2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the City Council zoning petition to amend Article 19.000 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding utility and infrastructure impacts of large development projects that require a Project Review Special Permit.
Referred to the Petition

Oct 7, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your consideration, a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the City Council zoning petition to amend Article 19.000 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding utility and infrastructure impacts of large development projects that require a Project Review Special Permit.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

Date: Oct 1, 2019
Subject: Article 19 Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,
On Sept 17, 2019, the Planning Board (the "Board") held a public hearing on a City Council zoning petition (the "Petition") to amend Article 19.000 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge to consider the utility and infrastructure impacts of large development projects that require a Project Review Special Permit. There was no presentation on behalf of the petitioner, but the Board received information and heard testimony from City Engineer Kathy Watkins, Community Development Department staff, Eversource community relations representative Annemarie Walsh, and three members of the public.

The proposed amendment seeks to add language to Section 19.20 that would require applicants for a Project Review Special Permit to account for the utility infrastructure needs of their projects, specifically electricity and gas. It proposes four changes: adding an Electric Service Infrastructure Narrative to existing Section 19 .24; adding a Gas Service Infrastructure Narrative to existing Section 19 .24; editing the Urban Design Findings requirement in existing Section 19.25 .2; and adding a Utility Impact Findings clause to a new Section 19.25.3. The Petition suggests that adding these requirements will ensure that new development does not exceed the capacity of the City's electrical and gas infrastructure. Specifically, the Petition would require the Planning Board, in granting a special permit, to find that "the project would not cause undue adverse impacts on the residents and the environment by requiring extensive additional utility infrastructure to be added to the city, including electrical, gas, sewer, stormwater and any other utility service."

Following deliberation, the Board voted to recommend that City Council not adopt this Petition.  Overall, the Board is not opposed to Project Review Special Permit applicants providing information about a project's energy needs (e.g., electric and gas demand), but the Board does not believe that it would be in the Board's purview to make findings with regard to infrastructure that is managed by state-regulated public utilities over which neither the City nor the developer have control. The Board also was concerned that its members do not have the expertise necessary to evaluate the information required by the Petition and was therefore hesitant to require it.

Moreover, the Board was concerned that the language in the Petition would preclude development projects from building or improving infrastructure as mitigation for their impacts, including to City infrastructure such as water and sewer. Improvements to City-managed infrastructure are typically implemented through new development, which is one of the key practical benefits of the Project Review Special Permit process. The Board believes that developers should continue to be able to mitigate the impacts of their projects by improving utility infrastructure and does not want to hamper this.

The Board concluded that it may be helpful for development applicants to provide information about the projected energy demands of their own projects. The Board recognizes a need to understand how individual projects impact the overall energy system but affirms that its role is to evaluate individual projects at the building and site scale. Since the design of a building is impacted by its anticipated energy load, the Board is interested in identifying opportunities for developers to work with utility providers earlier in the project review process so that the on-site utility needs of the project can be anticipated and factored into the design. Gathering this information may also be helpful to assess cumulative impacts on the systems; however, Board members cautioned that any data provided to the Board should be provided with enough context that it will aid the Board in making project-specific findings.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Vice-Chair

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the votes necessary to seek approval from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2020.
12 Orders Adopted (see below); Rules Suspended, Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Oct 7, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In the attached document, I am requesting that the City Council take the votes necessary to seek approval from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2020.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Oct 7, 2019
To The Honorable, the City Council:

The establishment of the FY20 property tax rate by the Board of Assessors, subject to the approval of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, is the final step in the fiscal process that begins in the spring with the submission of the annual budget to the City Council. With this memo, I am transmitting to you my recommendations for the required votes necessary to minimize taxes on residential properties. In addition, you will find analyses of the FY20 property tax levy, property values, and other supporting information.

OVERVIEW

I am pleased to inform you that the actual FY20 property tax levy is $438,128,694. This is an increase of $28,318,833 or 6.9% from FY19 and reflects the City Council goal to “Ensure the City’s Budget allocates resources responsibly and responsively.” As we had anticipated, this actual increase is lower than the estimated increase projected in May 2019, and what was presented to the rating agencies in February. Responsible and responsive fiscal policies and practices are key to addressing the challenge of balancing expansion and investment in new programs and initiatives, while also minimizing the impact of increases in the tax levy.

The FY20 Adopted Operating Budget increased by 5.7% over the FY19 Adjusted Budget. The FY20 Budget adopted by the City Council in May 2019 projected a property tax levy increase of $35.7 million, or 8.7%, to $445,467,720 in order to fund operating and capital expenditures.

With approval of these recommendations, the property tax levy increase of 6.9% will be above the FY19 increase of 5.3%. The property tax levy increase is also above the five-year (FY16-FY20) annual average increase of 5.1%, and the ten-year (FY11-FY20) annual average increase of 5.0%. The fact that the property tax levy increase for FY20 is higher than previous years increases reflects enhanced funding and investment to address important community needs and expressed Council priorities.

The City has been able to control budget growth and property tax levy increases, while at the same time expanding services and adding resources to support the City Council priority to create and preserve affordable housing within the City. The FY20 Budget represents the most significant increase in the City’s history of non-CPA resources to create and preserve affordable rental and homeownership opportunities for low, moderate, and middle-income families, including $4.725 million, funded from building permits, which is an increase from $3.45 million in FY19, and an additional $5 million funded through Free Cash. This is in addition to $10.6 million appropriated by the City Council from FY20 Community Preservation Funds, for a total of $20.3 million of direct financial support to the Affordable Housing Trust. This amount is an increase of $6.7 million from FY19 funds to the Affordable Housing Trust ($13.6 million). Looking forward, I am confident that the City will be able to double the FY19 amount of $13.6 million to approximately $27 million of direct support to the Affordable Housing Trust in FY21.

The FY20 Budget also includes significant increases for additional Council priorities. This includes 30 new full-time City positions to provide support for expanded programs and initiatives.

There is $1 million in funding for a new Police Cadet Program. This program is designed to reflect the diversity of the City, and will provide an opportunity for Cambridge residents between the ages of 18-23 to receive a salary and on the job and classroom training. The first class of 14 cadets began in Fall 2019 and, upon completion of the program in 2 years, will be eligible for appointment as a Cambridge Police Officer. There is also funding for 3 additional sergeants and a procedural justice informatics analyst within the Police Department. The City also budgeted two additional dispatchers in the Emergency Communications Department, and two additional Deputy Chiefs in the Fire Department, in order to enhance the Department’s strategic planning and efforts in the areas of emergency medical services, special operations/safety initiatives, and community relations, including recruitment.

The Budget includes $1.2 million for urban forestry and the tree canopy in the City. This includes funds for tree planting and maintenance, and after care of new plantings. The City also budgeted a new Assistant Arborist to support planting and permitting programs.

Education is another key priority for the City Council. The City has increased property tax support for schools by 7%, which resulted in an increase of $10,700,755. In addition, there is new City funding for an expanded School Breakfast Program and a new MBTA Pass Program for high school students.

There is also $537,000 of funding to hire 8 new preschool teachers through the Department of Human Services Programs.

In addition, the FY20 Budget supports Capital Improvements including funds to implement the winning projects from cycle five of the Participatory Budget program, and major capital projects such as Fire Headquarters construction, a multi-year Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan, technology initiatives, and the design of the Tobin Montessori School and Vassal Lane Upper School.

Based on a property tax levy of $438.1 million, the FY20 residential tax rate will be $5.75 per thousand dollars of value, subject to Department of Revenue approval. This is a decrease of $0.19, or -3.2% from FY19. The commercial tax rate will be $12.68, which is a decrease of $1.03, or -7.5% from FY19.

This is the seventh consecutive year that the City has reduced tax rates for both residential and commercial taxpayers, which mitigates the impact of the increase in property values. Establishing the tax rate is a straightforward calculation: the total tax levy divided by the total assessed valuation (less any exemptions), equals the tax rate for FY20.

In May, the City Council was informed that the actual tax levy increase was likely to be lower than what was projected with the adopted budget. This was based on the possible use of additional non-property tax revenues, which would become available based on FY19 actual collections and final Cherry Sheet distributions.

As we previously projected, the use of additional non-property tax revenue and other adjustments have allowed an overall reduction of $7,339,026 from the original projected property tax levy for FY20.

This is due to the use of increased non-property tax revenues based on FY19 actuals, which include $2,000,000 in Investment Income, $750,000 in Room Occupancy Excise Taxes, $400,000 in Meals Taxes, $976,090 from increases to building permit revenues, $400,000 in Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes, $750,000 in Public Works Street Permits and the City’s Overlay Surplus increased by $500,000. The final Cherry Sheet had a positive impact of $1,392,132 on the property tax levy. Table 1 reflects these changes and other minor adjustments:

TABLE I
Summary of Tax Levy Changes from Adopted Budget

Tax Levy Changes	Amount
Property Tax Levy As Adopted	$445,467,720
Net Cherry Sheet	$-1,392,132
Non-Property Tax Revenue & Reserves	$-5,776,090
Overlay Adjustment	$-170,804
Actual Property Tax Levy	$438,128,694

This letter includes a recommendation to use $16.5 million in reserve accounts to lower the property tax levy: $2.5 million from overlay surplus and $14 million in Free Cash. The certified Free Cash amount of $246.6 million, an increase of $14.9 million or 6.4% over the previous year’s certification, is inflated by $5.5 million in unappropriated mitigation receipts. Per MGL Chapter 144 Section 53, these receipts must flow through the Free Cash certification process before being available for appropriation by the Council. Excluding mitigation receipts, net certified Free Cash is $241.1 million.

The City Manager will be coming before the City Council with a recommendation for the appropriation of mitigation receipts later in the fiscal year.

There is a recommendation to use $6 million from the City Debt Stabilization Fund to offset increases in debt service costs that would otherwise have been funded from property taxes. There is also a recommendation to appropriate $6 million from Free Cash into the Debt Stabilization Fund. This amount replenishes the amount recommended for use in FY20 from the Debt Stabilization. Prudent use of reserves allows the City to maintain stability in both current and future property tax increases while investing in significant capital and infrastructure projects. This strategy of using an increased amount of non-property tax revenues and reserves to lower property taxes will not jeopardize our long-term fiscal health. However, if the City used too much of its reserves in one year to artificially reduce property taxes, it would mean that in the following year, the City would be required to either increase taxes significantly or dramatically reduce expenditures.

This prudent and planned use of the City’s reserves has been positively recognized by the three major credit rating agencies and is reflected in our AAA credit rating. It is also important to recognize that a healthy balance of development between residential and commercial be continued to ensure homeowner’s real estate taxes remain affordable.

IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS

This will be the fifteenth year in a row that a majority of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no change, or an increase of less than $100 in their tax bill. In fact, in FY20, 61% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase or an increase of less than $100; and 74% of residential taxpayers will see an average increase of less than $250. This is a decrease from FY19, where 70% of residential taxpayers saw a reduction, no increase, or an increase of less than $100 and a decrease where 83% of residential taxpayers saw an average increase of less than $250 in FY19.

Over the past ten years (FY11-20), the City has seen an average of 69.1% of residential taxpayers see a reduction, no increase, or an increase of less than a $100 to their residential tax bill, and 70.8% over the past five years (FY16-20). We have been able to consistently achieve these results while maintaining and expanding City and school services that citizens have come to expect and while providing a robust capital improvement program.

TABLE II
Change in the Residential Tax Bills*

Change in Tax Payment	FY20 Number of Parcels	FY20 Percentage	FY20 Cumulative %		FY19 Cumulative %	FY18 Cumulative %
Less than $0	4,820	22%	22%		33%	24%
> $0 and less than $100.00	8,568	39%	61%		70%	69%
>$100.00 less than $250.00	2,869	13%	74%		83%	92%
>$250.00 and less than $500.00	2,818	13%	87%		96%	97%
Greater than $500.00	2,871	13%	100%		100%	100%
Totals	21,946	100%

* Based on Single, Two, Three Family, and Condominiums and assumes the Residential Exemption for each parcel in both years.

MEDIAN TAX BILLS

The analysis that follows explains in further detail how the City determined property values and property tax rates for FY20. There are three major factors which determine a property tax bill: 1) the Budget, 2) Commercial-Residential Property Tax Classification, and 3) Property Values. As discussed below, all three factors contributed to lower tax bills for many homeowners.

The Budget: If the City Council adopts the proposed recommendations, there will be a 6.9% increase in the property tax levy required to balance the FY20 Budget, which supports the City Council Goal to “Ensure the City’s Budget allocates resources responsibly and responsively.”

Commercial-Residential Property Tax Classification: Tax classification allows municipalities to tax commercial taxpayers at a higher rate than residential taxpayers. In FY20, commercial property owners will pay 65.4% of the property tax levy, the same share as in FY19. Consequently, residential property owners’ share of the FY20 tax levy is 34.6%, also the same as in FY19.

Property Values: Every January 1st, the City of Cambridge must meet Department of Revenue requirements to certify that property values represent full and fair market value. As a result of the market activity in calendar year 2018, which is the basis of the FY20 property assessment, total residential property values increased by 9.9%. Total commercial property values increased by 15.6%.

This year’s increase in total values reflects the robust real estate market, which has been driven by continued new construction in both residential and commercial classes, as well as the continued desirability of the Cambridge market. While the City has no control over the increase in property values, it does have control over levy increases, which ultimately impact taxes paid by property owners.

As has been past practice, increases in property values have been mitigated by a decrease in the tax rate, translating into stable tax bills for Cambridge residents. Additionally, a major concern going forward is that if residential value increases outpace commercial/industrial/personal property increases, the City could hit the ceiling for the property tax classification shift. Once the classification ceiling is reached, the residential class will bear the majority of any tax levy increase.

As part of the process, the City must successfully complete the Department of Revenue’s (DOR) interim year certification process of the City’s real and personal property values, system and methodologies.

TABLE III
Change in the Median Value and Tax Bill by Property Class*

	FY19 Value	FY19 Tax Bill	FY20 Value	FY20 Tax Bill	Dollar Change	Percent Change
Single Family	$1,228,700	$5,066	$1,370,500	$5,515	$449	8.9%
Condominium	$638,750	$1,562	$690,500	$1,605	$43	2.8%
Two Family	$1,213,100	$4,974	$1,340,050	$5,340	$366	7.4%
Three Family	$1,406,700	$6,124	$1,540,600	$6,493	$369	6.0%

* Includes Residential Exemption

CITY-WIDE ASSESSED VALUES

FY20 values are based on market activity that occurred during calendar year 2018, during which the overall valuation of both the City’s residential property and commercial property increased. This reflects an increase in commercial rental rates and a slight decrease in commercial vacancies, which has an impact on existing commercial property values. The major components which impact the commercial values are the construction of life science buildings and the personal property associated with these developments.

For FY20, the total assessed value of taxable property in the City equals $54,947,909,223, approximately $6 billion or a 12.2% increase over FY19 values. The actual FY20 total assessed values are greater than the projections presented to the rating agencies in February 2019 due to continued strength in the Cambridge real estate market.

As noted above, the City is required to assess properties at full and fair market value. Therefore, it is extremely important to control the increase in the property tax levy in order to limit the impact on tax bills. While property values have increased significantly, residential tax bills have increased more moderately. As a result, the City has consistently received a limited number of abatement applications annually.

In FY19, the market for both commercial and residential properties increased at a faster pace than most of the Greater Boston area, resulting in the continuation of a tax distribution similar to FY19 between commercial taxpayers and residential taxpayers. Despite this environment of increasing values, it is important to note that due to the City’s ability to control taxes and therefore produce tax bills with moderate increases, the City has incurred a limited number of abatement requests annually. This has allowed for a $2.5 million overlay surplus to be applied towards lowering the FY20 property tax levy, as has been our practice in prior years.

The table below breaks out new construction values and tax base levy growth due to new construction by property type. This new construction growth, coupled with moderate budget increases, has allowed the City to maintain the classification of taxes and increase the City’s excess levy capacity.

TABLE IV
New Construction Breakdown

Property Class	New Growth Value	FY20 Tax Base Levy Growth (New Growth)
Residential Property	$374,644,360	$2,225,387
Commercial Property	$541,785,100	$7,427,874
Personal Property	$348,903,706	$4,783,470
Total New Growth	$1,265,333,166	$14,436,731

TABLE V
Assessed Values (in millions)

	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20
Residential Property	$21,584	$24,498	$26,426	$29,419	$32,335
Commercial Property	$11,874	$13,745	$15,719	$17,963	$20,934
Personal Property	$1,222	$1,387	$1,474	$1,595	$1,679
Total Assessed Value	$34,680	$39,630	$43,619	$48,977	$54,948

For FY20, the City was able to increase its levy limit by approximately $29.3 million, to $628.5 million. Approximately $14.4 million of this increase was due to new construction. State law allows the City to increase its tax levy limit by an amount equal to the total FY20 value of newly constructed or renovated property, multiplied by the FY19 tax rate. The remaining $14.9 million is the 2.5% increase over the FY19 levy allowed by Proposition 2½. The City’s excess levy capacity increased by approximately $1.0 million, or .52%, to $190.4 million in FY20. This is the lowest increase in excess levy capacity in the last 5 years, which is primarily the result of budget growth and the corresponding levy increase for FY20.

TABLE VI
Tax Levy/Tax Levy Limit/Excess Levy Capacity (in thousands)

	Actual FY16	Actual FY17	Actual FY18	Actual FY19	Estimate FY20
Levy Limit	$509,473	$540,960	$570,550	$599,171	$628,479
Actual Levy	$354,431	$372,674	$389,080	$409,810	$438,129
% Actual Levy Increase over Prior Year	3.8%	5.2%	4.4%	5.3%	6.9%
Excess Levy Capacity	$155,042	$168,286	$181,470	$189,361	$190,350
% Change of Excess Levy Capacity Over Prior Year	15.7%	8.5%	7.8%	4.4%	.52%

In addition to providing greater flexibility under Proposition 2½, tax payments from newly constructed properties also work to mitigate increases on existing properties.

For a detailed listing of assessment changes by district, please see Attachment 1.

FY20 VALUATION PROCESS

Each year, the Board of Assessors conducts a reappraisal of all property within the City. The residential and commercial valuation models are refined each year to reflect market conditions which have impacted assessed values. This fiscal year, the Department of Revenue (DOR) conducted statistical validation of the models.

The FY20 valuation model is based upon sales of property that occurred during calendar year 2018, to establish the market value of all property as of Jan 1, 2019. For FY20, the number of assessing districts has remained unchanged. In prior years, some consolidation of districts took place to create a larger sales sample size.

The ultimate test for any mass appraisal model is the comparison between actual sales not part of the model building process and the predicted value from the model. Comparing the FY19 model to calendar year 2018 sales data, the model showed the following results.

TABLE VII
Residential Sales Price/Prior Assessment Comparison

Property Type	Sale Count	Median Sale Price	Median Assessment
Single Family	99	$1,400,000	$1,134,000
Two Family	61	$1,405,000	$1,176,500
Three Family	36	$1,800,000	$1,446,500
Condominiums	533	$752,000	$663,900

The assessment ratios were between 80%-88% of calendar year 2018 sales, reflecting increasing market values during the last year.

Calendar year 2018 sales demonstrated that the FY19 model needed to be updated based on current market trends and overall property class statistics. The individual neighborhoods also showed some inconsistent growth trends and required review. As a result, sales data from the calendar year 2018 real estate market has been utilized, along with what was learned from the prior year abatement activity, to establish the FY20 assessed values as of Jan 1, 2019. Using technologies such as the Geographical Information System (GIS) allowed for a more in-depth review of data. Using GIS, the Board of Assessors was able to visually display market activity and thereby validate the assessing districts using this information.

Modifications were made to the residential and condominium models, as well as to residential land values. The residential land had adjustments for neighborhood, while the residential model was recalibrated for use, grade, finished basements and condition adjustments. The condominium model was adjusted by neighborhood for market conditions as of the assessment date. In addition, 4,886 inspections were completed along with a detailed field review of property. These inspections served to ensure consistency within neighborhoods and across the city. The analysis for determining property values depends on several factors: the trends of the real estate market in the areas of sales; property improvements; changes in the economics of real estate finance and the high demand for real estate in the city. To arrive at full and fair cash values for all 24,801 parcels, the Assessing Department uses a state-of-the-art Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal system (CAMA). Market adjusted cost approach models, extracted from residential sales for calendar year 2018, were refined to best reflect the equity of comparable properties as demonstrated in the various neighborhoods. Sales of over 1,000 houses and condominium units were analyzed to develop these valuation models by property type (one-family, two-family, three-family, and condominium units).

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT SURCHARGE

In November 2001, Cambridge voters approved adoption of the Community Preservation Act (CPA), a State law that allows the City to receive matching funds from the State for money raised locally in support of affordable housing, historic preservation and open space. The local portion of CPA funding is raised through a 3% surcharge on taxes.

However, the State match has enabled the City to provide additional funding for these initiatives. To date, Cambridge has received more CPA matching funds from the Commonwealth than any other participating community. Consequently, Cambridge residents will continue to benefit from affordable housing, historic preservation and open space initiatives throughout the City for years to come. The State also recently approved increased fees at the Registry of Deeds, which is anticipated to increase the matching funds that the City receives from the State next fiscal year.

To date, the City has appropriated/reserved a total of $206.3 million in CPA funds, of which $52.7 million can be attributed to the State match.

TABLE VIII
Community Preservation Act Surcharge

	FY19 Median CPA Surcharge Amount	FY20 Median CPA Surcharge Amount	FY20 Median Tax	FY 20 Median Tax & CPA Surcharge Amount
Single Family	$134	$148	$5,515	$5,663
Condominium	$29	$31	$1,605	$1,636
Two Family	$131	$143	$5,340	$5,483
Three Family	$166	$178	$6,493	$6,671

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the City Council vote to authorize the use of $14,000,000 in Free Cash to reduce the FY20 tax rate. [1a - Adopted 7-2; DC, QZ - NO]

2. That the City Council vote to authorize $2,500,000 in overlay surplus/reserves to be used for reducing the FY20 tax rate. [1b - Adopted 8-1; QZ - NO]

3. That the City Council vote to authorize $6,000,000 from the City Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget, which was included in the FY20 Adopted Budget. [1c - Adopted 9-0]

4. That the City Council appropriate $6,000,000 from Free Cash to the City Debt Stabilization Fund. [1d - Adopted 9-0]

5. That the City Council classify property within the City of Cambridge into the five classes allowed for the purpose of allocating the property tax. [1e - Adopted 9-0] It is further recommended that the City Council adopt a minimum residential factor of 58.7316%. [1f - Adopted 9-0]

6. That the City Council approve the residential exemption factor of 30% for owner occupied homes, which should result in a residential tax rate of $5.75 upon final approval by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. In addition, based upon final approval by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue the commercial tax rate is anticipated to be $12.68. [1g - Adopted 9-0]

7. That the City Council vote to double the normal value of the statutory exemptions. [1h - Adopted 8-0-0-1; DC - PRESENT]

8. That the City Council vote to increase the FY19 exemption allowed under Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17D from $322 to $333. [1i - Adopted 9-0]

9. That the City Council vote to increase the FY19 asset limits allowed under Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17E from $63,760 to $65,864. [1j - Adopted 9-0]

10. That the City Council vote to increase the FY19 income and assets limits for elderly persons (age 65 or older). Income limits of $26,364 to $27,234 for those who are single and $39,547 to $40,852 for those who are married, asset limits of $52,725 to $54,465 for those who are single and $72,498 to $74,890 for those who are married, as allowed under MGL, Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D. [1k - Adopted 9-0]

11. That the City Council vote the income limit for deferral of real estate taxes by elderly persons (at least 65 years old) as determined by the Commissioner of Revenue for the purposes of MGL, Chapter 62, Section 6, subsection (k), for a single person who is not head of household ($58,000) and for a married couple ($88,000), as allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41A. The reduction of the interest rate to 4% for deferred taxes, which was approved by the City Council previously, will continue. [1l - Adopted 9-0]

ISSUES/REQUIRED VOTES

As the City Council is aware, by the time the classification vote is taken in the fall of each year, the options for the City are fairly limited. Failure to approve the recommended classification, residential exemption and the doubling of statutory exemptions would result in significantly higher taxes for residential property owners. After the classification vote is taken, the establishment of the tax rate is a fairly simple mathematical calculation: the tax levy required to support the City budget, divided by the total assessed valuation (less any exemptions), equals the tax rate for FY20.

The following is a summary of the votes required by the City Council.

• Authorize $14,000,000 in Free Cash to Reduce the FY20 Tax Levy. For the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2019, the City of Cambridge has a certified Free Cash balance of $246,628,340 an increase of approximately $14.9 million from the previous year. This balance represents the highest amount in the City’s history. However, this increase includes approximately $5.5 million in unappropriated mitigation receipts which, according to MGL chapter 44 section 53, must flow through the Free Cash certification process before the receipts are available for appropriation by the Council. After the reduction of mitigation funds, the net certified Free Cash Balance is $241.1 million. The City Manager will be coming before the City Council with a recommendation for the appropriation of mitigation receipts later in the fiscal year.

The $14 million in the Free Cash authorization is requested at this time from the City’s Free Cash balance in order to reduce the property tax levy increase. This year’s Free Cash authorization offsets $5 million in additional funding for affordable housing included in the FY20 Adopted Budget.

The Department of Revenue (DOR) does not allow formal authorizations of Free Cash by the City Council until the DOR has certified a Free Cash balance at the conclusion of the fiscal year.

• Transfer of Excess Overlay Balances. The City is authorized to increase each tax levy by up to five percent as an “overlay” to provide for tax abatements. If abatements are granted in excess of the applicable overlay, the excess is required to be added to the next tax levy, or transfers may be made from surplus balances from prior fiscal years.

Overall, the City has approximately $19.0 million in overlay balances as of June 30, 2019. However, there are cases pending at the Appellate Tax Board for which the City must have sufficient balances to cover abatements if it loses these cases. Based upon the overall size of the overlay surplus, I am recommending that the City use $2.5 million of this surplus to decrease the tax levy. This conservative approach will allow the City to maintain a sufficient overlay reserve while reducing older overlay balances to help lower the tax levy.

• Authorize $6,000,000 in City Debt Stabilization Funds. In recognition of increases in debt service costs related to major capital projects, the City established a City Debt Stabilization Fund.

The Adopted FY20 Budget included $6.0 million from this source to fund debt service costs related to the elementary school reconstruction program.

• Appropriate $6,000,000 in Free Cash to the City’s Debt Stabilization Fund. This Free Cash appropriation of $6.0 million to the City’s Debt Stabilization Fund will be used to mitigate anticipated debt service costs in future years for the City’s major capital projects, especially in relation to the School Reconstruction Program.

• Classify Property and Establish Minimum Residential Factor. Since 1984, the City Council has voted annually to follow State law allowing the classification of property according to use (residential or commercial) and to allocate the legal maximum portion of the tax levy to the commercial class. State law allows the residential portion of the tax levy to be as low as 50% of what it would be if there were single tax rates. However, there are two exceptions to the 50% minimum:

The residential percent of the levy cannot drop to less than its lowest level since classification was initially voted by the City Council (34.5615% in 1985 in Cambridge); and the 50% level does not cause the commercial class to bear a portion of the levy greater than 175% of what it would be if both classes were taxed equally.

Under the requirements for classification, the City Council sets the levy distribution each year by voting for a Minimum Residential Factor. The result of voting for the Minimum Residential Factor of 58.7316% this year will be a residential property share of the total tax levy of 34.5615%. This means that Commercial property will pay the remainder, 65.4385% of the levy. The commercial portion of the levy is 159.011% of what it would be with a single tax rate, if classification was not adopted.

• Residential Exemptions. Home Rule Legislation allowing the City to increase the residential exemption from 20% to 30% was filed by a unanimous vote of the City Council and signed into law in September 2003. This change enables the City to grant owner occupants of residential properties a deduction of up to 30% of the average residential parcel value before the tax rate is applied. I am recommending that the City Council accept the Residential Exemption at 30%. This amount is deducted from the assessed value of each owner-occupied property prior to applying the tax rate. The residential exemption serves to reduce the effective tax rate on lower valued properties while raising it on higher valued properties. Since the same amount is deducted from every value, its impact is greatest on the lower valued properties. The residential exemption is paid for by raising the residential tax rate sufficiently to cover the number of taxpayers claiming the residential exemption.

For FY20, there are approximately 14,600 residential exemptions on the Assessing Department files on owner-occupied homes. The Assessing Department conducts random audits and responds to inquiries about individuals claiming the residential exemption, to ensure the validity of the program.

If Cambridge did not adopt a residential exemption, the residential tax rate would be $4.68 instead of $5.75. The higher tax rate results in a "break-even" value over which the higher valued residential properties are assessed higher taxes than would be the case if there were no residential exemption. In FY20, the break-even assessed value is approximately $2,210,000.

30% Residential Exemption

	FY2018	FY2019	FY2020
Value Exempted	$338,983	$375,800	$411,316
Tax Savings	$2,132	$2,232	$2,365

• Double Statutory Exemptions/Exemption Increases. State legislation requires cities and towns to grant a variety of tax exemptions to elderly taxpayers, blind taxpayers, veterans and surviving spouses who qualify by virtue of residency, income, and assets. There are also two pieces of legislation which authorize cities and towns to increase the amounts of these exemptions.

The first allows cities and towns to double the statutory amount of exemption for taxpayers whose tax bills have increased over the prior year's bill. The City Council votes annually for this increase. I am recommending that the Council do this for FY20, as it has since FY87.

The second allows cities and towns under Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17D to increase the amount of the exemption for a senior citizen 70 or older, surviving spouse, or minor with a deceased parent, by the increase in the cost-of-living as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The cost of living adjustment (COLA), as determined by the DOR, is measured by the increase in the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, Boston (CPI-U) for the previous calendar year. The percentage increase for this period was 3.3%. Therefore, the FY20 exemption amounts, income limits or asset limits under these local options will increase over the FY19 amounts and limits. Therefore, the FY20 exemption will be $333.

In addition, under Clause 17E, which Cambridge has already adopted, cities and towns can increase the asset amounts by the CPI percentage for this same group. The FY20 amounts increases to $65,864 from $63,760.

MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D allows cities and towns to increase the income and assets limits for elderly persons (age 65 or older) by the CPI percentage. For FY20, the income limits will be $27,234 for those who are single, $40,852 for those who are married, and the asset limits will be $54,465 for those who are single and $74,890 for those who are married.

• Income Limit for Tax Deferral. Another form of tax relief available to property owners under state law is found in MGL Chapter 59, Section 3, Clause 41A. This statute allows taxpayers who are at least 65 years old to defer tax payments until they are deceased or the property is transferred. The statutory income limit for this deferral is $40,000. However, a change in the statute, allows the City Council to vote to increase the income limit for deferral of real estate taxes by elderly persons (at least 65 years old) from $40,000 to the amount determined by the Commissioner of Revenue for the purposes of subsection (k) of section 6 of chapter 62, (currently $58,000 for a single person and $88,000 for a married couple, which may be indexed by Massachusetts DOR for FY18), as allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41A. I am recommending that the City Council vote to adopt the deferral amount. The City Council has previously voted to reduce the interest percentage to 4% on deferred property tax balances.

CONCLUSION

In May, the City Council adopted an FY20 Budget that continues to provide stability and reinvests in our community. The Budget expands City and school services, includes new programs and 30 new City positions (excluding School Department), which help support a variety of new initiatives and City Council priorities, and provides for a robust capital plan, including funding to continue the multi-year school reconstruction program and increased funding for affordable housing initiatives. This has been achieved by our strong fiscal practices, which control budget growth and property tax levy increases.

Approximately 65% of the revenues that fund the City’s budget are raised through property taxes. Massachusetts communities are limited in how they can raise revenues, resulting in a greater reliance on the property tax, since it is the largest and most stable revenue. The City has been able to achieve a lower property tax rate and lower residential property tax bill than surrounding communities due to its ability to generate diverse non-property tax revenues, foster new construction, control budget growth, and plan prudent use of reserves. In addition, a strong, stable commercial tax base is a key component of our ability to limit impacts on residential taxpayers.

Overall, continued sound financial management and planning have enabled the City Council to limit the growth of residential property taxes in FY20. In addition, with City Council approval, the City will use $16.5 million of reserves (free cash/overlay surplus) in FY20 to lessen the amount to be raised from the property tax levy, which translates into a lower property tax burden for the taxpayers of the City.

I am recommending the appropriation of $6.0 million from Free Cash to the City’s Debt Stabilization Fund, which will be used to offset anticipated debt service costs in future years for the City’s major capital projects, especially in relation to the school reconstruction program. This is an increase from previous years and is in recognition of future capital projects and the importance of stabilizing tax levy increases in future years.

With the approval of this recommendation, the Debt Stabilization Fund is projected to have a FY20 year-end balance of $57.2 million to help offset some of the future debt service costs of the school reconstruction program and other municipal projects. The City will continue to pursue opportunities for reimbursement through the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) program for smaller repair projects; these funds are not included in our current financial projections.

Our current five-year debt schedule (FY20-24) is projected to be over $528.6 million, which is comprised of $378.6 million in tax supported debt and $150 million of sewer debt. The multi-year school reconstruction program makes up $224.6 million of this total and includes the construction of the King Open and Cambridge Street Upper Schools and Community Complex, as well as a portion of the Tobin Montessori and Vassal Lane Upper School project. However, it should be noted that with this projected debt issuance, the City’s ability to fund additional major projects is limited.

Based upon discussions with the City Council, we have amended our bonding schedule, which resulted in a recommendation to fund the renovation of the Fire Department Headquarters. The City will also continue to explore additional funding for improvements to other fire stations.

The past fiscal year was very strong financially, with total assessed values and excess levy capacity continuing to increase; actual revenues which exceeded projections and prior year collections; and controlled expenditures. However, it would not be prudent for the City to expect or project future revenues based on FY19 actuals.

These strong financial indicators, combined with an AAA credit rating, provide the City with enormous flexibility to respond to the many needs facing this community and to provide the services that the majority of our residents expect from the City, without sacrificing our fiscal stability and flexibility. It is also important to recognize that a healthy balance of development between residential and commercial be continued to ensure homeowner’s real estate taxes remain affordable.

The City used $45.6 million in Free Cash in FY19. With the approval of this recommendation, the City will use $20 million in Free Cash, reducing the net Free Cash balance to $226.6 million. The City has used an average of $43.6 million in Free Cash annually over the last 5 years. The strategic use of Free Cash is not only used to reduce the current tax levy and stabilize the impact of future debt supported capital projects, but is also available to fund one-time items. This planned approach has allowed us to maintain our Free Cash balances, enabled us to weather uncertain economic times, and is the City’s insurance policy against unforeseen catastrophes.

As in the past, the City is currently compiling a list of prioritized projects. Subject to City Manager recommendation and City Council approval, a partial list of the items that are anticipated to be recommended for appropriation from Free Cash include: Foundry Building construction; open space/recreation projects, including Glacken Field, additional tree funding, a new Universal Design playground; public safety radio equipment; preservation of “expiring use” properties; the Green Line Extension payment; E-Gov projects; Central Square Branch Library improvements; implementing recommendations of the Mayor’s Arts Task Force and the Blue-Ribbon Task Force for Tenant Displacement; school building feasibility plan; and snowstorm related expenses. Based on the current estimates of appropriations from Free Cash during FY20, the City projects a significant decrease in next year’s certified Free Cash Balance.

The long-term outlook for Cambridge continues to be very strong and reinforces the City’s practice of managing our resources wisely. We will continue to use our five-year financial and capital plan, debt and reserve policies, and the City Council goals as a blue print for our long-range planning. Our current financial projections indicate that we will be able to continue to produce future budgets that will reflect a moderate growth in the property tax levy, which is slightly above our 5-year annual average increase.

The prudent use of the City’s reserve balances that we have created over the years, has allowed us to lessen the tax burden of our tax payers while maintaining our fiscal flexibility and continuing to position Cambridge as a favorable place to live and do business. In addition, our reserves allow us to fund one-time capital projects and other programmatic initiatives that reflect City Council priorities.

I would like to thank the City Council for their continued guidance and support as well as staff for their hard work, that makes Cambridge the most fiscally sound city in the Commonwealth, while at the same time being able to provide increased support for important City priorities such as schools, housing, public safety, sustainability, infrastructure, and other City programs and Capital Improvements.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

FY2020 Single Family Assessment Data Median Assessed Values NBHD Count FY19 Median Value FY20 Median Value Change R1 387 $ 843,700 $ 880,500 4% R2 205 $ 955,200 $ 1,074,600 13% R3 237 $ 1,355,100 $ 1,511,500 12% R4 84 $ 1,320,250 $ 1,495,300 13% R5 62 $ 2,950,550 $ 3,404,550 15% R6 372 $ 2,115,900 $ 2,241,000 6% R7 658 $ 814,950 $ 905,550 11% R8 202 $ 1,157,800 $ 1,234,650 7% R9 205 $ 1,712,700 $ 1,818,400 6% R10 338 $ 3,533,800 $ 4,085,650 16% R11 171 $ 1,708,100 $ 1,923,300 13% R12 181 $ 1,004,000 $ 1,143,500 14% R13 234 $ 1,104,200 $ 1,247,050 13% R14 174 $ 1,713,600 $ 1,935,050 13% R15 33 $ 1,364,300 $ 1,490,000 9% R16 156 $ 1,524,300 $ 1,723,950 13% R17 194 $ 1,060,250 $ 1,197,500 13%

FY2020 Two Family Assessment Data Median Assessed Values NBHD Count FY19 Median Value FY20 Median Value Change R1 282 $ 995,400 $ 1,037,600 4% R2 167 $ 1,072,200 $ 1,199,200 12% R3 204 $ 1,508,800 $ 1,676,300 11% R4 45 $ 1,602,500 $ 1,807,100 13% R5 6 $ 2,391,650 $ 2,728,550 14% R6 71 $ 1,890,200 $ 1,946,600 3% R7 589 $ 1,028,200 $ 1,124,700 9% R8 183 $ 1,274,500 $ 1,408,000 10% R9 10 $ 1,312,450 $ 1,367,250 4% R10 10 $ 2,907,400 $ 3,308,550 14% R11 31 $ 1,864,300 $ 2,083,200 12% R12 154 $ 1,117,950 $ 1,265,350 13% R13 214 $ 1,303,350 $ 1,469,250 13% R14 205 $ 1,473,500 $ 1,686,700 14% R16 85 $ 1,539,900 $ 1,737,200 13% R17 134 $ 1,240,050 $ 1,375,300 11%

FY2020 Three Family Assessment Data Median Assessed Values NBHD Count FY19 Median Value FY20 Median Value Change R1 223 $ 1,205,800 $ 1,269,700 5% R2 139 $ 1,369,400 $ 1,504,100 10% R3 120 $ 1,787,150 $ 1,972,100 10% R4 33 $ 2,116,200 $ 2,406,100 14% R5 3 $ 4,669,000 $ 5,177,100 11% R6 32 $ 2,197,700 $ 2,342,650 7% R7 168 $ 1,248,400 $ 1,358,800 9% R8 42 $ 1,516,350 $ 1,579,350 4% R9 1 $ 1,072,800 $ 1,123,500 5% R10 1 $ 4,807,900 $ 5,410,500 13% R11 15 $ 1,816,200 $ 2,024,500 11% R12 118 $ 1,323,950 $ 1,478,900 12% R13 150 $ 1,430,450 $ 1,595,700 12% R14 47 $ 1,668,300 $ 1,842,300 10% R16 45 $ 1,729,300 $ 1,939,100 12% R17 64 $ 1,439,350 $ 1,593,150 11%

FY2020 Condominium Assessment Data Median Assessed Values NBHD Count FY19 Median Value FY20 Median Value Change R1 2821 $ 651,100 $ 705,700 8% R2 716 $ 617,600 $ 665,400 8% R3 2074 $ 616,400 $ 664,100 8% R4 663 $ 584,700 $ 631,100 8% R5 17 $ 2,529,600 $ 2,724,400 8% R6 1634 $ 579,200 $ 624,200 8% R7 1824 $ 576,400 $ 619,850 8% R8 433 $ 748,200 $ 805,000 8% R9 50 $ 734,350 $ 791,250 8% R10 39 $ 2,367,000 $ 2,538,700 7% R11 516 $ 1,047,100 $ 1,135,350 8% R12 1125 $ 613,400 $ 656,200 7% R13 1202 $ 686,000 $ 740,750 8% R14 384 $ 806,050 $ 858,450 7% R16 385 $ 646,700 $ 697,700 8% R17 579 $ 749,500 $ 799,900 7%

39. A communication was received from Joseph T. Maguire, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. regarding Amended Zoning Petition for Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District.

ALEXANDRIA

Oct 3, 2019

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk, City of Cambridge, 795 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139

Re: Amended Zoning Petition for Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District

Dear Mr. Wilson:

On behalf of Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. ("Alexandria"), we request that you inform the City Council of the following items relative to the Amended Zoning Petition for the Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District ("Amended Petition"):

• Alexandria requests that the City Council take no action on the second reading of the Amended Petition at its meeting on Mon, Oct 7, 2019;

• Alexandria asks that the Amended Petition remain on the table without further action by the Council; and

• Alexandria plans to refile the Amended Petition, which expires on Oct 9, 2019.

Thank you and the City Council for helping to advance the Amended Petition over the last few months. Alexandria looks forward to working with the City and the community to create the Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District and help to make the Grand Junction Pathway a reality.

Very truly yours,
Joseph T. Maguire
Senior Vice President-Real Estate Development & Asset Services
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: Three times per summer, the City of Boston hosts “Open Newbury”, an open market-style event where Newbury Street is closed to vehicular traffic and businesses, restaurants, and visitors can use the entire street without the interference of traffic; and
WHEREAS: Now finishing its second summer, Open Newbury is a popular event that draws thousands of visitors to Newbury Street and dramatically increases traffic to local businesses; and
WHEREAS: Harvard Square is a business district has a street layout with the potential to be a pedestrian-only area at designated times, and is already a popular tourist destination; and
WHEREAS: Choosing a handful of dates in the summer of 2020 to close some portion of Harvard Square as a pilot program to traffic and make it pedestrian-only would increase the number of visitors to Harvard Square, increase traffic to local businesses, and allow Harvard Square to compete on a level with Newbury St and other business districts that host open market-style events; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, the Harvard Square Business Association and the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association to determine the feasibility of closing some portion of Harvard Square to vehicular traffic on a select number of days during the summer of 2020; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-3     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
ORDERED: That the full City Council ask the City Solicitor to report back on the legal authority of the City to ban the use of natural gas in newly constructed buildings.
REFER TO COMMITTEE REPORT #1

O-4     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Arts Council and the Department of Public Works, in conjunction with the Rindge School of Technical Arts, to determine the best re-use for the four honey locust logs from Inman Square to create public art for the community.
REFER TO COMMITTEE REPORT #2

O-5     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
ORDERED: That the City Manager is requested to have appropriate city staff review the proposed Welcoming Community ordinance, present draft language to the Ordinance Committee at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to their next meeting on this ordinance and report back to the Ordinance committee.

O-7     Oct 7, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of its response to the climate crisis; and
WHEREAS: An estimated 43% of emissions in Massachusetts come from transportation, and driving personal gasoline-powered vehicles causes a large portion of those emissions; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge’s Climate Action Plan states that in order to reach our sustainability goals, the City must actively pursue innovative methods to reduce vehicular emissions; and
WHEREAS: Many gasoline nozzles come equipped with a “nozzle talker” that could easily hold a small label; and
WHEREAS: Requiring these labels at the gas pump will provide consumers with information about the impact of fossil fuel consumption directly at the point of purchase, which may encourage them to reduce their consumption and use alternative forms of transportation when appropriate; and
WHEREAS: The fight to reverse climate change requires that everyone take action to change their behavior, and the City must underscore the fact that each individual’s behavior can make an impact on the environment and on public health; and
WHEREAS: In City Manager’s Agenda #13 of Oct 17, 2016, the City Solicitor opined that such an ordinance would violate neither the First Amendment nor the Commerce Clause, as long as it contains “purely factual and uncontroversial” information; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the proposed amendment to article 8.12.010 of the Municipal Code (as attached) be referred to the Ordinance Committee for hearing and report before the end of 2019; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor and the appropriate staff to review the language of this draft amendment and to report back to the City Council in advance of the Ordinance Committee hearing.

Fuel Pump Warning Label Amendment
8.12.010 - Self-service station regulations.
a) The dispensing of motor fuel by means of self-service automated dispensing systems shall be permitted at any authorized gasoline station. All installations shall comply with the regulations promulgated by the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations in the Commonwealth.
b) Each self-service automated dispensing system shall display a clear warning label explaining that burning gasoline, diesel and ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment, including contributing to climate change. The text, image, or graphics of this warning label shall be approved by the Department of Public Health.

O-8     Oct 7, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: There is currently no formally established, public process for keeping the City and the public informed on the status of our public utilities’ load forecasting and infrastructure planning; and
WHEREAS: Regularly scheduled public conversations between the Planning Board and the City’s electricity, gas, water, cable and internet providers are essential to ensuring comprehensive planning is transparent, effective, and in the best interest of residents; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to institute regularly scheduled, public conversations between the Planning Board and public utility representatives from Eversource, the Water Department, Comcast, Verizon, and any other appropriate entities, in order to keep the City and the public informed; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on this matter before the end of 2019.

O-11     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Rodent infestations have been a prevalent problem throughout Cambridge and in recent months the problem has continued to get worse and have costs homeowners a substantial amount of money for traps; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to allocate more funds in the FY21 budget to Inspectional Services to help combat the city-wide rodent issue and report back on the feasibility of providing monetary compensation to homeowners who have had to self-finance traps and what funds could be allocated in the future to help homeowners buy traps.

O-13     Oct 7, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Harvard and MIT are two of the city's largest taxpayers and also make annual PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) payments to partially offset the loss of property tax revenue due to their non-profit status; and
WHEREAS: In FY20 total PILOT payments were projected to be about $7.1 million; and
WHEREAS: The universities and their affiliated programs greatly enrich our community but also add to the demand for housing at all income levels; and
WHEREAS: The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement investigated the City’s PILOT agreements and whether the opportunity exists for renegotiation of these established contracts, developing new, additional PILOTs, and/or redirecting revenue; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Budget Department, the Assessor's Department and the Community Development Department to consider directing a portion of future PILOT funds into the Affordable Housing Trust starting in FY21, in order to increase the total amount of annual funding in the trust; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back by Dec 2, 2019.

O-15     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: Commuters in Cambridge and are facing significant traffic congestion on our roads, numerous delays on our public transit system, and few reliable transportation options; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Biotechnology Council (MassBio) released a survey of 2,000 people in which a majority said that their commutes are worse than in the past and public transportation is too unreliable, and numerous respondents also said they would seriously consider changing jobs or move to another state if they could get a better commute, and as a result, the MassBio leadership has strongly encouraged companies in the biotechnology sector to pay for their employees’ bike or scooter share usage; and
WHEREAS: According to a recent study by INRIX, 49% of all automobile trips in the Boston area are less than 3 miles and 21% under 1 mile, so a majority of vehicle trips in the area could be replaced with a strong micromobility network; and
WHEREAS: The Metropolitan Area Planning Council, recently released its own study that demonstrates that ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft are increasing not just traffic congestion, but also greenhouse gas emissions in the Greater Boston area, which severely impacts our climate; and
WHEREAS: The Town of Brookline has launched a successful electric scooter pilot program with over 130,000 scooter trips accounting for over 157,000 miles ridden, with an average trip of just 1.2 miles, which has likely cannibalized many short-distance motor vehicle trips, resulting in fewer carbon emissions, and unnecessary single occupancy vehicle congestion; and
WHEREAS: Many Cambridge residents have purchased private micro-mobility devices such as electric bicycles, skateboards, scooters, unicycles, and other devices, and are currently using these devices for their daily commutes; and
WHEREAS: House Bill 3116 and Senate Bill 2034 amends the requirements for electric scooters by lifting the contradictory and outmoded definition of motorized scooters from the General Laws shared goals of reduced congestion, increased transit equity, and fewer carbon emissions originating from our communities; and
WHEREAS: Governor Baker has also filed legislation, Senate Bill 7, that directs the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to establish a Low-speed Mobility Device Advisory Working Group to review the use of other micro-mobility devices throughout the Commonwealth, as part of the omnibus safe driving bill submitted earlier this year; and
WHEREAS: When properly deployed in cities, micro-mobility devices help eliminate hundreds of thousands of motor vehicle trips, prevent tons of carbon emissions from polluting our environment, and provide a less expensive option over ride share services and private ownership; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record in support of House Bill 3116, Senate Bill 2034, and the establishment of Governor Baker’s Low-speed Mobility Device Advisory Working Group as part of the Safe Driving Legislation, Senate Bill 7; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to Representative William Straus and Senator Joe Boncore, Chairs of the Joint Committee on Transportation, as well as the Cambridge Legislative Delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-16     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The Mayor’s Arts Task Force approached barriers to a thriving Cambridge Arts Community in a holistic way, with particular focus on: racial equity, City support for small arts organizations, anti-displacement measures, and support for local artists in under-represented socioeconomic groups; and
WHEREAS: The Task Force has compiled 70 recommendations and over $2 million additional dollars worth of funding this fiscal year, and recommendations should be implemented by a member of the Arts community who is an expert in the needs of local artists and has the resources and support from the City of Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Adding a position in the City staff as a Director of Arts and Culture is a key recommendation of the Arts Task Force; and
WHEREAS: A Director of Arts and Culture will serve as a liaison to the local arts community and be equipped with the resources to respond to concerns of displacement, help with funding and grant acquisitions, liaise with small arts organizations and cultural communities, and plan cultural events; and
WHEREAS: The need for a Director of Arts and Culture is pressing for small arts organizations struggling to exist in our City. The closing of EMF in March and most recently the Green St. Dance Studios have served as painful examples of arts organizations lacking a designated advocate on the City staff, one who can connect them to resources by bringing together different departments and the upper-levels of City administration; and
WHEREAS: Our diverse cultural communities have also expressed a need for a Director of Arts and Culture to ensure that all cultures are celebrated equally by the City, and that City resources are allocated equally in this regard; and
WHEREAS: The Director of Arts and Culture would also work with the arts community to allocate the increased revenue streams identified for the Arts, and ensure that the recommendations in the Arts Task Force’s Final Report are implemented to best support our arts community; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to create the position of a Director of Arts and Culture for the City of Cambridge; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council before the end of this calendar year.

O-17     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: New England Development (NED) is seeking a major upzoning for its property in East Cambridge (Galleria Mall); and
WHEREAS: The City Council lacks basic financial information regarding the value of the proposed upzoning and hence cannot reasonably evaluate the proposed community benefits as to their sufficiency in return for granting such an upzoning; and
WHEREAS: NED has offered to share their pro forma with individual Councillors, but without an independent financial analysis we can draw only limited conclusions from that information; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Economic Development division of the Community Development Department to retain a financial/economic analyst to conduct a confidential financial analysis of NED’s pro forma to inform the council in confidence on the value of the proposed upzoning.

O-19     Oct 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment has established that many Cambridge residents are vulnerable to (and are already experiencing) extreme heat and flooding impacts from climate change, underscoring the need to rapidly reduce our emissions to avoid even worse impacts in the future; and
WHEREAS: Scientific evidence has established that natural gas combustion, procurement, and transportation produce significant greenhouse gas emissions that worsen the climate crisis; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge first declared a climate emergency in 2009 and has a goal of reaching zero emissions no later than 2050; and
WHEREAS: In order to reach these goals, new buildings will have to use electric heating and cooling equipment (chiefly ground and air source heat pumps) that is powered by electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar; and
WHEREAS: All-electric buildings are cheaper to build than those that use natural gas for heating, and the price of natural gas is expected to significantly increase in the future; and
WHEREAS: Retrofitting buildings that are designed to rely on natural gas infrastructure is a costly proposition that will take decades to complete, and it makes no sense to add more such buildings now, only to have to retrofit them later; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s aging natural gas infrastructure represents a severe and omnipresent danger to all residents, and expanding this infrastructure to meet additional demand from new buildings would further increase and prolong these risks and keep the City locked in to using natural gas in the future; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the attached proposed amendments to the municipal code be referred to the Ordinance Committee for a hearing and consideration; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor, Community Development, Public Works, Inspectional Services and any other related departments to review the proposed amendments and report back to the Council no later than the end of October.

Chapter 15.10

PROHIBITION OF NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE IN NEW BUILDINGS

Sections:

15.10.010 Purpose.

15.10.020 Applicability.

15.10.030 Definitions.

15.10.040 Prohibited Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings.

15.10.050 Exception.

15.10.060 Public Interest Exemption.

15.10.070 Annual Review.

15.10.080 Severability.

15.10.090 Effective Date.

15.10.010 Purpose.

The Cambridge City Council finds that in order to reach its net zero emissions goals in response to the climate crisis, and pursuant to its declaration of a climate emergency in 2009, fossil fuel combustion in newly constructed buildings shall be prohibited. Furthermore, to protect the health and safety of its residents, combustion of Natural Gas specifically in newly constructed buildings, including major renovations, shall be prohibited.

15.10.020 Applicability.

A. The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to the permits of or the processing of development applications for all Newly Constructed Buildings proposed to be located in whole or in part within the City.

B. The requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to the use of portable propane appliances for outdoor cooking and heating.

C. This Chapter shall in no way be construed as amending energy code requirements under 780 CMR Chapter 115 AA (Stretch Energy Code, as adopted by the Cambridge City Council on Dec 21, 2009), nor as requiring the use or installation of any specific appliance or system as a condition of approval.

D. The requirements of this Chapter shall be incorporated into conditions of approval for applications for permits under Article 19 of the Zoning Ordinance.

15.10.030 Definitions.

A. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” shall have the same meaning as “Accessory Apartment” in Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance.

B. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions” mean gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

C. “Natural Gas” shall have the same meaning as “Fuel Gas” as defined in 248 CMR 4.02

D. “Natural Gas Infrastructure” shall be defined as fuel gas piping, other than service pipe, in or in connection with a building, structure or within the property lines of premises, extending from the point of delivery at the gas meter as specified in 248 CMR 4.02.

E. “Newly Constructed Building” shall be defined as a building with a valid Building Permit or Special Permit application approved on or after the effective date of this Chapter that has never before been used or occupied for any purpose, or a building partially demolished and reconstructed where the demolition involved more than half of the most recent prior total floor area of the building.

F. “Occupancy Permit” shall have the same meaning as specified in Chapter 9.20.

G. “Special Permit” shall have the same meaning as specified in Chapter 10.40.

15.10.040 Prohibited Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings.

A. Natural Gas Infrastructure shall be prohibited in Newly Constructed Buildings.

B. Notwithstanding 15.10.040.A, Natural Gas Infrastructure may be permitted in a Newly Constructed Building if the applicant establishes that it is not physically feasible to construct the building without Natural Gas Infrastructure.

C. For purposes of this section, “feasible to construct the building” means that the building is able to achieve the prevailing performance compliance standards using commercially available technology.

D. Natural Gas Infrastructure shall not be extended to any system or device within a building for which an equivalent all-electric system or design is available.

E. To the extent that an exemption and installation of Natural Gas Infrastructure is granted, Newly Constructed Buildings shall be required to have sufficient electric capacity and conduit to facilitate full building electrification.

15.10.050 Exception for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units.

The requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to attached Accessory Dwelling Units.

15.10.060 Public Interest Exemption.

A. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Chapter and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and other public health and safety hazards associated with Natural Gas Infrastructure, minimally necessary and specifically tailored Natural Gas Infrastructure may be allowed in a Newly Constructed Building provided that the permit granting authority for the project establishes that the use serves the public interest.

B. To the extent that stand-alone delivery systems are available, the exemption shall require that the permit granting authority for the project consider whether a stand-alone delivery system is physically feasible before granting an exemption.

15.10.070 Annual Review.

The City shall review annually the requirements of this ordinance for ongoing consistency with Massachusetts Building Energy Codes regulations under 780 CMR and the Commission’s code adoption cycle.

15.10.080 Severability.

If any word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion of this Chapter, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion, or the prescribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this Chapter, and all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this title, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase of this Chapter, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases is declared invalid or unconstitutional.

15.10.090 Effective date.

The provisions of this Chapter shall become effective on Jan 1, 2020.

O-21     Oct 7, 2019   Oct 21, 2019 (Reconsideration filed by Vice Mayor Devereux 10/8/19; Adopted as Amended 10/21/19)
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: At the Ordinance Committee meeting on Oct 2, 2019 there was confusion over the City Solicitor’s role in reading proposed ordinances and being prepared to discuss said ordinances that contributed to delaying important legislation to protect immigrants; and
WHEREAS: It is often difficult to plan committee meetings around the schedules of City Councillors, City staff, residents and advocacy groups, which makes being prepared to discuss items during scheduled committee meetings of paramount importance; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Cambridge City Council amend section 1.12.040 of the Municipal Code of ordinances to add the following language: “After a proposed ordinance is introduced and referred to committee, the City Manager shall instruct the City Solicitor’s office to draft an opinion on the legality and applicability of said proposed ordinance within 30 days of introduction;” and be it further
ORDERED: That this item shall be referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee for discussion; and be it further
ORDERED: That this item shall be referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Ordinance Committee for discussion with the City Solicitor, City Clerk and staff.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Sept 25, 2019 in the Sullivan Chamber.

The meeting was called to order at 3:10pm.

In Attendance: Quinton Zondervan, Jan Devereux, Craig A. Kelley, Dennis J. Carlone, Alanna Mallon (late)

Councillor Siddiqui and Mayor McGovern, who are not members of the committee, were also present.

Discussion on banning natural (fracked) gas infrastructure in Cambridge Zeyneb Magavi, representing Mothers Out Front and HEET, gave a presentation to the committee explaining "Fracking" and describing the benefits of banning the use of natural gas in Cambridge.

Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to questions from councillors.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Devereux, Ms. Magavi explained that the state has a goal to reach an 80% reduction on 1990 greenhouse gases by the year 2050.

Councillor Zondervan explained that Berkeley California passed an ordinance banning gas appliances in new construction. He stated that he is interested in enacted similar legislation in Cambridge. Susanne Rasmussen, from the Community Development Department, stated she understood that Berkeley's ordinance is based on an analysis from the California Energy Commission (CEC). Where the CEC determines that a building type could be built "all electric", the ordinance would then require it. She is not sure how it would work in Cambridge because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not have a similar program. She stated that Cambridge's Net Zero action plan is similar in its goals to the California state program.

Councillor Kelley stated he would like to explore creating incentives for developers to construct buildings without gas facilities.

In response to a question from Councillor Kelley, Ms. Magavi explained that her group was in the process of creating pilot sites that eliminate natural gas for heating and organizes events where the public could experience non-gas cooking appliances (induction stovetops).

Chairman Zondervan opened the floor to public comment at 3:33pm.

Craig Altemose, 30 Bow Street, ecouncoraged the City of Cambridge to stop the construction of greenhouse gas emitting infrastructure as soon as possible. He read from Gretta Thunberg’s speech and said it would be a criminal act to continue building fossil fuel dependent buildings.

Elie Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street, explained his concerns about participating in the energy market place. He expressed concern about how Energy Providers delay investing in energy efficient technologies.

Sharon Devos, 118 Antrim Street, a member of Mother's Out Front, spoke about her concerns about the possibility of an explosion due to gas infrastructure in Cambridge. She stated that rate payers should not be paying for infrastructure that will be obsolete in the near future John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, spoke in support of Cambridge moving away from using gas in newly constructed buildings. He stated that more people should use induction stoves for cooking, instead of gas.

Anna Henchman, 85 Fayerweather Street, spoke in support of trending away from gas. She stated that when she converted her home from gas to electric heating, it was hard to find a contractor. She supported banning gas fixtures in newly constructed buildings.

Ed Woll, 79 Dana Street, spoke in support of banning gas fixtures in newly constructed buildings. He explained that he converted his home away from gas. He stated that Cambridge needs more electric charging stations for cars and the City needs more trees.

Audrey Schulman, Acorn Street, wanted there to be an outreach campaign to explain why the community should move away from gas.

Public comment closed at 3:53pm.

In response to a question from Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan explained that Cambridge must decrease its energy consumption and supplement energy uses with renewable sources. He stated that Cambridge is at less than 2% of its estimated solar capability per MIT’s analysis.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, stated that she would need time to review how Cambridge could legally enact legislation similar to the law passed in Berkeley, California.

Councillor Kelley stated that he believed that the City would have to provide incentives to encourage people to stop using natural gas voluntarily.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Devereux, Ms. Rasmussen explained that in Envision proposals the City proposed a density bonus for large building to move to Net-Zero. Seth Federspiel, from the Community Development Department, further explained that the density bonus in the Envision proposal for a Net-Zero building is distinct from a non-gas building.

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested looking into loans or grants to encourage the construction of non-gas buildings.

Ms. Rasmussen explained that the targets in the Net-zero action plan are set-up to work without incentives. She explained that all-electric buildings were cheaper to build than gas buildings but that electric buildings are more expensive to operate because natural gas is currently so cheap.

Councillor Carlone stated that there were three ways to move forward: legal changes, cost changes and education. He explained that a future law could include penalties for pollution, either directly or indirectly. He believed that such a law would cause land value may go down a "hair".

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Devereux, Solicitor Glowa explained that there is no standard definition of "new construction". She further explained that there is one definition in the Building Code and another in the Zoning Ordinance.

Councillor Kelley reemphasized his belief that incentives will be important to encouraging buildings to move away from gas.

Councillor Zondervan stated he believed that the City does have legal power to prohibit the use of gas facilities in newly constructed buildings and he did not favor incentives.

In response to a question from Councillor Kelley, Solicitor Glowa stated that she will research the City's authority to ban the use of natural gas in newly constructed buildings.

1. Motion by Councillor Zondervan to refer a policy order to the full City Council asking the City Solicitor to report back on the legal authority of the City to ban the use of natural gas in newly constructed buildings.
RESULT: MOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE [UNANIMOUS]
YEAS: Zondervan, Devereux, Kelley, Carlone, Mallon

Councillor Siddiqui spoke in support of gathering more information to implement this type of law.

Nikhil Nadkarni, from the Community Development Department, described some of the barriers experienced by residents when attempting to install heat pumps, including finding qualifying contractors and understanding different quotes. He explained that the Community Development Department is rolling out a pilot program called "Cambridge Clean Heat". The City is hosting a kick-off event on Oct 3 at Lesley University at 6:30pm where members of the public can meet heat pump installers and vendors.

Meeting adjourned at 4:23pm.

1. A communication was received from Zeyneb Magavi, representing Mothers Out Front and HEET, regarding a Cambridge Gas Ban

2. A communication was received from Lee Farris of 269 Norfolk Street, regarding "No new natural gas infrastructure in Cambridge"

3. A communication was received from Steven Nutter, Executive Director of Green Cambridge, regarding natural gas hookups comments.

The documents that were received by the committee may be viewed at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2085&Inline=True

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair
Councillor Quinton Zondervan, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Sept 17, 2019 at 12:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the preserved Inman Square tree trunks and receive input from the public on possible future uses of the wood, which is a public resource.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Vice Mayor Devereux; Katherine Watkins, Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works; Jason Weeks, Executive Director, Arts Council; Wilford Durbin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Dan Totten; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Tim Lorenzo, Sara Mae Berman and John Pitkin.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and introduced Ms. Watkins. Ms. Watkins gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A) regarding what the City staff has been thinking as it relates to the effective re-use of 4 honey locust logs removed from Inman Square. She explained that when going through the design process of Inman Square, she reached out to Mitch Ryerson, an artist who has done amazing work with the City’s playgrounds throughout the City. She said that they talked about the honey locust logs and asked if it would be possible to incorporate these into the plaza. Based on this discussion, Mr. Ryerson said that he likes to use black locust and did not feel that the honey locust logs would be a good wood for something to incorporate into the design. She said that based on that conversation, the City did not incorporate this wood into the plaza. She explained that UTEC is a great organization that is housed in Lowell who works with at-risk young people. She said that UTEC has an extensive working venture where they train young people to produce wood products and sell the products at Whole Foods and other vendors. She said that discussions involved the opportunity to do something with the wood, support UTEC, while also supporting small businesses. She explained that the City has had a proactive relationship with the East Cambridge Business Association and the Economic Development Division has worked closely with the businesses during the construction phase. She said that a shop local customer loyalty program is in place with 26 participating businesses with over 300 participants since March of 2019. She said that the City reached out to UTEC to see if they could use the wood to create cutting boards with an Inman Square logo. She noted that UTEC is confident that they can create 50-75 cutting boards. She said that this initiative would support UTEC and the small businesses.

Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to comments from his colleagues.

Councillor Carlone asked if the condition of the wood is conducive to making these cutting boards. Ms. Watkins answered in the affirmative.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that in the photos of the cutting boards, it looks as if there are two different colors of wood. Ms. Watkins explained that having multiple colors of wood will add to the value of the cutting boards. She noted that 85% of the wood would be the honey locust wood and the remainder would be another kind of wood. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the Rindge School of Technical Arts (RSTA) has a woodworking program. Jason Weeks answered that RSTA has a Carpentry Program.

Councillor Zondervan invited artist Tim Lorenzo, owner of a shop in Union Square, Somerville. He explained that he does woodworking and furniture making. He said that he creates exhibits for Zoo New England. Councillor Zondervan asked Mr. Lorenzo about the possibility of using honey locust in his work and maybe in partnership with a program such as UTEC. Mr. Lorenzo said that honey locust is good for indoor and outdoor uses. He said that it does not have the same qualities of black locust, but it is can be used for furniture. He said that it would be interesting to try to create something that could be assembled with UTEC and RSTA, depending on the scope and what is desired to be created.

Public Comment at 12:13pm.

Sara Mae Berman read from a prepared statement from the Friends of Inman Square in opposition to the proposal to make cutting boards (ATTACHMENT B).

Public Comment closed at 12:18pm.

Councillor Zondervan said that he appreciates the suggestion of the cutting boards and partnering with UTEC. He said that he would also like RSTA involved. He said that he thinks the trunks belong to the entire community and he would like to rethink the logo or branding of Cambridge as a whole.

Mr. Lorenzo said that if the trees are a resource for all, they should go back to the public in the form of public art or bench. He said that this is the best way to give back. He noted that involving RSTA would create a nice project.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that the situation is painful. She thanked City staff for keeping this in mind. She said that she is fan of UTEC and but noted that she would love to see something other than cutting boards. She said that she does not feel that the idea of creating cutting boards is very creative. She asserted that she would like this wood to be made into something else.

Councillor Carlone said that the size of the wood and the wood quality dictates what it can be used for. He said that if someone would like to make a sculpture or playground piece, he is not sure if the wood is suitable for that. He agreed that this wood should be used for the public benefit. He said that he does not feel it can be decided today.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the East Cambridge and Inman Square Business Associations were involved with coming up with the concept of cutting boards. Ms. Watkins answered in the negative. She noted that it is important to use this wood as an opportunity to overcome some of the strong feelings that people have and to get people to work together collaboratively. She noted that this is an opportunity to get people to hear each other and talk again.

Councillor Zondervan said that he appreciates the conversation. He noted that when the King School was done on Putnam Avenue, there was repurposed wood that was incorporated into the interior design. He said that it could be used for the new school that is being done. He said that he gets the sense that people are not excited about cutting boards that get hidden away in kitchens. He said that a more public piece or pieces would be beneficial. He noted that this is an opportunity to involve the students to participate in the art of woodworking and to educate them on the wood. He added that this is an opportunity to move forward.

Jason Weeks said that there is one example connected to the City Hall Annex. He said that although this is a different circumstance and a different type of wood, a lot of the original support structures for this building were oak. He said that some of that wood was reclaimed. He said that they worked with a local artist who created four benches that are used in that building. He said that these benches have been warmly received.

Tim Lorenzo noted that he would like to look at the logs to ascertain the quality.

Councillor Zondervan said that there is an appetite to look at what could be done with this wood. He suggested that the committee meet in one month’s time with suggestions or ideas.

Councillor Toomey said that this wood should be used for public benefit with RSTA as the primary focus in creating a good situation out of a bad situation. He stated that in order not to continue the community’s angst, he would like resolution as soon as possible.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the decision regarding these logs sits with the Department of Public Works or the Arts Council. She noted that she is comfortable passing this topic to the Arts Council for decision and discharge. Jason Weeks said that the Arts Council would happily work on this project. Ms. Watkins advised that if the committee is comfortable with the Arts Council taking the lead and working with RSTA on this project, it would produce the best outcome. Councillor Zondervan said that he is amenable to this recommendation.

Councillor Zondervan made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Arts Council and the Department of Public Works, in conjunction with the Rindge School of Technical Arts, to determine the best re-use for the four honey locust logs from Inman Square to create public art for the community.

The motion passed.

Councillor Zondervan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 12:34pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on the Welcoming Community Ordinance on Oct 3, 2019 beginning at 3pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

In Attendance: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, Siddiqui, Toomey, Zondervan

Councillor Carlone explained that the purpose of ordinance is to codify how the city treats individuals from other countries. He stated that other communities have adopted similar ordinances. Councillor Carlone distributed a document from the police department with edits of the proposed ordinance for discussion.

Laura Rotolo, staff counsel from the ACLU, stated that she did not oppose the amendments proposed by the police department. She raised concerns with amendments in section 2 paragraph E of the police department document.

Attorney Rotolo did not oppose sharing information with agencies other than ICE.

City Solicitor stated that City staff has not had an opportunity to review the proposed language so she has asked the council not to take any formal action until the staff can review the language and report back to the committee.

Attorney Rotolo stated she is supportive of adding some language clarifying that the police will continue to support the federal government's anti-human trafficking operations.

Attorney Rotolo recommended that the Council not delete the section titled "Encountering persons driving without a license".

Attorney Rotolo asked that the Committee get clarification about the police department's concerns about the section entitled "Notice to individuals subject to ICE intervention".

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the comment on the police department document which reads "seems like a better policy than ordinance".

Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, stated that council should be careful when limiting a police officer’s discretion to enforce laws. She also noticed that there were sections that would apply to the School Department and she would like to have the School Department review the ordinance.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke in support of needing more input from City staff.

In response to question from Councillor Mallon, Solicitor Glowa stated that an ordinance would be mandatory. She stated that a policy is less enforceable than an ordinance.

Councillor Mallon stated that she wanted immigrants to feel safe in Cambridge.

Councillor Carlone stated that police officers will continue to have discretion to make arrests where appropriate.

William Durbin, Chief of Staff for the Mayor, stated that council should review sections 3 and 4. The Mayor felt it would be more appropriate to have these complaints and reports sent to the city manager.

Councillor Zondervan spoke in support of the ordinance. He explained how his family was served a deportation notice and the toll that it took on his family. He stated that this language should be an ordinance instead of a policy. He did not want to wait to send this language forward to the Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that body should wait for the solicitor's opinion. He was in favor of passing this language as an ordinance.

Councillor Carlone spoke in support of waiting for a report from City staff.

Motion by Councillor Kelley to request that the City Manager order the appropriate city staff to review the proposed Welcoming Community ordinance, present draft language to the Ordinance committee forty-eight (48) hours before the committee's next meeting on the ordinance and report back to the Ordinance Committee.

Councillor Kelley moved to send the following policy order to the City Council:
"Request that the City Manager order the appropriate city staff to review the proposed Welcoming Community ordinance and report back to the Ordinance Committee."

Councillor Mallon moved to amend the proposed policy order to read as follows:
"Request that the City Manager order the appropriate city staff to review the proposed Welcoming Community ordinance, present draft language to the Ordinance committee forty-eight (48) hours before the committee's next meeting on the ordinance and report back to the Ordinance Committee."

The motion to amend passed by voice vote of seven (7) members.
RESULT: MOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE [7 TO 0]
YEAS: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, Siddiqui, Toomey, Zondervan
ABSENT: McGovern, Simmons

Councillor Zondervan expressed concerns about possibly allowing someone to arrested for non-criminal motor vehicle infractions. Councillor Zondervan identified several typos in the document.

In response to a statement from Attorney Rotolo, the solicitor stated that it would be useful to have the members of City staff who deal with these issues speak to the council about the City's current policies regarding immigrants.

Councillor Kelley opened the floor to public comment at 3:56pm.

John Hawkinson explained the difference between a policy and an ordinance. He asked the chair to inquire of Attorney Rotolo about the legality of portions of the ordinance.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 3:58pm.

Attorney Rotolo explained that there is a federal law that prohibits States and local governments from sharing citizenship or immigration status with federal authorities.

The meeting adjourned at 4:03pm.

1. Welcoming Community Ordinance

3. A communication was received from Councillor Carlone transmitting comments from the Police Department about the Welcoming Community Ordinance.

The documents received at this meeting may be viewed here:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2095&Inline=True

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Co-Chair