O-2     Oct 31, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: Residents have expressed concerns about the increasing use of drones (unmanned aircraft), which may be used for public/municipal, commercial, scientific, and recreational/hobbyist purposes; and
WHEREAS: Drone technology is evolving and applications are rapidly proliferating, yet the current regulatory framework for unmanned aircraft has been described as “murky” by the City Solicitor in a memo to the City Manager dated Feb 24, 2016; and
WHEREAS: The current regulatory ambiguities notwithstanding, it appears that the City may be able to develop and enact an ordinance to govern the operation of drones that would provide greater clarity to all drone users and to residents; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Public Safety Committee be and hereby is requested to hold a public hearing to hear about the various uses of drones in Cambridge and any concerns residents may have about them, with the goal of recommending guidelines for a municipal ordinance that would protect the public safety and the privacy of residents.

O-5     Oct 31, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The “Out of Town News” kiosk in Harvard Square is one of Cambridge’s most beloved and iconic structures by virtue of its distinctive architectural features and its prominent location on the public plaza opposite Harvard Yard and the Coop; and
WHEREAS: Sheldon Cohen, the founder of Out of Town News is honored in the adjacent island for establishing the kiosk as an emporium where well-known individuals ranging from Robert Frost to John Kenneth Galbraith to Julia Child acquired magazines and newspapers of the day; and
WHEREAS: The kiosk was completed in 1928 as the original entrance to the new Harvard Square T station, and now sits next to the T’s main entrance, where thousands of people pass daily; and
WHEREAS: The kiosk was designed by Clarence H. Blackall, the architect of the Wang and Gaiety theaters and of Boston’s first steel skyscraper (the 1893 Winthrop/Carter building), which is currently under review for landmark status and whose roof line and masonry bear a striking resemblance to that of the kiosk; and
WHEREAS: The kiosk was the site of important incidents in Cambridge Social History, most notably the 1970 Harvard Square Anti-War Riot; and
WHEREAS: The kiosk, which is owned by the City of Cambridge, was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978; and
WHEREAS: As of Oct 25th, nearly 800 people have signed an online petition and some 200 have signed local petitions circulated by the Our Harvard Square advocacy group, asking the City to landmark the kiosk so that its essential architectural features are preserved during its proposed renovation and repurposing; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in support of the Cambridge Historical Commission initiating a landmark designation study process on the Harvard Square kiosk.

O-8     Oct 31, 2016
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The Foundry Building at 101 Rogers Street was transferred to the city as the result of Alexandria Real Estate’s special permit application in 2012, with the stipulation that much of the building be dedicated to community use; and
WHEREAS: After the transfer of property, the Council reached a consensus that the entirety or large majority of the 53,000 square foot building should consist of arts, non-profit, workforce development, and STEAM (interdisciplinary afterschool Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math programming); and
WHEREAS: The Council and community have been clear about the need for the Foundry to comprise some or all of: small, below-market rent offices for nonprofit organizations, small, shared arts studios, exhibition space and performance space, a Makerspace, small stalls for local vendors or a public market, a gathering space for the public, and some flexible space for training, programming, or other public uses; and
WHEREAS: The Council wishes to ensure an interdisciplinary environment at the Foundry where each type of tenant would mix with other tenants to create an non-siloed ecosystem of mutual collaboration, public-facing programming, arts-aware discussion, job-training opportunities, social equity priorities, and general interdependence; and
WHEREAS: The Council envisions only a small minority of space allocated to for-profit tenants, primarily to create professional relationships on site or to anchor foot traffic and secondarily to offset a small amount of capital or even operating costs; and
WHEREAS: The amount allocated originally by the City to redevelop the building was $6 million, it has come to light that the amount of money required to remediate and redevelop the Foundry building with the entirety of its space reserved for aforementioned uses will exceed $20 million or even $30 million; now therefore be it
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is instructed to coordinate with the Finance Department and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to propose a significantly increased budget and accompanying City of Cambridge allocation for the redevelopment of the Foundry, to be submitted for approval by the Council; and be it further
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is instructed to coordinate with the Finance Department, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, and community stakeholders to outline a proposed system of governance, management, and stakeholder engagement, to be discussed in a public forum with the Council and community; and be it further
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is instructed to review, as an optional additional measure, the suitability of the site for construction of a new, more efficient building on the site, should that course of action make it easier for the City, CRA, or Developer partners to meet all of the spatial, programming, fiscal, and management needs outlined above; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by the beginning of the calendar year 2017.

O-10     Oct 31, 2016  Amended
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Well over 2000 users of Cambridge’s streets, including well over 1000 Cambridge residents, have signed the following petition: “In light of the tragic deaths of Dr. Bernard ‘Joe’ Lavins, Amanda Phillips, and Marcia Deihl, all killed by trucks in Cambridge in the last two years, we call on the City of Cambridge to immediately follow through on its commitment to enact safety improvements to bicycle infrastructure across the city, starting with separated bike lanes on all major city thoroughfares”; and
WHEREAS: These signatures represent a broad cross-section of Cambridge’s community, including, first and foremost, residents from all parts of Cambridge, but also including employees of Cambridge’s many large and small businesses, people who shop or eat at restaurants in Cambridge, people on their way to school in Cambridge, people visiting friends in Cambridge, and many others; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council acknowledges said signatures; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Council acknowledges that said residents and other users desire the City to immediately enact safety improvements to bicycle infrastructure, starting with separated bike lanes on all major city thoroughfares; and be it further
ORDERED: That the attached petition be referred to the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning hearing scheduled for November 2, 2016.

O-12     Oct 31, 2016
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: The City of Boston and Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics, in partnership with the World Economic Forum, announced the launch of a new program to explore autonomous vehicle technologies within the City of Boston; and
WHEREAS: This collaboration will result in policy recommendations and the on-street testing of autonomous vehicles, in order to set long term sustainability goals for the City of Boston; and
WHEREAS: Autonomous vehicles, when shared, have the ability to reduce the number of vehicles on the road by 60-70%, resulting in a lower environmental impact and reducing the strain on municipal infrastructure, not to mention a very different economic and transit outlook for cities; and
WHEREAS: It is projected that autonomous vehicles can reduce road fatalities by up to 90%; and
WHEREAS: By collaborating with the City of Boston on this program, the City of Cambridge could further its own transit planning regional cooperation efforts; therefore be it
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City of Boston to include Cambridge in the initiative as a partner; and be it further
ORDERED: That City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

O-15     Oct 31, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: A Request for Proposal (RFP File 7430) for consultant services related to the visioning, programming, governance, and repurposing of the Harvard Square Kiosk was issued by the City’s Purchasing Department on October 27, 2016; and
WHEREAS: This RFP set a deadline for any questions from applicants on November 8, 2016, and a deadline for receipt of sealed price bids by November 17, 2016; and
WHEREAS: The rushed timing of this RFP process is so foreshortened that it is likely to preclude a broad and open competition and public process in determining whose vision will drive this project; and
WHEREAS: Citizens recently submitted a petition to landmark the Kiosk, and the Council agenda for October 31, 2016 includes a policy resolution to support initiating a landmark study; and
WHEREAS: The Historical Commission will meet on November 3, 2016 to decide whether to go forward with a landmarking study on the Kiosk; and
WHEREAS: The process and outcome of a landmark study could impact the Kiosk’s eventual design treatment and potentially its use, and would affect the timing of the project; and
WHEREAS: The agreed-upon task force or working group to help guide the vision and execution of the Kiosk project has not yet been formed, and hiring a consultant before this group has begun to meet may serve to limit the extent, authenticity and transparency of the public's participation in the process and potentially could steer the outcome in a direction that does not win broad public support; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to revise and reissue the Kiosk consultant RFP to extend the due dates for questions and bids to Jan 1 and Jan 31, 2017, respectively, so as to allow the City adequate time to broadly advertise and promote the consultant contract in order to solicit bids from a larger, more diverse applicant pool, and so that the soon-to-be-named task force has the opportunity to meet at least once before questions and bids are due; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to revise the RFP so that all applicants are required to make a public presentation of their proposals; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to commit that the task force will review the non-price bids along with City staff in order to give the public a voice in selecting the consultant for this important public project.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Sept 28, 2016, at 3:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the ongoing drought and the impact on the Cambridge water supply, what restrictions on water use may be appropriate to consider and what public outreach is needed on water conservation measures.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Sam Corda, Managing Director, Water Department; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, Public Works Department; John Nardone, Assistant Public Works Commissioner of Operations; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, Public Health Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Maggie Booz and Florrie Wescoat, Co-Chairs of the Public Planting Committee; Paula Phipps; and Alison Field-Juma.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. An agenda for the hearing was distributed (ATTACHMENT A).

Public comment will be done at the end of the presentation. She stated that there has been a lot of media coverage about the severe drought caused by little snowfall last winter and the record-setting hot and dry summer. This is the area’s worst drought in a decade and it is expected to continue for many months.

Other communities have instituted emergency measures, including water restrictions. This hearing was called to allow staff to update the committee on the status of Cambridge’s water supply and conservation measures, and to discuss plans to address the impact that climate change will have on our water supply in the future. She spoke about climate oddities, such as hot periods where the rain may bypass a community. The urban heat island effect can mean that the heat from paved surfaces and buildings radiates and if there is a storm passing it will rain where there is more green space.

The committee proceeded to hear from Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson. Ms. Peterson stated that September is an important time to get an update on this. The system is typically recharged at this time. She introduced Mr. Corda to explain the water system, the drought projects and impacts, water conservation strategies for moving forward and fiscal issues.

Mr. Corda gave a slide presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that Cambridge has a twenty-four mile watershed. He stated that total capacity of the Hobbs Brooks Reservoir is 2.5 million gallons when full; Stony Brook Reservoir is about 400 million gallons. He stated that there is a 7.5 mile conduit that brings water into Fresh Pond. He stated that Fresh Pond has 1.5 billion gallons of storage. The elevation of the water level is maintained at Fresh Pond at 15-16 feet to protect the reservoir from infiltration. He stated that at Hobbs Brook Reservoir the recharge cycle starts in September and goes through the winter, but there was no recharge this September because of the long drought. There has been only an inch of rain this month.

Cambridge’s system is unique. The system has an 8-month supply when the system is full. The system can fill quickly compared to other systems. Even so, the City cannot withstand a record drought, which the current conditions may be. It is difficult to do long-range planning because conditions change. He gave statistics for Cambridge: the average daily demand has decreased since the 1970, even as the population has increased and with more commercial development. Cambridge water use has declined 10 million gallons per day over the last 45 years. He stated that this has been, in part, the result of an automatic daily meter reading program to quickly detect leaks. He added that the Cambridge Energy Alliance encourages water conservation and that appliances are becoming more water efficient. He spoke about water conservation efforts with MWRA. He stated that the average residential gallon per capital water use is 52-46 for the last six years. He stated that the City has done a water audit. All accounts are metered, but some water loss still cannot be accounted for and the City is working to get the unaccounted water down to a minimum.

While Cambridge has its own water system, the City is a full member of MWRA, which allows us flexibility in a time such as now. MWRA water is also used as needed during street construction projects. Cambridge follows the MWRA drought management plan, which is a safety net for the City. Mr. Corda spoke about the cost to the City of buying MWRA water. He stated that precipitation from May-August 2016 was several inches below the record low. He mentioned that the recent increase in rain in late September is not adequate to recharge the supply. The amount of rain remains 3 inches below the average for September. He stated that the forecast from the National Weather Services does not predict adequate rainfall this fall to recharge the reservoirs. We would need to get 9-12 inches of rain over a 4-week period to get back to a normal condition. He stated that the last major drought was in the 1960s and Cambridge needed to purchase water from the MWRA. He stated that this year the City started out with a deficit of 400 million gallons below full capacity. In July, the Water Department started looking at the capacity weekly. There has been no recharge in September and the drought is continuing, making this a very serious situation. The MWRA is at 84% of capacity.

Mr. Corda spoke about conservation. He stated that about 2 days of water can be saved through conservation efforts. Cambridge does not see a lot of outdoor watering unlike some suburban towns. Outdoor demand for water declines from September to October. Water conservation information has been spread through social media. The Water Department’s webpage is being updated weekly with information about the drought and conservation. He spoke about the graph with the water cycle. All indicators are that we are in a drought status and it will continue based on the prediction. He stated that the City needs to analyze what more aggressive measures it can take.

It is a foregone conclusion that the Cambridge will have to purchase MWRA water, which is twice the cost of Cambridge’s water. There will be a budget impact. He spoke about managing the next 12 months of drought conditions. He explained the strategy going forward and strategies that will be pursued to save water. He spoke about the minimal use of MWRA water supply and to maintain the reservoir system and the plant’s operational status. He stated that the City needs to water to maintain recreational fields that we have made significant investments in. Dry, hard-packed playing fields also put athletes at greater risk of injury. He stated that Cambridge’s water system and plant system need to continue to be used so that there is no damage to them due to inactivity while MWRA water is also used He stated that the cost of MWRA water and the revenue loss may impact the water rate in FY 2018.

Mr. DePasquale stated that the annual water budget is $20 million. In FY 2015 the Water Fund balance of $11.7 million the highest in the history of the City; up from $5.4 million in 2006. He stated that the fund balance was 60% of the total operating budget. Over the last two years $3 million has been used from the fund balance for significant energy-saving improvements at the Water Treatment Plant. He stated that at the end of 2015 the fund went from $11.7 million to $10.3 million. In the current budget year the ending fund balance would be $3 million. The fund balance is used to help when needed as situations arise, such as the current drought. He stated that the City had not anticipated this situation. He explained that if the City goes on MWRA Water, effective in October at $1.2 million per month, FY 2017 water costs would increase by $10.8M. This is a 54% increase on a budget that has already been approved.

He explained how this unanticipated $10.8 million shortfall could be funded. He stated that $4 million could be withdrawn from the water fund balance, but this still would leave a shortfall of $6.8 million. He stated that he has discussed this with the finance team. Even though the Water Fund is a separate fund, it is part of the General Fund, and free cash can be used to help close the gap. He stated that free cash has never been used to help fund the water rates and that the City has never faced anything like this before. He stated free cash and the water fund may be used as an appropriation to do this. He spoke about considering a midyear rate increase in December. This would need to be announced before December so that it could go into effect for the second half of FY17. This would result in sharp midyear rate increase for consumers. He stated that the City instead will recommend a free cash/water fund appropriation based on what is needed. Then the City needs to focus on developing the FY 2018 budget and with a rate reflective of staying on the MWRA water well into 2017. If the City stays on the MWRA system this would be a $14.4 million budget increase, which would be 75% over the current budget that would need to be raised from the water rate. The fund balance will be down to $4 million. He said that Cambridge is in a financial position to cover the gap without increasing the water rate midyear. He added that the following year could be difficult. Mr. Rossi stated that the City has tried to never artificially run up the fund. If this can be corrected this year the fund will be increased to protect the City. The time has come to reassess where this fund should be.

Councillor Devereux stated that the situation seems more serious than it was even two weeks ago when she scheduled this hearing. She asked for confirmation that if MWRA water was used, $4 million would be taken from the Water Fund balance and $6.8 million from free cash to avoid a midyear water rate increase; that would leave a balance of $4 million with a plan to build up the water fund again. Mr. DePasquale stated that this is the plan that is currently being discussed. Councillor Devereux stated that it is important to get this message out to residents immediately that their water may become more expensive so that they will become more conservation-minded.

Councillor Carlone noted that people outside of Cambridge pay more for water than Cambridge. He asked why the price of water is less in Cambridge. Mr. Corda stated that the MWRA has expended $8 billion to upgrade their water system and $1 billion on the waste water system and this is the reason the cost of MWRA water is higher. The MWRA system is a large system and covers a lot of ground space.

Mr. Rossi stated that the makeup of the MWRA rate is inflated with debt from these capital projects. The water rate in Cambridge is set to keep supporting only the water system. He stated that the City will be thankful that the sewer system is upgraded as well as the treatment plant. He noted all the recent upgrades in the Cambridge systems. It is more efficient to run a smaller system, like Cambridge’s system. Mr. DePasquale stated that this is only impacting the water portion of the water/sewer bills.

Councillor Carlone stated that the way this situation is explained in the next water bill is important. He stated that he forgot Cambridge pays less for water than for sewer. He noted that the sewer cost of the water/sewer bills is higher. He was told that the water level at Hobbs Brook is very low. Mr. Corda explained the reasons that the Water Treatment Plant must be kept operational when we are using MWRA water. The plant needs to be maintained even at a low capacity. If the MWRA system went down Cambridge's system will be important. It takes time to get the system back on line if it is shut down.

Councillor Devereux stated that the MWRA provides water to other communities who are also experiencing severe drought conditions; will the MWRA increase its rate? Mr. Corda stated that Cambridge will be charged the commercial rate but does not pay any fees. Even though the MWRA is significantly below its capacity our use will not jeopardize their ability to meet everyone’s demands. Mr. Rossi noted that the City should not give up its membership in the MWRA system. Mr. Corda stated that Cambridge has used MWRA recently on a construction project and the water quality is the same as Cambridge’s. Councillor Devereux asked if new construction require low-flow toilets as a means of water conservation. Mr. Corda stated that he believes that the Plumbing Code requires this. Mr. Rossi stated that with all the growth and construction in the City the City uses less water than 20 years ago.

Cambridge residents try to conserve water.

Councillor Devereux asked about the major renovations to some of Harvard University’s dorms and the impact on water use. Mr. Rossi noted that the two largest water users and payers of water in the City are Harvard University and MIT. Councillor Carlone commented that the water usage went up the last three years Mr. Corda spoke about the treatment of water and the distribution plant cost of $1700-$1800 per year versus the MWRA cost of $3,500. Mr. Rossi asserted that more people are buying bottled water and this is one reason that consumption is lower.

Mr. O’Riordan spoke about watering on public property; 97 facilities are irrigated by Public Works. There are 22 water play features in parks and 50 water fountains. There is $100,000 in the FY 2017 budget to begin to look at an automating our irrigation systems and DPW will ask for this amount for the next 5 years. This will enable the City to turn off the system remotely to save money and water. It is important to irrigate the fields in October. Water play features in the playgrounds consume significant amounts of water and frequently get clogged and require repair. He spoke about curtailing the use of water play features. Bubblers do not consume a lot of water. He spoke about maintaining the urban canopy and said that we have been aggressive about watering 1,000 recently planted trees, which take 20 gallons each every 5-7 days. He would not recommend decreasing the watering of the new trees as a watering saving measure, however, because the urban canopy is important to maintain for shade. He spoke about possibly reducing the number of hanging baskets in areas like Harvard Square because they require more frequent watering (3 times a week). He stated that at the end of the century New England will experience medium drought conditions. Councillor Devereux asked if the City fleet is washed. Mr. O’Riordan responded that the City does have a car wash at Public Works, which is used most frequently for garbage trucks.

Mr. Lipson stated that the Health Department prepared a memo on the potential impacts of drought on community health (ATTACHMENT C). He spoke about individual health effects and the overall health impact. The supply of good drinking water is very important to maintaining the public’s health. The first impact of a drought will be dehydration because the body uses more water in drier weather. Elders, children and people with chronic conditions are most at risk of dehydration during a drought. General heat effects go together with drought conditions. He spoke about health effects caused by extreme heat. He stated that the CDC addressed the danger that droughts pose when playing fields become very dry, placing people at risk of injury from falling, and increasing pollen levels, and producing asthma conditions for people with respiratory issues. He spoke about air quality on a regional basis. HVAC systems can be effected with drought conditions. He spoke about trees, the benefit of the urban canopy and increasing the canopy means increasing the trees. Trees in drought conditions tend to be weak and vulnerable to disease. He explained that containers with standing water become more highly concentrated with proteins during droughts, creating conditions that are more conducive to mosquito breeding. Heat also drives mosquitos to breed more quickly and West Nile is a concern. He spoke about stress on people who work in agriculture and landscaping, whose work hours and pay may be reduced in times of drought. He spoke about the impact of drought on the quality of the produce grown in our region. He spoke about the health risk from bacteria in drought conditions.

Councillor Devereux asked if some of the problems with the bee population are caused by drought. Mr. Lipson stated that heat can cause stress on the bees. Councillor Devereux spoke about leaf blowers used in a dry conditions spreading even more dust and particulates into the air.

Councillor Devereux opened the hearing to public comment at 4:42pm.

Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue, spoke about the Cambridge reservoir system being low. She appreciated the information provided and the analysis done here. She stated that there is no "normal" year anymore due to the effects of climate change, so things need to be done differently. The state drought management plan is inadequate and needs a lot of work. She stated that Cambridge is ahead of the curve. She suggested that the City explore developing a "Net Blue" Ordinance, where there is no net increase in water use with new development. She spoke about requiring old, inefficient buildings to pay into a water fund. She stated that the state has talked more about the drought that the City has She said that the reservoir is at 50% and asked what the percentage was in the spring and at what percentage would the City switch over to the MWRA? Cambridge is under the MRWA’s drought management plan yet there has been no messaging to the public about the impact of the drought on our supply. She stated that next year the conservation messaging needs to be done in the spring when water usage is higher than in the winter. She spoke about the moral responsibility of all of us to save water even when we have the ability to meet our immediate needs through going on MWRA water. She suggested a public watering ban.

Florrie Wescoat, 33 Market Street, stated that she had not realized how extreme the drought situation is. She stated that the trees that the Public Works has watered look good (compared to others) and newly planted trees are an important investment to protect. She stated that it would be useful to review the tree species list to ensure that we are planting drought tolerant trees. She also spoke about reducing the watering for hanging baskets. She suggested planting species that are deep rooted, tough plants outside City Hall and using this as an education vehicle.

Paula Phipps, stated that she has watered the tree closest to her house. She noticed that the tree wells are tilted toward the street and the water is going into the sewer system. Tilting tree wells toward the trees is a permaculture solution. She spoke about low tech and low cost solutions. "Water in plain sight" written by Judith Schwartz is a book she recommends about techniques to keep water on the land.

At 4:56pm Councillor Devereux closed public comment.

Councillor Devereux stated that she loved the idea of using the beds outside City Hall for plantings as a demonstration garden for annual plants. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that people have asked for colorful flowers out front. Councillor Carlone stated that the key is to have a combination.

Councillor Devereux spoke about with the level of Fresh Pond being seemingly high and the disconnect that creates with the drought situation. She suggested an informational poster at Fresh Pond about the water level. She asked Mr. Corda if he knew the percentage of the capacity in the spring and now. Mr. Corda responded that in the spring it is 90% and now it is 25%. He stated that the City is at the minimum of where it wants to keep the plant running.

Councillor Devereux asked how the City Council can help with researching a Net Blue Ordinance. Mr. O’Riordan stated that he would get details to the City Council on how this works.

Councillor Devereux re-opened public comment for a late arrival.

Maggie Booz, 27 Long Street, stated that the city arborist said that the street trees that are best at surviving the drought are the large trees; medium sized trees were more susceptible; young trees need to be watered and cared for. During times of drought large trees should be preserved and should not be removed from the streetscape.

Councillor Devereux closed public comment.

Councillor Devereux stated that spring tree planting schedule had been delayed due to tree specification contract revisions. She asked about the fall planting schedule. Mr. O’Riordan stated that the fall planting will be smaller due to the drought. He stated that a larger spring planting in 2017 would be challenging for the staff to manage. Councillor Devereux requested a monthly update to the City Council about the drought situation.

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:02pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Aug 29, 2016 beginning at 5:33 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss different models for campaign finance reform and publicly-funded municipal elections in Cambridge, and will focus on receiving feedback from the community.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Vice Mayor Marc McGovern; Tanya Ford, Executive Director; Lesley Waxman, Assistant Director, Election Commission; Larry Ward, Polly Cobb, Election Commissioners; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Wil Durbin; Dan Schwartz; Jamila Bradley; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Alyson Heimer, Executive Director, New Haven Democracy Fund; Ron Fein, Legal Director, Free Speech for People; Pamela Wilmot, Executive Director, Common Cause Massachusetts; John Hawkinson; Eli Yarden; Anne Taylor; Dan Alden; MaryAnne Carlson; Sandi Lacey; Phoebe Whitwell; Caroline Mak; Thomas McKenzie; Brian Aull; Joshua Butera; Romaine Waite; Zachary Epstein; Brielle Bryan; Adam Friedman; Robert Winters; Roz Springer; and Cristian Morales.

Councillor Mazen convened the hearing and stated that this is a matter near and dear to his heart. He gave background information on the Independent Working Group for Campaign Finance Reform in Cambridge and provided those assembled with the results of its research (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that the working group was comprised of over a dozen residents of Cambridge who are committed to engaging with the community and elected leaders to explore options for public financing for municipal elections. This is founded on the principle that elected officials should not be in a situation where the Office for Campaign Finance has to be concerned about special interests funding elected officials. He stated that this feeling has swept the nation. He stated that on the congressional level, if a candidate has money, it increases the chances that the legislation will move forward and benefit that issue. He said that this state of affairs is anti-democratic and exists at all levels of government. He gave an overview of the agenda for the hearing (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Mazen introduced Alyson Heimer and invited her to share her comments.

Alyson Heimer stated that New Haven is a city of 130,000 and the only city in Connecticut that has a program for public financing of an election. She said that the program has been proven since its inception in 2007 to not only increase participation, but to limit the marginalization of certain populations. She said that the perception was that the people who had money had more influence, facetime and recognition from elected officials. She stated that Connecticut’s program was created to emphasize the sense that all people can and should participate and should have the ability to contribute to candidates of their choice. She stated that the New Haven Democracy Fund has given almost $200,000 out to mayoral candidates by grant and matching contributions. She said that many people give small dollar donations which allow all to participate.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is his hope that such a program can show how public/private partnerships could operate. He asked Ms. Heimer how the New Haven Democracy Fund interfaces with the city. Ms. Heimer explained that they are basically a contractor with the city. She explained that she is responsible for making sure that the audit of contributions is done correctly. She explained that she carries her own personal insurance for potential mistakes and the city is not burdened with the additional cost of going through the paperwork or responsible for any mistakes that she may make. She said that the Board hires her for a stipend of about $26,000 per year. Councillor Mazen asked if the Board is a volunteer board on the city side. Ms. Heimer responded that New Haven does not have an Election Commission but rule changes would go through a subcommittee of the Board of Alders. She said that a volunteer citizen board meets once a month and once every other month in non-election years. She said that all money to the Board is allocated by the Board of Alders. She noted that the role of Administrator is to think about policy and ordinance changes.

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Heimer if the donations must be in a certain range. Ms. Heimer explained that the minimum contribution is $10 and the maximum contribution is $375.00. She explained that these figures change with inflation and noted that they are adjusted every two years before the election. She said that many programs either via grant or matching funds. She explained that in addition to giving a lump sum grant, they then match the donations after. She said the first $30 is the maximum that will get matched. She said that for a $10 donation, the fund would contribute $20. Councillor Carlone asked if this has increased participation at the polls. Ms. Heimer stated that she does not know. She said that in 2011, they had a race that was quite well-fought and probably would not have been as engaging without the program as it made it so people could take a candidate more seriously because he/she had enough money to get his/her name out there. Councillor Carlone asked if the Alders follow a similar pattern of fundraising. Ms. Heimer explained that they have put out a survey to discuss the possibility of public funding for other seats besides mayor and would love to expand the program to additional citywide offices.

Ron Fein stated that Free Speech for People is a national non-profit. He said that the goal of the organization is to restore the concept of equal voice. He stated that they have a partnership with Represent Us that has developed local and state campaign and finance measures. He stated that the perspective is to think of it terms to access and barriers to participation. He stated that Cambridge is a city in which the average amount to run a successful campaign is approximately $35,000. He explained that it is now becoming closer to $58,000 to run a successful campaign because the legislature has raised the contribution levels. He added that in order to run a credible race in the city it is very hard to do for less than $25,000. He explained that the idea of public financing is to enable someone who doesn’t have a lot of money to have meaningful input. He said that with the benefit of any programs on the table for discussion, a $10 donation can be made meaningful, in concert with other $10 donations. He said that this gives people a voice and promotes engagement. He stated that equal citizenship can transform the public culture. He said that it is tempting to figure out what is the perfect policy is, but added that one should resist temptation to come up with the perfect policy as there is the need to look at something that will function and be feasible, as a start. He said that after a few cycles, you will know if a program is or is not working and how to improve it.

Mr. Fein explained that there are a lot of different models. He explained that Albuquerque had a block grant model and was very satisfied but it was not keeping pace with what they needed. He stated that you must come up with something to enable all people to get in the game. He stated that no system will be perfect right out of the gate.

Pamela Wilmot said that Common Cause Massachusetts is a national organization. She explained that they found that the rules of democracy were broken and focused on leveling the playing field. She explained that one of the first agenda items was public financing of presidential elections. She stated that there are many viable options and two are laid out in the submitted proposal. She said that qualification thresholds are set and conditions are attached. She said there is a spending limit which is something that the public is concerned about and is probably the most critical reform in terms of increasing participation both on the candidates’ side and on the side of average citizens who are encouraged to make small contributions.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that in terms of getting on the ballot, Cambridge is liberal. He asked how other cities handle a larger number of candidates. Ms. Wilmot responded that there is always a higher threshold for qualifying for public funds. She explained that unless you have a certain amount of money, capable people cannot run. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that there are a lot of things that influence the amount of money that a candidate has to raise. He said that districts would be less expensive as opposed to city-wide. He asked how a threshold is determined. Mr. Fein stated that mailings are typically one of the biggest expenses. He said that one approach would be to look at the cost of 1 or 2 rounds of complete mailing in the city. He said that another approach would be to look at something that would represent a bare minimum campaign and see if public funding could be provided for that. He said that most systems have a two-phased process where one must qualify for a second round which weeds out someone who is not serious about the process. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he likes the idea of some kind of cap on spending. Ms. Heimer stated that State law requirements need to be met.

Councillor Mazen thanked the presenters and read an excerpt from the memo by the Independent Working Group for Campaign Finance Reform in Cambridge. He stated that they do their best to provide information that will be helpful to the committee as a body. He said that the Albuquerque information stood out to him. He stated that he asks himself, “What is the taxpayer buying with a solution like this?” He said that he feels that the answer is that they are buying free time, access, and independence for their elected officials. He said that there is more diverse participation as well, and also protection against the corruption, in cities that have public financing of elections. He said that money is the main change agent on the federal level and that this reality is trickling down to the state level, with the local level next.

Jan Devereux stated that she anticipated that there would be presentation about the various programs. She said on page 5 in the Analysis for Cambridge paragraph, the Cambridge number is incorrect. Councillor Mazen said that this number probably signifies U.S. citizens. Councillor Devereux again questioned the figures listed in the memo. She pointed out that the fact that some candidates have money left over from the prior year. She said the system obligates the candidates to campaign for two full years. She said that the State doubled the maximum from $500 to $1,000 and that was a game changer. She said that she is trying to figure out how any system would work with the rules that Office of Campaign Finance has set for the candidates. She suggested the idea that candidates could opt in or opt out of such a program.

Councillor Mazen stated that there are errors in the figures in the Analysis for Cambridge paragraph.

Councillor Mazen stated that what is put in place would be up to the City Council. He noted the need that the City Council must be comfortable in its decision-making. He added that the City Council could make sure candidates are serious and have a broad set of signatures or broad base of $10 contributions in order to fund only serious candidates and not spend a large amount of money supporting this type of project.

Councillor Carlone stated that as it relates to the maximum figure, the proposal spreads interest and adds a certain amount of money to get above the minimum needed to run but it doesn’t say anything about the maximum. He said that some people have the ability to hire people to show up at gatherings, hold signs, etc. while others do not. He said that this grant will pay for even more of those people if you are at the upper end so there needs to be something that levels it out. He said that it would help at the bottom but the highest quality at the top is an exaggerated amount. He questioned whether ALL get. He said that he is unsure about the end result in regards to the intent being met. Ms. Heimer stated that for the state version in Connecticut there is a cap. She explained that once you get the grant you cannot spend additional money. She said that in New Haven, there is also a lowered cap on the individual contributions which is why it is an opt-in program. She stated that some people choose not to opt in because of the caps. Councillor Mazen stated that a larger number of small contributions would come about as community work happens. He agreed that an upper threshold is reasonable.

Councillor Mazen opened Public Comment at 6:22pm.

Ann Taylor stated that she owns a home in East Cambridge and is part of the Independent Working Group. She said that she came to the topic at the federal level but is now worried at the local level. She said that Mayor Walsh’s top official was indicted and she wonders about the Mayor’s office. She said that the extortion charges are about pro-union ties. She said that she is seeing a lot of development in East Cambridge and there is the potential for corruption and she is worried for her neighborhood. She added that she would love to see public financing in Cambridge.

Eli Yarden stated that he is a bit bewildered. He said that on Sunday there was an article called One Nation under Stress. He stated that he is looking at the current election and the lead up to it. He stated that it is an issue of values and how much you care about democracy. He stated that this country suffers from foundation. He stated that he spent months going through the issue of slavery and public debt. He stated that the final question is, “What about freedom?” He stated that in the United States, freedom meant and became the idea of individual freedom. He stated that the issue is one of money and the role of money in democracy. He stated that he worked as a volunteer facilitator in the participatory budgeting program. He said that in the City of Cambridge, hardly anyone votes. He said that it is the non-voting that must be addressed. He said that when talking about public financing, we have to be talking about something that makes people think that their votes count for something and it is not only the money that the government gets that directs democratic decision-making.

Brian Aull stated that Cambridge has the potential to be at the cutting edge of civic renewal. He stated that there needs to be a larger conversation about civic renewal and enriching the contact between residents and candidates. He appealed to the City Council to keep the conversation alive and expand it. He said that he would like the conversation to be around civic renewal as opposed to just about public financing and campaigns.

Zachary Epstein, 26 Holden Street, stated that he appreciates the current conversation. He said that he is a member of the Independent Working Group. He added that they have talked about campaign finance reform and the working group is coming from the intention of an effort to encourage the City Council to consider this as an example of how good government works and how this topic can cut across a lot of the issues.

Robert Winters stated that most of what is being proposed seems to be about generating even more funding for local elections. He said that the problem is that the candidates are spending far too much which has been escalating in recent years. He proposed a voluntary cap on spending. He also suggested that there be voluntary limits on the percentage of political contributions from non-residents. He stated that two of the City Councillors were able to get nearly all of their contributions from Cambridge residents in the most recent election so it is clear that candidates can be quite successful when operating within such a voluntary restriction. He stated that there has been a disturbing trend in recent years toward winning elections by hiring many paid canvassers and giving bonuses to campaign workers. He noted that this practice only encourages other campaigns to engage in the same practices in order to compete, ending in an escalation of campaign spending. He stated that so much of the proposal created by the research group is based on the suggestion of corruption in the current way of doing things. He stated that he has been paying close attention to civics and politics in Cambridge for a long time and he has not seen much evidence that this is the case. He said that for the most part, the proposals from the politically connected working group that is connected to one particular City Councillor seems like a classic “solution in search of a problem.” He said that there is a need to emphasize that few, if any, of the proposals are relevant to Cambridge municipal elections in which ranked-choice voting is used. He said that he can imagine a hypothetical situation where a candidate or interest group recruited a large slate of candidates simply to maximize the amount of public funding that could be used to promote that slate. He gave the example that if the requirement for public funding was at least 50 contributions of $10 or more, a slate of 20 candidates could be formed and 50 individuals identified to write a $10 check to each of the slate candidates. He said that would be just $200 spent per individual. He explained that all 20 candidates would then get public funds but they would really just be promoting the whole slate of candidates from which perhaps one or two candidates might be elected. He stated that as soon as one such slate was formed in this manner, we could expect that other candidates or interest groups might do the same. He said that before long we could well see 50 City council candidates even though most of them would be on the ballot primarily for fundraising purposes. He said that he does not see this as a benefit to democracy.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that in liberal Cambridge, many people get worked up about Citizens United. He stated that on the local level, people get indignant. He stated that it is reasonable that the same kinds of influences are at work in local elections as they are in federal elections. He stated that when he decided to run for City Council, he approached Cornell West to see if he would give commendation. He pulled out a checkbook to donate the maximum and Mr. Williamson was stupefied and did not know what to say. He said that we have a situation in Cambridge where it is clear that campaign contributions do indeed have significant influence. He stated that the way to change this is to have public financing of public elections. He commended the committee for investigating this topic.

Cristian Morales stated that as a 22-year old, he is a member of the millennial generation which means that he and his peers are growing up in the post Citizens United world. He stated that getting money out of politics will be a defining cause for his generation. He stated that growing up as an LGBT youth, he looked to the Commonwealth as a beacon of hope for the future for the state and the country.

Dave Himmel, 46 Hobson St, Brighton, MA, stated that a program like this will help candidates. He stated that he worked on an election and by virtue of his candidates’ age, that candidate did not have the donation network to have a successful campaign. He stated that he ran on the idea that every student in Cambridge should have a quality education based around the joy of learning versus over-assessment. He stated that for candidates who may not have the background or network to raise money, he wonders what could be done to run a more robust operation. He urged the committee to help candidates who want to make a difference and are capable, if only they had the capital.

Public comment closed at 6:48pm.

Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted to address the hypothetical situation that was spoken about during public comment. He said that candidates that run credible campaigns in a public financing model would need to collect signatures and very small donations, from a lot of voters, not just the 50 voters described in public comment. He said that with reasonable considerations you just jump in and the experts seem to think this will not only work, but increase access and diversity among candidates and voters. He said that he does not stand for corruption and does not want conspiracy theories about how public financing might or might not be abused to direct the conversation. He stated that the idea is that we should be concrete about any real problems we see with this model and not let the difficulty of the conversation take away inertia.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he does not feel that he is ready to suggest any solutions to this issue today. He stated that more conversation is needed, it is a worthy conversation to have. He stated that the reality is that we don’t know why there is lower voter turnout in municipal elections. Ms. Cobb stated that all of the data shows that if municipal elections were held the same year as State elections, voter turnout would be higher. She said that in order for that to happen in Cambridge, a City Charter change would be necessary.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that we take these frustrations and issues that are happening at the federal level and try to say, “Let’s fix it here.” He said that he does not enjoy raising money for his campaign and he does not like the underlying feel of corruption in the conversation. He said that he wants to make sure that we are not looking for a solution to something that may not be an issue in Cambridge. He said that he thinks that there could be the unintended consequences. He said that while he is open to discussion, he would like to take place in a reasonable way. Councillor Mazen stated that he does see a problem in Cambridge that has nothing to do with corruption. He said that candidates know that in order to run they must raise approximately $30,000.00. He said that to achieve this goal, it is only 30 phone calls to the right person. He said that if a candidate is personally wealthy or connected to wealthy people or well-networked in the business community, that process is totally different than if you are a young advocate or blue collar person. He said that it is indeed an issue with respect to who can participate in the process.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is at the low end of the totem pole as it relates to contributions. He said that he agrees with Vice Mayor McGovern about the suggestion of a spending limit. He stated that he does not think that the Committee will reach a final decision today but the next step is to explore the options in more depth. He suggested that the Committee learn and then propose. He stated that this is a win/win in many ways and if it can get more people involved, the benefit is huge.

Vice Mayor McGovern questioned that when it comes to the numbers and amounts of donations in relation to public funding, how that translates to getting new people involved. Mr. Fein responded that, for example, if a single mother in Section 8 housing decides that she wants to run for City Council, she may be able to collect $10 each from 200 neighbors which would put her in the game once those donations are matched. Councillor Mazen stated that small donations can reach velocity together and that, in addition to Mr. Fein’s comment, if his hypothetical candidate reached a certain threshold of donation, this could unlock a larger public financing of her campaign, as a lump sum more than a funding match, and that a public option has been shown in the numbers to be meaningful to the voters.

Jan Devereux stated that she thinks limits on total amount raised and low limits on the contributions from individuals is something to look at. She stated that it is difficult for a person who has not been politically engaged to know if a candidate is not worth investing in unless they are visible. She said that she would like to look at a system where there are no contributions by the candidate himself or herself. She said that she would like to look at the issue of non-resident donors. She stated that as it relates to ringing doorbells to meet residents, it is difficult to ring doorbells in public housing as well as the kind of luxury housing that Cambridge is building. She noted that as we develop Cambridge more densely with taller buildings, we are putting additional impediments in terms of reaching out to residents.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he does not know how he feels about donations from outside of Cambridge being good or bad. He said that he wonders about family or friends that live outside of the city. He said that this aspect does not bother him. He stated that people are more interested in the bigger picture and he does not want to tell anyone how they can run their campaign. He said that he feels that it is up to the voters to decide how important this issue is to them.

Councillor Mazen stated that many residents who live outside of Cambridge have been forced out over time and should very much impact election outcome if we are trying to keep their voices and diversity in general in Cambridge. He stated that this type of proposal is not about restricting candidates, it is about establishing a Gold Standard for access, diversity, and a level playing field.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked what can be done legally. Councillor Mazen responded that if Committee members feel that they are not ready to vote, it would be great to have proposals researched so the Committee can look at a lot of different ways to determine next steps. Tonya Ford stated that Election Board is the governing body and it is important to have their opinion on the subject.

Councillor Devereux asked if the goal is to increase turnout, the City could change the year that it votes but that would require new ballot boxes. Ms. Cobb stated that there is one ballot scanner per precinct. She said that if there was primary on Sept 8 at the same time as a municipal election, they could not have a scanner counting Proportional Representation ballots and the presidential system at the same time.

Ms. Cobb stated that a Charter change would be needed for this as well.

Ms. Cobb stated that if sole goal is to get a higher voter turnout that should be the focus. She said that the Proportional Representation system allows the voter to feel that they are having an impact on an election.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to determine which public campaign finance options are legal for municipal elections in Cambridge and to report back.

The motion passed.

Caroline Mak stated that it is not just about turnout, it is about equal opportunity.

Bryan Aull stated that the civic education program at CRLS researched a civic issue and organized neighborhood gatherings at which the neighbors got a chance to know the candidates. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he wants to ensure that the process remains above-board. Councillor Mazen stated that as it relates to the Independent Working Group for Campaign Finance Reform in Cambridge, he gives people the overview of how to advocate fairly and how to care about social justice and the group then conducts the research and does the work. He stated that it is a way to voice the broader opinion from outside. He said that his role is only to provide the space. He added that he would love for the City advocate for open-ended policy input.

Councillor Devereux stated that she expected a motion that would seek to have a working group whose meetings would be open to the public. She said that it is great that we had this group do preliminary advocacy but if a group doing policy research, she would like to have more oversight and include people with experience. She stated that she wants to achieve a group that can present the committee with 3 or 4 viable, legal options.

Councillor Carlone stated that any group of people can put forth a zoning proposal that is considered and reviewed. He stated that this will be a long process. He stated that he hopes that if alternatives are presented, he would like the presenters to be able to comment. He stated that we are asking for a working model as a first step. He said that he is encouraged to learn more about each of the three alternatives. He stated that we are talking about concept and approach with lots of questions which is good. He noted that this is only the first step.

Councillor Mazen stated that his hope is to continue engendering interest from the community, especially when they are experts in the subject. He stated that he hopes this does not fly in the face of the city’s current process.

Eli Yarden stated that he is not concerned about issues of fairness. He stated that there are corporations whose expertise is in getting people elected to local office. He said that currently, corruption is of our democratic government. He stated that we are talking about maximal inclusion of people.

Councillor Mazen noted that the following two communications were received and will be made part of the record:

A communication was received from Yumi Izuyama regarding support for publicly funded elections in the City of Cambridge (ATTACHMENT C).

A communication was received from Vivek Sikri regarding support for publicly funded elections in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT D).

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 7:30pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee and the Civic Unity Committee held a joint public hearing on Aug 25, 2016 beginning at 6:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss improving voter turnout for the municipal elections in Cambridge through voter reward options and will focus on receiving feedback from the community.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair, Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, Chair of the Civic Unity Committee; Mayor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Jan Devereux; Tanya Ford, Executive Director; Lesley Waxman, Assistant Director; Ethridge A. King, Charles Marquardt, Election Commissioners, Election Commission; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Dan Schwartz; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Robert Winters, Joanna Herlihy, Carl Rothenhaus, P.F. Soto, Julia Carlson, Caroline Mak, Romain Waith, Michael Nitch, and John Hawkinson.

Councillor Mazen convened the hearing and gave an overview of the agenda for the meeting (Attachment A) and supplied the attendees with a written presentation regarding incentivizing voting in Cambridge Municipal Elections (Attachment B). He stated that a Public Comment period will be added to the beginning of the hearing for those who want to speak but are unable to stay until the end of the hearing.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, stated that everyone would like to see higher turnout in elections but noted that it is a national trend of people being disengaged in elections. He stated that the bigger issue is the unevenness of the voting, not the turnout. He said that the issue of rent control did lead to a tremendous amount of turnout. He said that voter turnout in Cambridge is still higher than neighboring cities and towns and that it should be incumbent on the candidates to provide sufficient appeal to voters to make them want to vote. He said that if candidates fail to do so, that is the problem. He said that replacing interest with cash is not a wise idea. He said that in some sense, not voting is a vote, saying that an individual chooses not to participate.

Joanna Herlihy, 410 Norfolk Street, gave an overview of her prepared comments (Attachment C). She stated that rewards for voting is an extreme idea. She said that the Participatory Budgeting Project could have been used to build responsibility in an engaged citizenry if structured differently. She said that this process has depended on the work of City staff and hired specialists, engaging resident volunteers in an ephemeral structure not connected with permanent activities in the City or the usual process for voting for elected officials. She said that it seems a waste to attract Cambridge residents to such an activity but not retain their connection to City affairs.

Councillor Mazen talked about a need for greater voter participation without necessarily knowing how to get there. He stated that over the past several months he has received a lot of feedback. He stated that he would like to reframe the discussion to begin a longer-term discussion. He stated that this is about the data around paying people to vote but it is not about voter engagement. He said that it is about the idea of democracy and that our representative democracy is sacred. He said that for it to be functional, it also has to be inclusive irrespective of race, gender, occupation or socioeconomic background. He said that we are not talking about voter apathy. He explained that he is not trying to talk about getting people excited about voting. He said that socioeconomic status shows in voter turnout and you can see that certain people are not represented and are not voting. He stated that there is a trend that the disenfranchised communities are not voting which is a vicious cycle and perpetuates certain groups not getting attention nor having a voice at the civic table. He stated that in today’s process, there are obviously concerns if you are working hourly vs. salary, large family vs. no family, access to daycare, etc. and this is what affects the numbers on voter turnout.

Councillor Mazen gave an overview of his presentation. He said that it is important to understand where we come into the mix. He said that statistics on participation definitely correlate to income. He said that it is important to talk about the Gold Standard for participation. He stated that the proposal in Oregon is a creative beginning and not be the end all of what should be done. He said that there is research around democracy vouchers and a democracy lottery. He said that democracy vouchers have been shown a 25% voter increase which would mean 700 extra voters in Cambridge. He said that democracy lotteries have had some success and were run by private non-profits that were offering a bounty wherein people could win dollars by random selection of those who voted. He said that the publicity around potential reward improves turnout for the current election cycle and keeps voting in the mind of citizens for future elections as well. He commented that objections to the idea are real as some say it is a civic duty and we have not emphasized this duty in schools or public discussions. He noted that even with jury duty, you can receive a per diem offset. Councillor Mazen said that one claim is that early voting will solve the problem but studies say that it can actually decrease turnout. He said that it works when partnering with other systems. He stated that in the current system, the voter base may follow a given issue, but that candidates don’t reach out equally to encourage general voter participation. He stated that a candidate in a neighborhood will almost certainly stir up greater participation amongst their social base and those of a similar socioeconomic status, and through the people proximal to them in the neighborhood. They will also stir up their issue base. He said that we cannot rely on candidates to have blanket coverage of potential voters and therefore cannot achieve social equity nor equal participation by relying on candidate-driven outreach. He explained that while some say this is too expensive, he is willing to spend large amounts of money to do something right and it is valuable to enshrine democracy at this level. He explained that these incentives could get us to a marginal increase in voter turnout. He stated that, even so, there are no solutions, only questions. He said that he wants to work collaboratively but there is needs to be a plan as a community to address the trend of decades in decrease in participation. He thanked people on the voter engagement advocacy group who did the research for this important topic.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that Mr. Winters makes a valid point as it relates to the decrease in voter turnout after rent control ended. He said that this rent control was a defining issue with clear sides. He said that since then, everyone is struggling to find the issue that will grab people. He said that while there are many important things happening in the City, there is no decisive issue that drives voter turnout. He said that as it relates to candidate engagement with voters, there is some validity to that thought. He said that candidates look at people who vote in prior elections. He said that candidates are responsible in some ways because they disenfranchise people who they do not contact. He stated that it is the responsibility of the City Council to reach out to newcomers to the City to explain why municipal government is important. He stated that before moving forward, it is imperative to hear from the people who are not voting in Cambridge. In terms of the incentives, he commented that if a person does not feel civically engaged or represented, offering something via incentive may make sense. He said that there are examples where incentives have worked in other areas. He stated his hope that the conversation gets broader. He said that an educational campaign about why municipal government matters could be beneficial.

Councillor Devereux said that if we really want to think outside the box we should talk about changing the municipal cycle to coordinate with even-year large cycle elections. She spoke about the idea of making municipal elections every four years. She said that the City has the means to do this without having to pay people. She added that consideration of a ward system or at-large system may help.

Councillor Devereux stated that At-large representation and Proportional Representation both work to exclude some people out of necessity. She stated that maybe a ward system would work better to get people engaged in neighborhood issues. She asked if there are any voting locations at any of the public housing developments to make it easier for low-income residents or people with job or childcare issues. She emphasized that different polling locations would allow low-income residents to be more reachable. She said that she does not have a great understanding of lotteries and asked if it is possible to create a prize that said if Cambridge reaches a 25% turnout in the next municipal election, the City can do something special by giving something back to the residents. She said that this may motivate people to become more involved.

Councillor Carlone stated that he was looking forward to hearing from the experts. He said that the lottery idea is great when someone who truly needs the money wins it. He said that he agrees with Councillor Devereux about the cycle of elections as well as the longer time period between elections.

Councillor Mazen added that former City Councillors, current City Councillors and the public had talked about the idea of a longer term.

Mayor Simmons stated that this is a novel idea and an important discussion to talk about increased participation in civic duty as it is a privilege. She said that her mother came to Massachusetts because she wanted the freedom to vote. She said that her mother instilled in her children the importance of voting.

Mayor Simmons said that voter turnout is lower than 20 years ago. She asks if we have endeavored to find a way to ask the people that don’t vote why they do not vote. She said that it is difficult to fix a problem if you don’t know why the problem exists. She noted that campus politics is that students often vote absentee ballot in their home town. She stated that while she is certainly interested in finding out ways to get more people to vote, if there are financial rewards the question becomes how long that can last. She explained that it is important to be careful because there may be unintended consequences. She said that the City must do its’ best thinking about what ways to find out why the non-voter is not voting. She added that group voting in families is a great incentive.

Councillor Mazen stated that he loves the idea of polling and researching why people are not voting. He said that he loves the image of an early voting dinner parade. He thanked his colleagues for their thoughts. He asked the Election Commission for any ideas that they could share that could increase turnout.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked how municipal elections are publicized. He questioned if there are other ways to get the word out to Cambridge residents. Vice Mayor McGovern said that he often hears that people don’t understand the Proportional Representation form of government. He noted the need to better explain how this form of government works. He said that there are a lot of things that can be done that do not go as far as monetary incentives, etc. He asked the Election Commission representatives if they have any ideas about what can be done to better inform the public.

Tanya Ford said that she did not prepare any such recommendations or responses because the hearing notification stated that topic of the hearing would be to receive feedback from the community regarding improving voter turnout. Mayor Simmons said that the Committee should keep to the Call of the Meeting. Councillor Mazen stated that the purpose of the hearing was to generate a creative discussion.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, stated that it seems the scope of the hearing is really promoting voter turnout, which is a larger question than rewarding voters. He stated that he wonders what the role that the City (administratively) or the Election Commission has in promoting turnout. He asked what fraction of their budget, if any, is devoted to promoting the turnout. He stated that he would like to have a better understanding of whose job it is to market elections. He said that if the Election Commission views it as not their responsibility it means a different thing than if they spend $10,000 per year on it. He stated his hope that the Election Commission will address this issue. He stated that he wonders about how voter turnout in Cambridge varies with transit-oriented development. In response to a comment from Mayor Simmons, he said that it is not right to throw up the numbers for MIT versus the rest of the City as they are not directly comparable.

Councillor Devereux asked if there is a separate order about publishing a voter guide. Councillor Mazen responded that this was the second part of the conversation of the Roundtable with the Election Commission that has been postponed.

Councillor Mazen opened public comment.

P.F. Soto said she agrees with Mr. Winters. She said that her feelings are stronger than his. She stated that she takes exception to people talking as if they know that everyone agrees with them. She stated that this is not a participatory democracy. She stated that she is an election boycotter because she is not represented and most people are waking up to that fact. She said that the people she talks to say that low voter turnout is contributed to what is going on nationally and the ability to use the internet. She said that people are becoming more educated. She stated that all politics are not local and she sees a trickle-down effect from Washington to all cities and towns. She said that she sees some City Councillors taking vast majority of campaign contributions from outside the state. She asked what good are the numbers. She said that she has been extremely engaged on things that are affecting all cities and towns across the country. She noted that there are groups that do not like the fact that she is exposing certain information. She said that she was showing movies and there were elements in the City that tried to shut her down. She said that she has been successful. She said that the Just-A-Start that manages her building told her at the last minute that she could not show two films and hold her event. She stated that she does not feel represented in the City. She said that her building has shut her down. She explained that she can no longer have events which brings her to the point of civic engagement. She said that there are a lot of buildings in the city that have function rooms where people can get together to talk and they are prevented from using these facilities. She said that she thinks that people do not feel represented and there is nothing to vote for. She thinks it is appalling to consider monetary incentives that she assumes will come from taxpayers.

Caroline Mak, 69 Chester Street, MIT student, stated that she has recently gotten engaged in local politics. She stated that she has been working on a voter registration web app. She said that the ideas are interesting. She said there is an information disconnect between local elections taking place. She said the website is difficult to navigate. She stated that having meetings and spreading of information would be helpful. She said that she has never come across a way that committees are publicized other than word of mouth. She said that there is a lack of excitement around voting. She said that engagement would be helpful.

Romaine Waite, 60 Lawn Street, stated that it is about who is able to have their voices heard. He said that lack of knowledge and channels that reach people are reasons for low voter turnout. He said that there are concerns in terms of what it means to pay someone to do something that should be considered a civic duty. He stated that it is not good to think that cash is the only option. He said that bundling in terms of prizes that businesses could offer could be valuable but we must think more openly about all the options available to us.

Michael Nitch, 1 Aberdeen Way, asked whether we are thinking about this as all percentage increases. He said that if we were to increase voting overall by 5% and all 5% came from relatively young people who are migrating for a couple years, it would not be very valuable. He asked if we are talking about increasing participation full stop or are we concerned with certain kinds of people from the life of the city. He said that future conversations could be clarified to be clear about the focus.

Councillor Mazen stated that some of the things that have been heard focus around more community involvement and the need for more voters from disenfranchised communities. Mayor Simmons agreed that as the conversation advances, we must get to the underrepresented voices.

Councillor Mazen said that the Gold Standard would be mail-in voting which would not trouble the Election Commission. Ms. Ford responded that the Election Commission must follow State law which precludes mail-in voting for municipal elections.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is important to understand why certain neighborhoods and citizens are not voting. He suggested that this could be undertaken by poll or through street work.

Mayor Simmons said that it may be helpful to have a working group so that the Election Commission is clear about what the City is asking of them. She stated that maybe the City Manager could appoint some City staff to be part of the working group to develop ways to assess voting behavior. Councillor Devereux stated that she does not completely understand the role of the Election Commission and questioned if this is part of their responsibilities. Mayor Simmons responded that it may not be the role of the Election Commission but added that they are the experts in elections. She said that they have information in terms of who is voting and who is not and would be an integral part of the conversation.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that there are a lot of issues that need to be fleshed out. He stated that as there is an upcoming meeting about campaign finance reform, he suggested that the Committee wait for the Roundtable with the Election Commission to have a more detailed conversation.

Ms. Ford stated that many people are not aware of the role of the Election Commission. She stated that two weeks from today they have to run a primary, two weeks later they have early voting and then the Presidential election shortly after. She stated that they will undertake five elections this year as well as the census and street listing work that must be conducted. She suggested that holding a meeting where it is outlined what can and cannot be done by the Election Commission may be a better approach moving forward.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would not support a formal working group at this juncture due to the fact that he would rather have a much clearer sense of what we are asking of the Election Commission to do.

Councillor Mazen stated that he will try to get working group together that would come to the Roundtable Meeting with the Election Commission when it is rescheduled.

Mr. King asked about the upcoming Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee hearing scheduled for Aug 29, 2016. Councillor Mazen responded that when running for office, there are generally a couple of different groups that candidate’s target. He said that he went out of his way to target ethnic minorities and heard from those groups that they don’t vote and told him that it will hurt his campaign. He stated that there is something going on in regards to democracy and equity. He said that this is a different discussion and there will be the need to spend substantive time in addressing this issue.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 7:23pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair
Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee

Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Chair
Civic Unity Committee