mazen asked about Question #14, referring to the shortfall in the $24.30 per square foot needed for affordable housing, as advised by this study. He asked about whether that shortfall is addressed by CPA funding. He asked if we know what the shortfall is after the secondary sources of funding are applied. Mr. Cotter stated that the $24.30 per square foot amount comes from a projected need based on projected development. He said that this is hard to determine with specificity, and that is one reason why it is a good idea to have a regular update to the nexus study, which will allow the city to course correct as needed. Councillor Mazen asked how mitigation fees stack up if they adopt $12 per square foot. Mr. Cotter stated that it would depend on development as it happens.

Councillor McGovern stated that in terms of what is the dollar amount, he would like clarification on what other expenses that we as a city put on developers that increase the cost of projects. He said that other surrounding communities are not sitting by quietly watching Cambridge get business. They are working hard to attract new business and also to get Cambridge business. He stated that a gradual increase that is predictable would be a good thing. Ms. Farooq stated that it is complex to pin down a specific dollar amount because of the various difference in projects. She said that some items that add to a project's costs are the green building requirements, transportation mitigation, and storm-water mitigation. She said that the City is also concluding the Getting to Netzero process, which could also contribute to escalating requirements upon developers. She said that every project is expected to have high quality and urban design, which have cost implications. She said that all of these factors do add up. She added that one of the things that is important for developers is to have predictability, and the fact that there are a lot of moving pieces, adds to the unpredictability. She said that is one reason why this conversation is so important, and it is great to be able to nail some things down. She stated that if the rate is too high in development, a business will not necessarily move from Cambridge to North Carolina, they may just move to Boston. In that scenario, the biggest negative is that we would not have the benefits coming with the development.

Councillor McGovern stated that he reached out to people who live in Cambridge and are affordable housing experts and are impartial. He stated that he was told that $24 per square foot would kill the city. He stated that it has been too long since the City has raised the fee. He stated that he would hate to see this drag on, we don't want to lose momentum, and that the sooner we move, the sooner we see the benefits. Nevertheless, he wondered whether hearing from people who do this work at the state level would be beneficial. He said that he struggled between wondering if that would be beneficial to discuss, or whether this would contribute to a delay towards making a much needed decision, and he wanted to put this idea out there for the other committee members to consider.

Councillor Cheung asked if you take a particular hypothetical 50,000 square foot development, with the incentive, how many units would the City get out of it. Mr. Seidman said that with the full $24 per square foot fee, this is intended to cover a third of the cost of 692 units of low, moderate and middle income housing. He said that there would be other revenue streams to support these costs as well.

Councillor Cheung asked if there is a way to incentivize mixed use developments. Mr. Cotter stated that one of the things in the current ordinance, and he hopes that it continues, is the option for a developer of a mixed use project to provide housing in lieu of the fee. That provision is in place and has not been used to date, and it is something that the CDD continues to look at to see how it can be better incentivized. He said that it would always be our preference for a developer to create new affordable units. Councillor Cheung stated that if this is an option that hasn't been used to date, do we need to change it in any way to encourage its use? Mr. Cotter stated that it is always easier for the developer to make a payment rather than create new units, under the current plan, but that this option must be looked at further to see if it can be made more viable to developers.

Mayor Maher stated that we have not seen a project in the city as of yet that is comparable to the building on Clarendon Street in Boston, at the corner of Stuart Street. He said its first eight floors are commercial, and the next 18 floors are housing. He asked how does that work. Mr. Cotter stated that CDD would look at that scenario as both an incentive and an inclusionary project. He said that this would trigger a discussion with the developer to determine how to best move forward, and it would be good to have flexibility in those discussions.

Councillor Simmons opened the meeting to public comment at 6:38pm.

Councillor Simmons asked that communications received by the Chair from MIT, the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and Harvard University (Attachments E, F, G) be made part of the official minutes of the meeting.

Kevin Sheehan from Boston Properties stated that they submitted a letter to Councillor Simmons on Mar 23rd. He stated that they agree with the objectives of the incentive zoning ordinance and they agree with periodic evaluation of the rate, but they are concerned with the amount of the rate raise and the potential impact on development and on Boston Property's customers. They do not have the magic number, but they echo some suggestions, including that it is good idea to benchmark the rate around those set by surrounding communities. As a long term property owner and developer, they would be happy to participate in any further analysis and discussions on this issue.

Alexandra Lee, Executive Director of the Kendall Square Association, read from a prepared statement (Attachment H) and stated that a balanced approach is a legacy. She said that the City's richness stems from its diversity, and noted that a balanced approach is important. She advised that further study on this issue is necessary, and she urged that this matter not be advanced to the Ordinance Committee without further discussion.

Kelly Thompson Clark, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, read from a prepared statement (Attachment I) and stated that she was speaking on behalf of herself and Sarah Kennedy. She stated that the local businesses offset the tax rate by almost 70%. She stated that there are lots of things coming down the pike and businesses are willing to pay their share but we must look at financial implications over all. She said a balanced approach is required, and she said the Chamber of Commerce is very concerned about more than doubling the current rate. She worries about how this would impact local businesses, and local restaurants. She said that local businesses need to stay competitive.

Arthur MacEwan identified himself as a member of Councillor McGovern and Councillor Simmons's Income Insecurity Commission, and he stated that they will be asking for a living wage requirement to be expanded along with requirements on developers. He said it is important to think of the problems that people have with housing and other income issues. He stated that the living wage ordinance covers very few people. He stated that the issue for him as an economist is not how much the rate is being increased, but on what kind of impact it will have on development and its cost. He said that all we have heard so far is speculation. He stated that he would be all for further study, if we could do the kind of studies that have been done with minimum wage. He said he wonders if there could ever be a study that satisfies everyone's concerns and gives rock solid assurances. He said that he can trot out his anecdotes, the other side can trot out opposing anecdotes, and it is sad that we may base our policies on anecdotes. There must be some studies on this issue, but we cannot afford to wait years while countless studies are done before policy is set. He said we should not wait years and years to set policy.

Hasson Rashid, 820 Mass. Ave., read from a prepared statement (Attachment J) and stated that the nexus study does not consider homelessness. He stated that the homeless population is not addressed by this study, it was not part of the scope of the study.

Sarah Gallop stated that MIT supports the purpose and objectives of this meeting, but it is concerned about the possibility of more than doubling the current rate. She said she wonders how we define what constitutes an appropriate increase. She said that Cambridge truly has it all, and how do we ensure that we don't create unintended consequences in adjusting the rate. She said the city is an ecosystem, and we must be mindful of the health of each part of this ecosystem. She urged that the committee take more time to analyze this issue, and that we determine how all the cumulative conditions we impose on developers may impact development. She suggested putting together an advisory committee, representing various aspects of the city's ecosystem, to review this issue further. She said careful analysis is a hallmark of the Cambridge way of doing things.

John Hawkinson reminded the Housing Committee that that K2C2 zoning passed includes a $10 contribution beyond anything else. He said the current zoning requires review every three years. He stated that the City Council can let that deadline slip, and he suggested that it would be best to make sure it happens every three to five years. He suggested that exploring a gradual increase over a number of years would be interesting to discuss, but he cautioned that this could potentially lead to a rush of development before the rates increase. He stated that it would be wise to try to see what is happening and then freeze the rate or lower its acceleration. He stated that it is important to discuss phasing. He stated that with phasing there is the ability to watch and decide if there is a problem. He stated that the City Council should shoot high and if the development is falling off because of the shift then they can freeze the rate or lower its acceleration.

Robin Lapidus from the Central Square Business Association stated that a recalibration is appropriate, since the fees have been stagnant for such a long time, but that the fee should not be set too high. Being competitive in the region is incredibly important. She said all the development fees and incentives need to be considered in their entirety.

Jan Devereux stated that the term ecosystem has been used to describe Cambridge, and that is fitting. She stated that some parts of the ecosystem are better represented tonight than others. She stated that the implications from the nexus study by Mr. Seidman is that, if the rate was raised to the full $24 it would support the 690 units, so if you only raise the fee to $12, you would only get half that amount of units. In regards to Mr. MacEwan's comments, she agrees that there is no hard data and she noted that Harvard and MIT probably aren't going anyplace else, regardless of a rate change. She said that the ecosystem in Kendall Square thrives on its proximity to these institutions. She said that Cambridge has established itself as a world center for the biotech industry. She stated that in the scheme of things, the developers will pay a one-time fee for Cambridge and it will benefit their workers. She stated that she agrees with Mr. MacEwan that subsidies are only one half of the equation. She stated that the city needs to go above the recommended $10-12, and that we should "go for the full amount."

Councillor Mazen made a motion to close public comment at 7:05pm.

Councillor Simmons stated that she would like to return recommendations to the committee to review. She said there is an interest for more information relative to some of the recommendations, so she will put these in writing, she will ask for these to be reviewed, and then she will call another meeting. She said that we will never get perfect policy, but we can still get a good job done. She said it has been a very long time since the linkage fees have been raised and it would not be wise for the City Council to let this sit in committee and go nowhere. She said she would like input on her recommendations and then the committee can decide. She said at the next meeting, she wants to make decisions and move this out of committee to the full City Council. She asked if her colleagues had any closing comments.

Mayor Maher said that he would like to take Mr. Rossi and Mr. DePasquale's recommendation to have a conversation about finances with this committee.

Councillor Simmons stated that she would like Councillor Mazen to forward his recommendations to her.

Councillor Mazen stated that he also wants to be sensitive to the other expenses imposed on developers. He said that at some point, you reach the straw that breaks the camel's back. He stated that he has heard that when a new expense hits, it is typical that it is fought against and fought against, and when it eventually lands, it turns out that everything is actually ok. He stated that the blowback is always going to come from additional expenses. He stated it is important to look more at additional expenses as opposed to full context of expenses, which have already been taken into account by developers.

Councillor Mazen stated that, in regards to CPI and adjustment, he agrees that we should adjust automatically over the next couple of years. He said whatever we can do to stagger that would be great. He asked about the living wage, and the possibility of new study on using mitigation funds to supplement a living wage. In terms of FAQ question #5 and #6, Chris Cotter had stated that it is a different analysis that would need to be done, and Councillor Mazen stated that this is something that is important to him. He said it is important to increase people's stability and income. Councillor Mazen said that this important work, and that he supports the idea of having a study examine this. He said he was a proponent of the recent "Fight For 15" movement around minimum wage.

Councillor Simmons reminded those present that the next meeting to discuss affordable housing is the May 11, 2015 Roundtable in the Sullivan Chamber. She said that she is looking for recommendations to bring before the committee.

Councillor Simmons thanked all those present for their attendance and participation.

The hearing was adjourned at 7:15pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 14, 2015, beginning at 5:35pm in the Cambridge Public Library, 449 Broadway, Community Meeting Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the reappointment of Gerard Clark as a Commissioner of the Cambridge Housing Authority for a term of five years and to receive from the Cambridge Housing Authority an update on the RAD progress and to receive responses to questions from the tenant Town Meeting of October 2014.

Present at the hearing were Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Marc McGovern; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Richard C. Rossi, City Manager; Greg Russ, Executive Director; Mike Johnston, Deputy Executive Director; James Comer, Director of Operations; Terry Dumas, Director of Planning and Development, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Donna Claudio, Asset Manager; Cassie Arnaud, Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Neal Alpert; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Gerard Clark, CHA Chairperson; Cheryl-Ann Pizza Zeoli, Co-Chair, Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT) and Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust; Jean Hannon, Co-Chair, ACT; Elaine DeRosa, Executive Director, Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC); John Hawkinson; Sue Reinert, Cambridge Day; Sue Stafford; Kathy Watkins; Hasson Rashid; Glenna Wyman; James Williamson; and Michelle Malvesti.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and read an opening statement (Attachment A). She gave an overview of the agenda for the meeting. (Attachment B). She then introduced Greg Russ to give remarks on behalf of the Cambridge Housing Authority.

Mr. Russ provided written responses to questions and comments from the attendees of the Tenant Town Meeting on Oct 21, 2014 (Attachment C) as well as answers to questions related to the CHA's conversion of public housing under Rental Assistant Demonstration (RAD) (Attachment D). He thanked the Housing Committee for the opportunity to talk about where they are with RAD. He stated that Washington Elms, Newtowne Court, Putnam Gardens, Woodrow Wilson Court, LBJ Apartments, JFK Apartments, Lincoln Way and Jackson Gardens are all converted to the Rental Assistance Demonstration. He noted that the Manning Apartments is likely to convert in the fall. He stated that once the Manning Apartments convert, all of these properties will be under RAD subsidy. He stated that in addition to moving the subsidy platform, the RAD conversion will start on a huge capital improvement program. He stated that every site will be rehabilitated or modernized, depending on the age and types of units. He noted that overall, the RAD will be bringing several hundred million dollars in capital investment into Cambridge to restore and maintain units for the next forty years. He stated that as it relates to a tax credit approach, a real estate transaction must occur in order for the IRS to grant tax credits. He explained that when the real estate transaction occurs, only then will the investor get to claim a deduction off their income tax in proportion to the capital contribution that they make. He explained that this figure is right off the bottom line of their taxes. Mr. Russ pointed out that refinancing and repositioning of the properties is the first step. He stated that advertising for contracts has begun and construction will begin and eventually as contracts take hold and vendors mobilize, all sites will be under construction. He stated that relocation efforts have begun and that the CHA attempts to make relocation as easy as possible in terms of logistics.

Mr. Russ stated when looking at all funding sources for Phase 1 (1150 units), they are approaching $375 million dollars in investment. Of that amount, the tax credit is about $111 million dollars. He stated that in addition, once the properties are completed, several benefits will be accrued to the properties that do not exist in public housing program. He stated that the operating subsidy that they give for public housing continues to be underfunded. The housing program that has received consistent support from Congress is the voucher program. Under this approach, CHA has to establish a relationship with investors but there are many controls on what the investors can and cannot do. He stated that the CHA has taken a lot of time to ensure that the long term affordability of the housing is protected. He noted that they have crafted exit strategies and structured deals so the non-profit affiliates will have the opportunity to have the property returned at the end of the tax credit period. He stated that because they have moved off the public housing platform there is another element of RAD that is important. He stated that RAD requires a significant contribution to replacement reserves. In the new scheme, each property will have substantial replacement reserves to be used to put back into the property when capital investment is needed. He stated that with RAD they will have ability to refinance property at the end of the initial tax credit period and raise money again without having to go back to HUD or Congress. He stated that in positioning these properties to serve the community for the long-term, they understand the compromises of the tax credit program but the platform that the CHA will be left with is, in some ways, stronger than the platform that is in place currently. He said that Phase 2 will begin planning in the next few months and noted that Phase 2 is smaller (979 units).

Mr. Russ noted that Jefferson Park State is being funded through a different mechanism as they could not save the buildings in Jefferson Park State. The construction fence is up and demolition of that portion of the site will begin next week. He stated that they plan to close on Jefferson Park later in the year. He stated that Bank of America is the investor there. He pointed out that they will rebuild on the same site with a different configuration and brand new units.

Mr. Russ noted that Millers River is one public housing property that they could not make work under RAD and that HUD has approved the disposition approach instead. The disposition process under the rules set in place by Congress trigger 300 new Tenant Protection Vouchers. He said that the CHA will project-base these vouchers into Millers River. Once this happens, the CHA will be in a position to secure an investor and begin rehabilitation for Millers River. This will probably cost about $60 million.

As all this begins to move forward, they are able to tell the committee that CHA is securing the affordable housing stock for low income families for a long time to come. He stated that although there are development pressures, the CHA is able to maintain these units as permanent affordable housing which is the mission of the housing authority.

Mr. Russ noted that this is the fifth largest RAD deal in the country and the structure does not look the same in each community. He stated that the CHA wanted to keep as many of the existing housing policies in place as possible and wanted to put capital investment into the buildings. Through management agreements, the CHA will become the manager of the properties and retain existing staff. He stated that the existing workforce will be used, and the day to day experience for tenants should feel largely unchanged.

Councillor Kelley asked about Jefferson Park and what is being undertaken. Mr. Russ responded that Jefferson Park State is the four buildings on Rindge Avenue. He stated that the remaining buildings as one enters Jackson Circle is the Federal side. Councillor Kelley stated that Jefferson Park as a whole comes out to be an estimated 90 million dollars and asked if the RAD Phase 2 is set for an undefined time in the future. Mr. Russ responded that planning will be underway this year and that the earliest construction is the year after next for Federal Jefferson Park.

Regarding the trees at Putnam Gardens, Councillor Kelley asked that if the trees are going to be impacted by construction it would be beneficial to spell this out to residents. Terry Dumas stated that four trees were removed, one each for each of the new trash buildings. Ms. Dumas added that there have been discussions of a community garden in the back of Putnam Gardens which would take an additional three trees. She noted that these discussions have been included in the conversation since 2012.

Councillor McGovern stated that there is confusion as to why the decision of switching to RAD has been made. Mr. Russ stated that this is the only vehicle currently offered by HUD that would allow the CHA to raise this kind of capital. HUD has offered this as a demonstration program, and the CHA decided to take advantage of it. If you are doing large capital work, it is the only program available. He stated that the CHA went to HUD and asked to do a disposition of all units which would have triggered tenant protection vouchers. He stated that the Federal government responded in the negative to disposition. Mr. Russ explained that around the same time, the ground rules related to RAD were changed which allowed them to "rent bundle," which is when properties with better cash flow support properties that are less strong.

Councillor McGovern stated that when people hear that things such as "We're moving away from public housing to private partnerships," people's anxieties go through the roof. He noted that it is a lot for people to take in, and people are scared. He said that he is a big fan of informational sheets that boil down these complicated concepts into very easily understood sentences explaining what is actually going on. Mr. Russ explained that materials have been used to inform residents and the community about the RAD process. He stated that the easiest way to think about this is: the investors don't want to manage property or own property, they want the credit. The CHA does want to manage property, and to continue to have its own entity, and be able to protect property from any compromise due to the tax credit requirements. Ms. Dumas added that the tax credit piece is not new, it has been around since the mid-1980s. She noted that it is not a new model for CHA or for Cambridge. Councillor McGovern pointed out that most people are not aware of this. He noted the importance of reassuring people and suggested direct, simple messages and statements to quell the fear, with assurances of what will not be changing for the tenants under the RAD process. Mr. Russ affirmed that there are standing CHA RAD informational meetings scheduled at different locations throughout the city each month. He stated that it is hard to convey the idea that the investor is only temporary, and that tenants may be skeptical. Mr. Russ agreed that producing a fact or statement sheet for CHA residents may be helpful.

Councillor McGovern stated that free wifi is a topic that comes up at the Income Insecurity meetings and focus groups. He asked Mr. Russ if free wifi for CHA tenants is in the plans. Mr. Russ stated that there will be free wifi in the common areas of the properties. He stated that getting into the units and making wifi free is not something that the CHA is prepared to do on its own, due to the costs. He noted that this topic has been discussed in conversations with city staff.

Councillor McGovern asked what the Uniform Relocation Act entails. Ms. Dumas stated that CHA hires movers, pays for moving companies, assists in packing and covers any out of pocket expenses for tenants that are being relocated as part of the RAD building rehabilitations. Councillor McGovern asked if this includes when residents move back to their units. Ms. Dumas responded in the affirmative. Ms. Dumas explained that the first thing that is done is coming up with a relocation plan that is approved by the residents and the CHA Board. This is a very detailed plan that is tailored to the work at each specific development. Councillor McGovern recommended that this information be more widely shared with tenants.

Councillor Mazen asked about the wifi cost and cost per unit. Mr. Russ responded that wifi access to the buildings is through Comcast or Verizon. Councillor Mazen stated the need for wifi for each unit and noted that the cost is small. He stated that this is something that the CHA should do. Mr. Russ stated that Comcast or Verizon charge for this service. Councillor Mazen stated that there are commercial distributors of fiber who you can engage with the CHA at a low cost. Mr. Russ stated that he would be glad to hold conversations with these providers, and Councillor Mazen said he would provide contacts at these companies to Mr. Russ. Mr. Russ stated that they have talked about using city fiber which was practical and noted that he would be interested in finding out how to include wifi access in the units. Councillor Mazen stated that this boils down to ensuring educational equity and online access. Councillor McGovern added that in all the focus groups, wifi is the first thing that gets mentioned.

Councillor Simmons mentioned the list of questions that were generated at the last Housing Committee meeting with the CHA, and she asked the CHA to review some of the questions and their answers. Mike Johnston stated that at the last meeting that was held, the CHA heard that the committee and the City Council felt that the issue of closing the waiting list had a significant impact on people. In response to this concern, he stated that the CHA first looked at the number of people that were placed in units in the last three years, which was 190 placements on average. This number was then broken up into different categories such as elderly, families, etc. They then decided to make 250 vouchers available to households on the public housing waiting list of which 100 would go to the elderly and 150 would go to families. They have looked at the individual waiting lists and made sure that the new master waiting list is true and accurate. They have taken 19 site-based lists and compiled one main waiting list and sorted by preference and chronological order and put into one pot. When looking at the family list, for example, they are looking at leasing 29 one bedroom units. To do this, they will contact at least 50 people and ask if they are interested. These people will be screened. He noted that some people will not pass the screening. He stated that the people would be briefed and would then be issued a mobile voucher and be given four months to find a place to live. He stated that if a person takes a voucher and they do not find a home within that four month window, they will not be taken off the public housing list. He said this is kind of like getting two bites at the apple. He noted that with the mobile voucher program, they look at income, immigration status, and criminal record, but that it is up to the landlord to screen. He said that, due to the very high rental prices in Cambridge, it can be difficult for people with mobile vouchers to find an apartment in Cambridge.

Councillor Simmons stated that it will be interesting conversation to have, as these mobile vouchers are issues, wherein the City's inclusionary program can look for ways to work in conjunction with the voucher program. She said this is an important conversation to have.

Mr. Johnston stated that they are going through the Master Waiting List and noted that there are times when someone is third on the list for a specific site and when combined will then be farther down on the list. He stated that staff is undergoing testing to ensure that the numbers are correct. He said this is important to do before calling people in for vouchers.

Mr. Johnston stated that CHA will send a mailing out to approximately 10,000 applicants on the public housing waiting list to inform them that the list is closed and that it will take longer to get an apartment because of RAD relocation. The mailing will go out next week in bulk mailing, first class mail, which is a better guarantee of receipt. He noted that within two weeks, a second letter will go out regarding the availability of 250 vouchers. Councillor Simmons stated that she would be interested to hear feedback in response to the mailing.

Councillor Simmons asked if there will be a meeting regarding the process that will be undertaken by CHA. Mr. Johnston stated that the initial screening meeting is done one-to-one. He stated that in this meeting the applicants will be walked through the process. He stated that once an applicant is found eligible and receives a voucher, there will be a group briefing to walk them through finding unit, etc. He stated that they do discuss inclusionary zoning units but the problem is when someone has waited on the list for voucher and has a time limit to use this voucher, it doesn't help them to get on another list. He added that finding a unit is very hard.

Councillor McGovern asked for clarification of the way in which the voucher program will work. Mr. Johnston responded that an applicant will try to use the voucher to obtain a unit and if they are unable to find a unit, they will stay on the waiting list. If a person takes a voucher and is unsuccessful in finding a suitable unit, they will not be taken off the list. If you do find a unit, you would then come off the list. Councillor Simmons stated that this is an issue because if an applicant uses the voucher in another city or town and later want to return to Cambridge they will not have preference as a Cambridge resident. She stated that she would like to have further discussion on this issue. Councillor McGovern agreed that a conversation on this topic needs to take place.

Mr. Johnston stated that the CHA Housing Choice Voucher program is a vehicle by which someone can go out on the private market and pay up to 40% of their income towards rent. He noted that in project-based units (1,000 PBA units are in Cambridge), because the Affordable Housing Trust has put a significant amount of money into development, the city has stepped up and those rents are lower and no one pays more than 30%.

For the voucher program, there is a mobile side and a project-based side. The CHA works off one list for both. If a project-based unit comes up, they grab the top 3 bedroom applicants on the Section 8 list and they start screening. What was happening was that people wanted to wait for a mobile voucher. Some people were not eligible. With project-based units, the owners get to screen applicants. He noted that the CHA is looking to give people the opportunity to not only apply for a mobile voucher but also to several project-based waiting lists. This is not currently the policy in place and it must be decided by the Board. The CHA will be bringing this policy change to the commissioners for approval with the recommendation that people are taken off the list if they pass up a unit at a specific property/owner but stay on the other lists for other properties/owners. This will give advantage to the applicant and advantage to owners to fill units faster. This adds transparency on how the wait list is managed. Mr. Russ stated that you are multiplying choices. There would be a master list for vouchers and each property/owner would have its own list or lists. Councillor Simmons asked if there is a limit as to how many lists a person could sign up for. Mr. Johnston responded that a person could apply for all lists.

Councillor McGovern asked for an example of why a person's number on the list may change. Mr. Russ stated that when giving people choices, things can get complicated. He stated that people get bumped. He noted that if there is a status change, you can lose preference and drop. An example of a status change would be if an applicant worked in Cambridge at the time of application, but then no longer works in Cambridge. He added that veterans get local preference, regardless if they live in Cambridge or have local ties, so a veteran that applies today could be moved ahead of a non-veteran (who lives outside the city) who applied last year.

Councillor Mazen asked if time on the list interplays with preference. Mr. Russ stated that the length of time on the list does not factor into treatment. The primary driver is how many units at a particular property are turning over in a given time. He added that the length of time for non-preference applicants will be a very long time.

Mr. Johnston stated that when you first apply to be on the wait list, you are on for a long time. There is then a spurt because people wait so long that they move away, they found housing, they are no longer employed in Cambridge, etc. Mr. Johnston stated that the applicant has a 6 month window to confirm that they want to remain on the wait list after receipt of the letter, but that applicants can sometimes be reinstated after that time if a request is made.

Councillor Mazen stated that cell phone penetration has been considerable. He asked if the CHA chases mail with a text message. Mr. Johnston stated that e-mail has been discussed but not text messaging. Councillor Mazen suggested that this would be a strategic move to look at the possibility of using text messages to reach out to applicants.

Councillor Simmons asked if the CHA counsels and guides applicants on which lists they sign up for. Mr. Johnston responded in the negative, and said that the CHA cannot be placed in the position of making people's choices for them. Councillor Simmons pushed back and stated that people need to make informed decisions. Mr. Russ stated that each time a person applies for a public housing site, they are given an estimated wait time. Councillor Simmons stated that this may still not be enough information for a person to make an informed decision, as one person could be told that there are 100 people ahead of them on waiting list A, and only 20 people ahead of them on list B, and therefore assume that they'll be waiting for significantly less time on list B - but that what they don't know is that list A is turning over much quicker, and it would be a much shorter wait for them to apply for list A. She strongly urged the CHA to make that kind of information available to applicants.

Councillor Simmons asked for an update on emergency applications. Mr. Russ stated that there have been 58 emergency applications since the list was closed on Jan 1, 2015. He noted that fourteen people met the criteria and had the appropriate preference. He stated that 5 have been approved, 3 denied and 6 are in the process.

Councillor McGovern asked what constitutes an emergency and who makes the definition. Mr. Johnston responded that the CHA decides what constitutes an emergency. Examples of an emergency are fire, other natural disasters, victim of no-fault eviction, loss of housing due to domestic violence, and lost income due to domestic violence. Mr. Johnston commented that in order to apply for emergency housing you need to have a local preference. Local preference is living or working in Cambridge or veteran status.

Councillor Simmons asked about the CHA responses to the Tenant Town Hall meeting that was held at the Cambridge Senior Center the previous October. Mr. Russ replied that the CHA's answers to the questions that were forwarded to the CHA from Councillor Simmons are included in the packet they have brought with them this evening. Mr. Russ said they went through each of the questions and answered what they could, and noted which questions they felt they could not answer. Councillor Simmons suggested that Mr. Russ review the questions on the first page of this FAQ packet, and he did so. (See CHA packet). He discussed the differences between a project based voucher and a mobile voucher. He said there is a question of what is the appropriate balance between project based vouchers and mobile vouchers issues. He talked about the challenges in defining all the complicated terminology. He said that the CHA would be willing to put together a glossary of terms, and Councillor Simmons agreed this would be helpful.

Councillor McGovern asked how much of the information provided at the meeting is available on-line. Mr. Russ responded that they will look at posting all information on-line to provide better access. Councillor McGovern advised that this would be helpful. Mr. Russ stated that the material can be posted or a drop-box for the City Councilors can be established with links.

Councillor Kelley stated that CHA does not have a lot to do to change the situation due to finances being out of their control. He stated that the only thing the CHA can do is to try to ease the anxiety around the messaging.

Councillor Simmons turned the conversation to Tenant Councils, which she said are a vehicle by which information can be distributed, but she noted that all buildings do not have a Tenant Council. Mr. Russ stated that the CHA has a tenant liaison to work with any building or group that wants to form a Tenant Council. He stated that it is difficult for CHA as the "Landlord" to be the one in the initiation mode when forming a Tenant Council. He stated that they have relied on ACT and CEOC in dealing with tenant issues and concerns. Councillor Simmons stated that Tenant Councils are beneficial to community involvement. Mr. Russ stated that if a Tenant Council is formed, the CHA will support it in any way possible. He stated that the CHA would provide advice, assistance, and help with an election.

Councillor McGovern asked if there is mechanism in place where tenants and CHA are working together. He asked if there is a way to change the culture of the dialogue so it is not adversarial. Mr. Russ stated that dialogue often happens when they go into a site to conduct capital work. He stated that at different points in the process, they are listening to the residents and exchanging ideas. He stated that when there is a Tenant Council that has a particularly strong group of people, they have contributed ideas and have also commented on policy documents. He stated that the CHA relies on local advocacy partners and will continue to do that. James Comer stated that he prefers working with a strong Tenant Council. He stated that this allows the CHA to be far better informed as to the concerns of residents. He stated that Tenant Councils are a conduit for information. He stated that he has good working relationships with the Tenant Councils and added that it is easier to manage a property when people are active and want to be part of leading the community.

Councillor McGovern stated that in a previous meeting there was discussion about having an ombudsman position. He asked the status of that position. Mr. Comer stated that the CHA is in the process of hiring a firm that trains employees in customer service skills. Councillor McGovern stated that residents have the fear of retribution. Councillor Simmons stated that it would benefit each building to have a Tenant Council in place and suggested that this should be on the list of top priorities for the CHA.

Councillor Mazen stated that the need for an ombudsman is clear. He stated that the connective tissue is missing.

Councillor Simmons then moved to the topic of the appointment of Gerard Clark as a Commissioner of the Cambridge Housing Authority for a term of five years. She asserted that this conversation is about the appointment process, not the person. She stated that this appointment is important and noted that Mr. Clark has been with the board for 40 years. She stated that Mr. Clark has served the City well and reiterated that the conversation is about the appointment process.

Councillor Kelley also stated that this conversation is about the appointment process and not the individual. He stated that it has to do with skill set. He stated that he would like to see the CHA connect better with its residents. He questioned if this skill set exists on the Board. He questioned how the Board can better manage to push the education of its residents to the forefront of the CHA. He stated the need for deep thought about what the Board should be doing as it relates to education. Mr. Russ responded that he has provided the committee with the Cambridge Housing Authority's Moving To Work Annual Plan of 2016. (Attachment E). CHA serves approximately 450 youth, 2,100 families and 1,800 elderly adults with its programs and services. Ninety three to ninety four percent of the 200 youth in CHA's Workforce Program go on to secondary education. He stated that each one of the programs is brought to the Board which helps move the policy framework forward. He noted that the CHA is constrained by finding a good partner and then being able to afford the policy/program. He stated that there is a lot of policy discussion and the Board is the body that drives the discussion. He stated that when the Board brings a question or policy concern to the CHA staff, the staff is obligated to respond. The Moving To Work Plan comes before the Board every year, after a public hearing process. He noted that this is the primary document that the Board endorses from a policy position. Councillor Kelley stated that his point is that whatever we are doing is not working as well as one might like. He asked if the disconnect can be fixed. He questioned if the current makeup of the Board is the best for guidance and review.

Mr. Russ then talked about the Maker Space on Portland Street as an example of one of CHA's many initiatives for kids and youth. He noted that the children are taught about being entrepreneurs and coming up with product ideas within the context of new technology. The idea is to introduce the participants to this technology and develop skills around this technology. He stated that this is funded by the CHA in collaboration with the Biogen Foundation and the Possible Project. He stated that this program is the "toe in the water." He noted that the CHA is in discussions regarding longer term expansion plans with the hope of duplicating this program at other locations. Mr. Russ stated that the CHA would be interested in figuring out how to get the people on the other side of Portland Street to open up some pathways, i.e tryout jobs, internships, etc. Mr. Russ said that the CHA would be open to figuring out a strategy to draw those companies closer. Councillor Kelley stated that without an education, we are not going to give people who live in housing the ability to move off into the private market. He does not think that making partnerships with Microsoft is the sweeping change that is needed.

Councillor McGovern stated that this is an important conversation. He stated that he does not believe that this is the right time to have this discussion about the CHA. He stated that there needs to be a better way to have these conversations. He stated that he believes that this conversation is not about Mr. Clark but that Mr. Clark's appointment was the mechanism that the City Council is using for this conversation. Councillor Simmons pointed out that this topic was before the committee because it was referred to the committee by the City Council for discussion.

As it relates to the Maker Space, Councillor Mazen asserted that he is very proud of the work that is being done. He asked Mr. Clark for the unanticipated negative consequences of RAD and what the City is setting itself up for. Mr. Clark answered that you can never force a Congress of 15 years from now to commit to any funding. He stated that they play a political game in Washington. They have consultants and lobbyists in Washington. Mr. Clark stated that both parties continue to back the HUD budget and that the voucher programs seem to be in favor in Washington. He noted that the danger is the commitment of Congress to continue funding into the future. Mr. Russ added that there is always the risk of the defunding of public housing (operations is currently funded at 83 cents on the dollar). He stated that RAD gives the CHA a better umbrella because it is the voucher umbrella. He added that there is a small risk if the CHA does not pay their mortgage. He noted that the bank has recourse. Mr. Clark stated that the CHA has Bank of America and Wells Fargo on their side to help persuade Congress to continue adequate funding levels.

Mr. Clark noted that this was his first opportunity to meet with a couple of the City Councillors present, and he offered to meet with any City Councillors privately if they so wish.

Mr. Rossi stated that when thinking about this appointment, he thinks back to when the CHA was not in good shape and the State was threatening to hold back funds. He stated that Mr. Clark was looking for the opportunity to volunteer in areas of helping underrepresented and lower income individuals and families, particularly in areas of housing. He was asked to apply to become a Board member. He stated that Mr. Clark was part of a critical reform in housing. He stated that the CHA Board has done wonders in its relationship with the City of Cambridge to work collaboratively. Mr. Rossi added that this has been Mr. Clark's passion for 40 years. Mr. Rossi added that it is the entire City that bears the responsibility of education and it is a collaborative effort. Mr. Rossi urged the committee to forward Mr. Clark's appointment to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

Councillor Simmons stated that moving forward it is important to note that the City Council has oversight when appointments are made. She noted the need to look at the Boards in totality and to ask how the candidate will impact the policy measures that will enrich the work of the Boards. She asserted that the City Council has to be more engaged in the conversation and remarked that the issue of diversity is important when making appointments.

Councillor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the Housing Committee forward a favorable recommendation to the full City Council on the appointment of Gerard Clark as a Commissioner of the Cambridge Housing Authority for a term of five years effective Jan 26, 2015.

The motion passed.

Councillor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager work with Mayor Maher and Councillor Simmons to schedule a meeting with the City Council and the Cambridge Housing Authority Board.

The motion passed.

Councillor Simmons opened the meeting to public comment.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli thanked all for attendees for participating in this conversation. She stated that because of the conversion to RAD, the ceiling rents were increased. She stated that as Co-Chair of ACT, it made her think about what we can do to help those families to move through the housing system. She stated that a recent planning session was the focus of new units. She stated that the Trust has a part to play in looking at minimum rent as well as a way for inclusionary zoning to create 3 bedroom units. She stated that 90 families would be affected by the rent increase. She noted that the CHA did send a letter to those affected but only about eight households showed up. She stated that are a lot of questions about inclusionary units.

Jean Hannon stated the importance of communication and dissemination of information. She stated that Tenant Councils are being kept in place and CHA is continuing to fund them through the RAD program. She stated that while the Tenant Councils need support getting started, the CHA is not the entity who can instigate the forming of a Tenant Council. She stated that it is the duty and responsibility for the tenants to organize the Tenant Councils and then ask for support from the system. She stated that voucher tenants are scattered and that is would be welcome if support and funding could be provided for a voucher tenant council as well.

Elaine DeRosa stated that we are victims of our success. We have various City programs, we have the work that the CHA is doing. She stated that this is a great opportunity for those now at the ceiling rent to look at other affordable housing options in the city. She noted that sometimes you do have to chase people, because life happens, you get a letter from an agency like the CHA and you forget to follow up on it, similar to all the people who rush in at the last minute to submit their taxes and then they don't have all their forms. She stated that the ability to take on this project would be an exciting thing that you would think someone would want to focus on. It is exciting because it potentially moves people from living in CHA units to possibly taking advantage of the City's affordable home ownership programs, if the program had enough protections against people failing out of the program. This is where the City's housing policy and the CHA can possibly come together.

Sue Stafford, Mothers Out Front, stated that her organization has have worked with city officials to move Cambridge off of dependence on fossil fuels. She is interested in the opportunity for all this renovation the CHA is engaged in to be mindful of being environmentally conscious and to investigate installing clean energy. These buildings will not be looked at for another 50 years, and this represents a great chance to have these buildings contribute to a healthier environment.

John Hawkinson stated that Mr. Clark's name is Gerard, and that it had been listed incorrectly. Mr. Rossi stated that the record will be corrected. He also stated that as it relates to wifi, there is a huge gap in cost versus what tenants get charged.

Hasson Rashid stated that he is concerned about the RAD program. As it relates to the Moving To Work program, he asked whether or not the RAD program has the same flexibility. With regards to Mr. Clark's reappointment, he stated that Mr. Clark voted no on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ACT and CHA, so the bid was rejected. He stated that Mr. Clark never gave an explanation of his vote. He stated that there are people who are still waiting for an answer.

Glenna Wyman stated that she lives in Truman Apartments. She stated that as it relates to the MOU, it is her understanding that there was a negotiation process but it never got signed by the parties. She stated that in some ways that hampers tenant empowerment in Cambridge. She stated that an ombudsman position would be helpful if one was unable to get a problem addressed. She stated that she attended a meeting of the Board of the CHA. She stated that her observation is that there is no place for tenant involvement at the board meetings and it would be beneficial to tenants if they could address to the board directly, similar to the public comment allowed at City Council meetings.

Michelle Malvesti stated the importance of an active Tenant Council. She stated that she went through the CHA chain of command with a problem and it would have been nice to have had a Tenants Council to go to. She stated that she lives in Lincoln Way and previously lived at Corcoran Park. She stated that she was on the Medical Leave Act and she had negative experiences with the manager. She stated that she was forced to move or become homeless. She stated that she has had issues with eviction notices and privacy. She stated that her disability has worsened due to stress. Councillor Simmons offered to speak to Ms. Malvesti at the conclusion of the meeting.

Public comment closed at 8:24pm.

Councillor Simmons informed the attendees that the next two meetings of the Housing Committee have already been scheduled. She stated her commitment to advancing conversations on housing pathways. She acknowledged the tenants who testified at the hearing. She stated that the conversation of an ombudsman needs to be advanced.

Councillor Simmons thanked all those present for their attendance and participation.

The hearing was adjourned at 8:26pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Apr 28, 2015 beginning at 4:19pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss amendments to the Cambridge Municipal Code in Chapter 9.04 entitled "Offenses Against Property" (click here to open ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Carlone announced that the meeting was being privately recorded, not video recorded.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Mayor David P. Maher; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Sam Aylesworth, Assistant City Solicitor, Law Department; Police Commissioner Robert Haas; Deputy Superintendent of Police Joe Wilson; Deputy Superintendent of Police Jack Albert; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street; Paula F. Soto, 243 Broadway; and John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the Law Department will explain the proposed amendments to the ordinance. Then there will be a brief questions and answers period for the City Council and then the hearing will be opened to public comment.

City Solicitor Glowa reminded the City Council that this issue arose from litigation brought against the City. The City has submitted proposed amendment to clarify the ordinance in which the City Council had expressed an interest in June. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the proposed amendments are divided into two sections covering public and private property. The recommendation is to delete at the end of 9.04.050A the words "or on private property without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof" and to add the words in this paragraph "including without limitations motor vehicles" after the word "property." This proposal prohibits posting handbills on public property. The section 9.04.051A is new and states "No person shall post or attach, or directly cause to be posed or attached in any manner, any commercial handbill, poster, advertisement or notice of any kind on any private property including without limitations motor vehicles without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof." This new section specifically relates to commercial notices. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there was not a clear distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech. The City is hopeful that with these new additions the will concerns of the plaintiff will be addressed. This will also help the Police Department with clarity and enforcement. She further explained that "including without limitations motor vehicles" is language that is being added to both the existing section 9.04.050A and to the new section 9.04.051A.

Councillor Simmons inquired if this proposal would affect activities such as a car wash. City Solicitor Glowa explained that there is not a clear definition of commercial or non- commercial speech. She read from the MGL the definition of commercial speech as follows:

Commercial speech is broadly defined as expression related to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience, generally in the form of a commercial advertisement for the sale of goods and services. Factors to evaluate in determining whether speech is commercial speech include whether (1) the speech is an advertisement; (2) the speech refers to a specific product or service; and (3) the speaker has an economic motivation for the speech. An affirmative answer to all three inquiries provides strong support for the conclusion that the speech is commercial. 35 Mass. Prac., Consumer Law Sec. 2:5 (3rd ed.). She stated that a car wash or a field trip could be separated from not being economically motivated or commercial speech. Councillor Simmons stated that children place flyers on cars for car wash etc. to raise money for school events. She expressed her concern that she did not want this activity to be made a violation of this ordinance and not impede public activism. Councillor Simmons questioned if someone is posting flyers for monetary gain how is this enforced and what are the penalties. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is regulated by the section on private property. It is being limited to commercial speech on private property. She stated that the penalties are in the ordinance and are not changing. The penalties include a fine and non-criminal disposition and outlines the enforcing personnel as to who issues the citation. Councillor Simmons asked how difficult it is to enforce this particular ordinance. Deputy Superintendent Wilson stated that the police receives complaints from citizens about handbills being placed on vehicles. He stated that the offender could be informed about the ordinance and then a violation could be issued. He stated that this would not affect a car wash, but the commercial use does makes sense.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is important for the clarity and for civil liberties. He stated that he disagrees with the language being added to 9.04.050A "including without limitations motor vehicles." He stated that this language is confused if it excludes public vehicles. He stated that he felt that this language is not necessary and public vehicles should not be exempted. He stated that the clarity is not worth this. City Solicitor Glowa stated that if the City Council did not wish to support this amendment that they should not vote for it.

Councillor Mazen noted that the general public needs to know what vehicles are "public vehicles." He stated that this is too confusing for the public. Councillor Simmons stated that she did not break down public vehicles to be Public Works vehicles. Councillor Mazen asked what this language is meant to achieve. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Police Commissioner felt that this language was important. This is meant to exclude city vehicles. Councillor Simmons commented on how an unmarked detective car would be recognized. She stated that this is overkill.

Councillor Cheung stated that this is talking about flyers versus vehicles. He does not want a flyer on a police cruiser or an emergency vehicle. He would rather emergency vehicles language be used. Councillor Simmons commented that this is a grey area. She asked how much of a problem is this? She stated that this will be confusing to the public.

Councillor Carlone stated that exceptions could be made for distinct vehicles such as police, fire and emergency vehicles. Councillor Simmons suggested that the language municipal or municipal emergency vehicles. She stated that she wanted this to be clearer or to be deleted. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she wanted to confer with the City Manager and the Police Commissioner and would come back to the City Council with different language. Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted this as narrowly construed as possible.

Councillor Mazen asked where commercial activity is defined. City Solicitor Glowa stated that it is not defined in the ordinance and that there is not a clear definition in MGL. She stated that she would be reluctant to pass an ordinance with language that may be in conflict with state law. Councillor Maze spoke about commercial advertisement. City Solicitor Glowa stated that commercial activity is if the primary objective is to make money. The ordinance regulates commercial speech not the activity. Councillor Mazen noted that small business put flyers on cars that are free. He asked if speech is an advertisement could this be considered a commercial activity.

Councillor Mazen asked about multiply tickets/fine. City Solicitor Glowa stated that each violation is a separate offense and each day is a separate violation, but there could be two violations issue on the same day for a continued offense. Each time there is a violation another ticket can be issued. Councillor Mazen stated that as a deterrent he wanted people to be issued a ticket only once. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is an issue for the enforcing agent. Deputy Superintendent Wilson stated that if the offender shows he was cited he would not be given another ticket. Councillor Mazen noted that this should be in the law. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this language would be difficult to prepare and to enforce. Every situation cannot be anticipated.

Councillor Mazen suggested that any number of infraction would receive a fine of $300 per day. He stated that there is a way to frame this language. City Solicitor Glowa explained that if a flyer is placed on a vehicle in one location and then one moves to another part of the city it is unknown when flyer was placed on the vehicle. This is difficult to enforce. Councillor Simmons noted that in the ordinance the violation is per occurrence and Councillor Mazen is suggesting that the violation be per day.

Councillor Carlone stated that the intent is unclear. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is impugning the knowledge of one police officer over another. She stated that the issue of multiple infraction violation does not arise often. She stated that she understands the concern and will think about proposed language change. Councillor Simmons asked how often this violation happens. She explained that the violation may not be burdensome because there may not be targeting around enforcement. City Solicitor Glowa noted that this is not a frequent occurrence.

Councillor Cheung concluded that language should be proposed to exempt emergency or municipal vehicles and the fine language needed to be clarified. Councillor Cheung asked if newsletters are considered flyers. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the negative. She requested that this be referred to the full City Council.

At 5:06pm Councillor Carlone opened the meeting to public comment.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, did not believe this should be moved quickly. People are pounded by companies with money wanting people to do what they want to do. He stated that it is egregious for the City to charge a $300 fine. He stated that no public messages should be put on public buildings or vehicles. He suggested installing a holder on vehicles and that the property owner to indicate what messages they do not wish to receive. Every being has a right to express itself. The challenge is the grey area and this is the reason the world is a mess. He stated that he does not think that advertising products on people's property is right.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, submitted his remarks. He stated that he has a number of concerns. He stated that fundamentally he understood the Solicitor to have stated that the intention of these amendments are to moot the litigation that is currently in play; that is, to make it no longer relevant and unnecessary. He stated that he is very confused how that could be the case given what this says. And he stated that also, based on their filing, Ms. Soto's lawyers are also confused about it. He stated that reading the amendment, it decreases the set of permitted activities. There are things that can be done now, that cannot be done if this passes. It allows you to do less things. It does not say, "now you can do things that you could not do before." He stated that it says the opposite, it only reduces the number of things you can do. So if there was a question before about putting flyers on cars. There still is a question, you can only put fewer flyers on cars, not more. He stated that there is no increase in what people can do here.

He stated that Ms. Soto's lawyer wrote about this at length in what they filed one month ago yesterday, it's document number 55 in the litigation and I'm sure the City's lawyers will provide it to you. Mr. Hawkinson submitted a copy of litigation Paula F. Soto v. City of Cambridge (ATTACHMENT B). They begin saying the City's proposed amendments will not render this action moot, and they enumerate the amendments. They point out, "While the City represents that it is possible that these proposed amendments might render the action moot, the City never explains how or why that might be." When asked, the City refused to explain.

"First, the addition of ‘motor vehicles' to Section 9.04.050 and new Section 9.04.051 does not resolve Plaintiff's argument that placing a flyer on a windshield is not ‘posting' or ‘attaching' a flyer within the meaning of the Ordinance. Throughout this litigation, the City has justified its ban on Plaintiff's leafletting activity by claiming, among other things, that it is prohibited by the existing Ordinance, ‘Defacing public property.'"

Anyway, they have some very well-reasoned arguments, the City has not responded to them at all, I think it would be ill-advised for you to decrease the set of permitted activities without at least reading their text and hopefully getting a response from the City Solicitor. Perhaps it would have to be in executive session, but I think you really need to think carefully about it.

A number of other items:

* It was represented that the [Police] Commissioner felt strongly about the placement of flyers on automobiles. I spoke with him briefly when he was in the room, he had no idea what I was talking about. I think that needs to be checked.

* As was pointed out by Ms. Glowa, this basically never happens. This fine is never enforced. The section you spent a lot of time on, about the days? That is not new language; it is not being changed by the proposal. So, it would be wise to confine most of your time to the changes rather than the language on the books that is not really at issue here.

* Also, the fine is a criminal fine. There is a $25 civil fine which is much more likely to be enforced.

* A question was raised about the Public Works Department from what was filed in litigation: The Public Works Department does the bulk of this enforcement, and basically Officer Best, the compliance officer, emails people who have put up flyers and they are requested very nicely to remove them. He stated that people get really freaked out and scared by those emails, despite the fact that they do not come with a fine, they act quickly to try to remove the flyers and make the City nicer. I think that process seems to work pretty well, and the Public Works Department DPW does the bulk of the enforcement and it really never gets to the Police.

* Ms. Glowa cited the 3 factors, about what is commercial speech. But she cited them differently. Sometimes she stated an AND; sometimes she stated an OR. He stated that this should be made clear. If the concerns is about whether an advertisement makes something commercial, that is a little different from saying, "Well, it is just a factor."

Anyway, he stated that he felt that this ordinance is not ready for prime time and it would be wise for the City Council to understand the Law Department's response to the well-considered memorandum from the plaintiff's lawyers prepared by the able law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dore, a firm that the wife of Councillor Cheung is employed by.

Councillor Cheung noted for the record that he did not participate in the Executive Session held on this matter so there could not be a perceived conflict of interest. He moved to refer the matter to the full City Council. No action was taken on this motion.

Councillor Mazen about legal proceedings. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is pending litigation and she is not here to discuss the pending litigation. A discussion would have to be done in Executive Session. She is here to discuss the pending ordinance amendments. Councillor Mazen stated that he supported amending the ordinance and wanted to discuss the issues in Executive Session before final action is taken on the ordinance.

Councillor Carlone stated that there will be refinements to the ordinance submitted. City Solicitor Glowa affirmed the issue with municipal vehicles. She stated that she did not recommend changes to the fine language. Councillor Mazen stated that he would defer to the City Solicitor on this matter. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she did not recommend defining commercial speech. She stated that activities such as car washes are not commercial activity or seeking economic benefits. This should not be an issue.

Councillor Simmons made a motion to refer the matter to the full City Council. The motion carried on a voice vote of three the motion - Carried.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:22pm on motion of Councillor Mazen.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair