2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $15,000 from the General Fund Reserves Other Ordinary Maintenance account to the General Fund Women’s Commission Other Ordinary Maintenance account to pay for costs associated with expanded efforts on the Mapping Feminist Cambridge: Inman Square and the Mapping Feminist Cambridge:  Central Square projects.
Order Adopted 9-0

Dec 14, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting a I am hereby requesting a transfer of $15,000 from the General Fund Reserves Other Ordinary Maintenance account to the General Fund Women’s Commission Other Ordinary Maintenance account to pay for costs associated with expanded efforts on the Mapping Feminist Cambridge: Inman Square and the Mapping Feminist Cambridge: Central Square projects.

The Mapping Feminist Cambridge projects, first launched in the summer of 2019, highlight the rich feminist history in Cambridge from the 1970s-1990s.

The popular projects will expand to include self-guided historical walking tours of Central Square in order to help facilitate foot traffic for small businesses that remain open. Collaboration with existing community groups, such as Cambridge Black Trailblazers, and the History Project, will also be enhanced in order to include oral history audio and video clips as part of the walking tours of both Inman and Central Squares. There will also be an adapted guide aimed at middle and high school age youth and those involved virtually with city-run after school programs as well as the expansion of a deck of playing cards highlighting Cambridge women who have contributed to our communities. These projects will be designed to be undertaken and enjoyed while social distancing. Downloadable guides of Mapping Feminist Cambridge: Inman Square and Mapping Feminist Cambridge: Central Square will both be expanded as well.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-74 and 19-45, regarding reviewing public monuments, memorials and markers and streets, schools and public buildings.
Placed on File 9-0

Dec 14, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am pleased to announce the appointment of the Cambridge Advisory Committee on City Art, Memorials and Markers. This Committee, as requested in Awaiting Report Item Number 19-74, will review public monuments, memorials, and markers throughout Cambridge “to determine whether any of these commemorate those who were linked to the slave trade or engaged in other similarly shameful acts, (and) to determine which individuals - particularly women, people of color, and those from other historically marginalized communities - should be newly recognized.”

The Council Order recommended that the Committee “review and borrow” from the template that New York City recently established for a similar effort to review, assess, and update their own public monuments, memorials, and public art.

In summary, we expect the work of the Committee to:

(1) develop recommendations to the City Manager and City Council on how the City should address City-owned monuments and markers,

(2) develop procedures for review and assessment of those which may be viewed as inconsistent with the values of Cambridge, by which we mean a just City that prioritizes anti-racism, equity, diversity, and inclusion, and

(3) make recommendations for how to determine which individuals or events might be newly recognized with a monument/public art, memorial or marker.

Cambridge Advisory Committee on City Art, Monuments and Markers:

• E. Denise Simmons, City Councillor and Chair of the Civic Unity Committee

• Greggy Bazile, Artist/Muralist, Senior at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, interested in Architecture and Public spaces, Cambridge resident

• Brian Corr, Executive Director of the Peace Commission and Police Review & Advisory Board

• Melvin Downes, Jr., Black Trailblazers representative, The Cambridge Black History Project. Cambridge resident

• Emmanuella Fede, Artist, Student in Early Education at Lesley University, works at CAC and was involved in the FLOW public art process in the Port. Cambridge resident

• Cristine Hutchinson-Jones, PhD., Project Manager, Initiative on Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery, Radcliff Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University

• Eryn Johnson, Independent Consultant in Creative Place Making, Youth Development & Organizational Strategy, former Executive Director of the Community Art Center in The Port

• Timothy McCarthy, Harvard Kennedy School, Lecturer on History and Literature, Public Policy and Education, Cambridge Resident

• Tiya Miles, PhD., Harvard University, Professor of History and Radcliffe Alumnae Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Public historian, academic historian, and creative writer whose work explores the intersections of African American, Native American and women’s history. Cambridge resident

• Dr. Janie Ward, Simmons University, Professor and Chair, Department of Africana Studies and Education. Cambridge resident

The work of this Committee will involve developing criteria and frameworks for evaluating memorials and markers, which will also inform future considerations by the City in regard to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-45, regarding streets, schools and public buildings.

Meetings of the Committee will be open to the Public and held virtually on Zoom. We also expect there to be additional public feedback opportunities to better understand, in particular, what and whom residents would like to see represented in future memorials and public art. The work will commence in January and is expected to take 6 months.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-62, regarding providing interpreters at polling locations.
Placed on File 9-0

To: Louie DePasquale, City Manager
From: Tanya L. Ford-Crump, Executive Director
Date: Dec 14, 2020
Re: City Council Order #4 of Nov 16, 2020 – Translators on Election Day

The City Council has requested that City Manager “confer with the Law Department and Election Commission on providing interpreters…at future elections and report back on this matter to the City Council by January 25, 2021”.

The Cambridge Election Commission is committed to making sure every legally entitled voter has the opportunity to vote. As a City, we strive to make information accessible to all of our voters, including voters that may speak or read languages other than English.

The Election Commission has provided bilingual poll workers at some of the polling locations on Election Day who are available to assist voters that may speak or read languages other than English. The Wardens and Clerks at other polling locations are instructed to call those individuals if a voter needs assistance. The bilingual poll workers are fluent in Spanish, Farsi, Portuguese and Haitian Creole. Bilingual staff at the Election Commission also provide Spanish and Haitian Creole interpretation over the phone.

The City of Cambridge has 11 Wards, 34 Precincts and 30 polling places. Due to the number of precincts and/or polling places it could be a challenge to have an interpreter at each precinct or each polling place who is fluent in more than one language such as Spanish, Amharic, Bengali, Haitian Creole, Chinese, Portuguese, and American Sign Language. Challenges include:

• Determining which languages are necessary at each polling location – the Election Commission does not have data on which languages are spoken by voters in each precinct;

• Recruiting and hiring a sufficient number of people who speak each language to cover all necessary locations;

• Providing additional training for interpreters above and beyond the election worker trainings already provided; and

• Providing space at each polling location for interpreters, especially if some precincts would require multiple interpreters to cover multiple languages. This would be especially challenging if social distancing requirements are still in place in future elections.

In response to the number of polling locations and the variety of languages spoken in Cambridge, the Executive Director of the Election Commission is investigating the option of telephone interpreting services. The poll workers would call the service and provide the voter with instant access to over-the-phone interpreters. These services can provide a wide range of languages to the number of polling locations designated in the City as needed. We anticipate having a plan for interpreters in place for upcoming elections.

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-54, regarding a report on drafting an ordinance requiring the city to only purchase goods that are made in full compliance with USA environmental and labor standards.
Placed on File 9-0

Dec 14, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-54, regarding a report on drafting an ordinance requiring the city to only purchase goods that are made in full compliance with USA environmental and labor standards, received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

Dec 14, 2020
Office of the City Solicitor

Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager
Cambridge City Hall
795 Massachusetts A venue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Re: Response to Awaiting Report No. 20-54 Re: Report on Drafting an Ordinance Requiring the City to Only Purchase Goods that are Made in Full Compliance with USA Environmental and Labor Standards

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

We have prepared this memorandum in response to Council Order O-3 of October 19, 2020 (hereinafter, "Council Order"). The Council Order requests the City Manager "to confer with the City Solicitor on an ordinance requiring the [C]ity to only purchase goods that are made in full compliance with USA environmental and labor standards." It is our belief that it would be difficult and problematic to draft and thereafter enact such an ordinance.

Specifically, the City is required to follow G.L. c. 30B when purchasing goods. G.L. c. 30B, § 1. G.L. c. 30B "is a public bidding statute designed to prevent favoritism, to secure honest methods of letting contracts in the public interest, to obtain the most favorable price, and to treat all persons equally." Northeast Energy Partners, LLC v. Mahar Reg'l Sch. Dist., 462 Mass. 687, 693 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). An ordinance that requires the City to only purchase goods that are made in compliance with United States ("U.S.") environmental and labor standards could result in circumstances where some vendors are not able to participate in City bids because the goods said vendors are selling are not made in compliance with those standards.

A situation like the aforementioned could be considered unfair to vendors and thus violative of G .L. c. 30B. Thus, despite the good intentions of an ordinance that obligates the City to only purchase goods made in compliance with U.S. environmental and labor standards, an ordinance that imposes such a requirement could result in situations where the City is forced to put out bids for goods that do comply with G.L. c. 30B. See White's Farm Dairy, Inc. v. City of New Bedford, No. Civ. A. B98-01481, 1999 WL 823885, *9 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 25 1999) (noting good motives cannot excuse contravention of public bidding laws).

Additionally, an ordinance that requires the City to only purchase goods that are made in compliance with U.S. environmental and labor standards would be a broad obligation. It would be difficult to uniformly apply such a requirement because it is possible that not all manufacturers of goods that the City purchases are subject to the same environmental and labor standards. Such may require a separate legal analysis for each purchase either prior to conducting the procurement process or before recommendation for award, which would impact the ability of the City to procure necessary supplies when needed. Any enforcement process would require significant staff time and resources of City staff at the specification writing level, post procurement, or both in order to certify that the offered supplies meet the stipulated standards. This would likely significantly impact the City's ability to award contracts within the necessary time frames.

Further, a requirement that the City only purchase goods that are made in compliance with U.S. environmental and labor standards could lead to situations where either: (A) a City department is unable to purchase a good it regularly purchases (or needs to purchase) because the only available version(s) of that good is(are) not made in compliance with such standards; or (B) costs for a City department increase because the only available version of a sought good that is made in compliance with such standards is more expensive than alternative versions of the good that are not necessarily made in compliance with those standards.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is our belief that drafting and enacting an ordinance that requires the City to only purchase goods that are made in compliance with US environmental and labor standards would be difficult and problematic.

Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Glowa
City Solicitor

2. Congratulating Sean Effel As He Begins His Next Chapter.   Councillor Simmons   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey
Resolution Adopted as Amended 9-0

R-2     Dec 14, 2020  Amended
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: In December 2020, longtime Cambridge Community Television employee Sean Effel announced that he would be stepping down in search of his next exciting venture; and
WHEREAS: Sean Effel has long been a steady presence behind the cameras, helping countless Cambridge residents broadcast their messages and connect with their community, he helped make everyone look polished and professional, and he did so with gentle, good humor; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council formally go on record in thanking Sean Effel for his many years of service at CCTV, and in wishing him well as he embarks upon his next exciting chapter; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Sean Effel on behalf of the entire City Council.

5. Support for a Guaranteed Income.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan
Resolution Adopted 9-0

R-5     Dec 14, 2020
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN

WHEREAS: The ongoing COVID-19 crisis has impacted every American’s life in one way or another, leading to a historic loss of jobs while also exposing pre-existing issues in local, state and federal economic systems; and

WHEREAS: Prior to the pandemic, nearly 40% of Americans could not afford a single $400 emergency, and rising income inequality is compounded by an ever-growing racial wealth divide; and

WHEREAS: Research has shown a growing racial wealth gap, with the median white worker making 28% more on average than a Black worker, and 35% more than the median Latinx worker in the last quarter of 2019. The median wealth of white families is more than $100,000 while the median wealth of black families is approximately $10,000; and

WHEREAS: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these wealth gaps across race and gender, disproportionally affecting people of color; and

WHEREAS: In order to address these inequalities, a coalition of Mayors across the country – from Oakland, CA to Gainesville, FL – have committed to advocating in favor of cash-based guaranteed income policies; and

WHEREAS: Cambridge has also signed onto the Mayor’s for a Guaranteed Income Pledge and is actively working with community partners to pilot a universal basic income program in Cambridge in early 2021; and

WHEREAS: Ongoing, direct cash payments will put real money in the pockets of people across the country and increase spending in our communities; and

WHEREAS: These regular payments have shown to be more effective than unemployment benefits for families of color. The data show that another direct payment would increase Native American, Latinx/Hispanic, and Black family income by 4.1%, 3.9%, and 3.6% respectively, compared to 2% of household income for white families; and

WHEREAS: Providing an income floor that would support families during this economic and public health crisis will benefit those individuals receiving ongoing cash assistance and the community at large; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council go on record supporting the efforts of the Mayor’s for A Guaranteed Income and supports ongoing, direct cash payments throughout the pandemic and until our economy recovers; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council urges President-elect Biden, Speaker Pelosi and Leader McConnell to develop an ongoing federal guaranteed income that provides an income floor for all Americans.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Dec 14, 2020
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Single-family only zoning is an unnecessary artifact of historically exclusionary housing practices, and two-family zoning can have similar effects; and
WHEREAS: There is increasing need for housing production in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Minneapolis became the first city in the country to eliminate single-family zoning throughout the city in 2019 in order to create more flexibility and increase the availability of housing units in all neighborhoods; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the NLTP Committee and Housing Committee convene a joint meeting to discuss the question of whether limiting parts of the city to single or two family only zoning should continue to have a place in our zoning ordinances; and be it further
ORDERED: That the Committee chairs ensure that widespread notice be given to the community to include a broad spectrum of voices in the discussion; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager is requested to make available staff from relevant departments in order to discuss the implications for the city of such a proposal.

O-2     Dec 14, 2020  Amended
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: The control of the spread of SARS CoV-2 is accomplished by the prevention of transmission from infected individuals to others, and since March of 2020, the methods used have relied on the nearly universal adoption of mask use, physical distancing, hand and surface hygiene, limiting indoor and in-person activity, and quarantining those who may have been exposed; and
WHEREAS: These measures have been largely successful in our community, due to the successful partnership with businesses which have complied with distancing and limiting group size and capacity, mask use requirements, hygienic practices, air quality improvements, contact tracing programs, quarantine pay, installation of barriers, testing of staff for infection, all at the businesses expense and largely by their own initiative to implement “best practices” that go above and beyond state and local guidelines: and
WHEREAS: Fear, uncertainty, unpredictable changes to guidelines and sudden decisions about closures create a needlessly stressful climate, and that is taking a toll on the community’s resolve to soldier on with the behaviors that current interventions rely on to be effective; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is in the global epicenter of biological and data sciences and academic institutions who benefit from access to the enormous progress and cutting edge tools that have been developed by dedicated and hard-working scientists, academics and experts, and should endeavor to extend the benefit and access to the citizenry and workforce; and
WHEREAS: The prolonged prohibitions on in-person interaction cause damage and danger to the health and well-being of the population, but newly available and emerging testing strategies and devices that provide fast, frequent test results with confirmatory tests will guarantee that disease prevalence can be reduced and remain low enough to safely allow for the most burdensome restrictions to be relaxed; and
WHEREAS: A vaccine is here, but does not deliver a “Hollywood ending” in which immunity is instantly conferred population wide like a balloon drop, therefore the latest most advanced testing program is urgently needed to rapidly improve the safety of in-person interaction until such time that widespread immunity is ultimately achieved; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The City must provide support for individuals and businesses to facilitate the most impactful testing procedures and risk profile segregation strategies; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to contact the FDA to ascertain which rapid testing products are in the process of acquiring an EUA and ensure access to the supply chain from likely candidates when approval occurs; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to identify currently available testing programs, communicate with businesses about these programs, ascertain what businesses need to quickly deploy these programs to as many people as possible, and provide the resources that are necessary based on this feedback; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to identify funds to support rapid assurance testing, tracking and tracing, and to support isolation, including funds that will be gained from future tax revenue and fees that will result from a full return to business; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the COVID19 advisory board expert advisory panel to help the city identify the parameters upon which each strategy and technology reduces the risk to public health. The group must advise the various city departments on how to determine conditions to reduce restrictions to those under departmental oversight who comply with certain strategies or technologies, as well as suggest incentives to help compliance; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to develop, adopt and track point-based systems that provide incentives and benefits to employers that adhere to guidelines and adopt new interventions as they emerge.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Oct 22, 2020 at 5:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber to receive an update from the Community Development Department and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund on potential changes made to the eligibility preferences for the Inclusionary Housing Program.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Naomie Stephen, Neal Alpert, and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Participating in the hearing via Zoom were Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Nolan; Mayor Siddiqui; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Justine Cabrera; Senior Manager for Inclusionary Housing; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Maura Pensak, Housing Liaison to the City Manager; Michael Johnston, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Tina Alu, Executive Director, CEOC; Anthony Wilson, City Clerk; Bo Fuji; Heather Hoffman; James Williamson; and John Hawkinson.

Councillor Simmons read the Governor’s Order relating to Zoom participation. Councillor Simmons requested the Deputy City Clerk call the roll to indicate a quorum for the hearing and that the hearing was clearly audible to Zoom participants.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon and Councillor McGovern -4
ABSENT: Councillor Zondervan -1
A quorum was present.

Councillor Simmons read from a prepared written opening statement (ATTACHMENT A). She then invited Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler for his opening remarks.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that Cambridge is facing an affordable housing crisis. He said that there are parts that must be addressed via state and federal funding. He said that Inclusionary Housing preferences are under the control of the City Council, that this is a tangible step that can be taken on the local level, and that he is excited to hear this evening’s presentation.

Councillor Simmons noted that the Housing Committee received a communication from Kavish Gandhi and asked that this communication be made part of the permanent record of the hearing.

Councillor Simmons opened the hearing to Public Comment.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that she is glad to see this issue getting some attention. She said that she wondered whether an additional item could be considered: she said that she knows numerous people who live in Inclusionary units who have wanted to take in a homeless person (people whom they already know) to live with them, but have been prevented from doing so because of the existing rules. She said that this would be a more efficient use of the housing that we have available, and she hopes that the City Council considers changing the rules to allow this, if it is found to be legal to do so. She said this change in the rules could help some people to not be homeless.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that he did not have any comment prior to viewing the presentation by CDD.

Councillor Simmons stated that Public Comment will remain open until 6:00pm.

Councillor Simmons invited Chris Cotter to introduce the City team for this hearing. He stated that Justine Cabrera and Linda Prosnitz from the Community Development Department were joining in on tonight’s meeting, as well as Maura Pensak, the Housing Liaison to the City Manager, and City Solicitor Nancy Glowa. He said that they are all happy to continue the conversation. He said that his department has spent a long time working on the Inclusionary recommendations with the Affordable Housing Trust, and they are pleased to present these recommendations to the Housing Committee tonight and to receive feedback. Mr. Cotter said that when thinking about potentially changing preferences, we unavoidably advantage some and disadvantage others. He said it is a very challenging thing to do. He said that his team has been able to talk and work with feedback they’ve been given in order to revise these preferences. He said that the Affordable Housing Trust was building off of what they had previously heard from the City Council. Mr. Cotter gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation titled Inclusionary Housing Resident Selection Preferences. (ATTACHMENT B).

As Mr. Cotter wrapped up his presentation, he said that he looks forward to getting comments and feedback on this during and following this hearing. He said that the next steps would be for his team to put this material into draft standards and procedures for resident selection. He said this would then be looked at by the Law Department. He said that they want to expand the documentation requirements for residents, that there would be a revised and updated document explaining how we define what a resident is and what the City would accept for documentation, and that the CDD has heard from staff, from residents, and from the Council that they want to give applicants more choices and opportunities to confirm their residency. He said they will put this document together in such a way that is consistent with the Ordinance, and then this would be put into a draft form for Public Comment. That Public Comment period would need to be at least 30 days, it would be shared with all applicants, with residents, with building managers, and with anyone with a stake in the program to solicit their feedback. Following that process, the Trust would then review that feedback, process through it into a final draft, which would then become effective in changing the preference system.

Councillor Simmons thanked Mr. Cotter and then asked about the “Next Steps” slide of the presentation. She asked if the draft recommendations go to the Affordable Housing Trust, then to the Law Department, and then back to the Housing Committee before going to the City Council? She said it was not quite clear to her. Chris Cotter said that there is no formal role for the Affordable Housing Trust in adopting any of these changes under the Inclusionary Ordinance. He said that under the Ordinance, it is the Community Development Department that has the authority to make these changes, with policy input from the City Council. He said that the CDD would draft standards and procedures for the Inclusionary Program, they would then put them out for Public Comment for 30 days; following that, the CDD would adapt based on the feedback they received, and then the CDD would issue final standards and procedures. He said that the next steps are for the Community Development Department to draft, in consultation with the Law Department, the document to ensure that it is being responsive to the requested changes, while adhering to the law. Mr. Cotter said that the Community Development Department certainly could come back and present these proposed final draft changes to the Housing Committee if that is requested. He said that the CDD understands the desire for this process to move forward quickly, and that it would likely take at least a couple of months. He said that we are currently talking about the general policy approach, but there are many details that need to be ironed out as it related to “residents.” Councillor Simmons concurred that it would be a good idea to have the CDD come back and present this to the Housing Committee at least one more time prior to finalizing it.

Councillor McGovern made a motion to close Public Comment.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern and Councillor Zondervan -5
NAYS: -0
and Public Comment was closed.

Councillor McGovern asked Mr. Cotter to discuss Slide #3, “Number of Applicants.” He asked, of the 2,322 applicants who are classified as non-resident/non-worker, if we know how many formerly resided in Cambridge. Mr. Cotter replied that there is no way to know that, as it is not criteria included in our applications. Councillor McGovern said that to get a true sense of the list, in terms of which applicants have Cambridge ties, his preference would be to see someone who formerly lived in Cambridge and had to move out because of rising rents now have the ability to come back to Cambridge. Regarding the list that has the breakdown by unit – which is based on the total of 3,243 applicants – Councillor McGovern asked if we know how many of the 921 Cambridge applicants want a 1 bedroom, or a 2 bedroom? Mr. Cotter said that we know for the 683 applicants – of those, we have roughly 100 applicants in the 1 bedroom pool, with the balance evenly split between the 2 and 3 bedroom pool. Councillor McGovern said that this is important, because this makes it look like the majority of applicants want a 1 or 2 bedroom, but if just broken down by Cambridge residents, that may not actually be the case. Mr. Cotter responded by saying that in some ways, what’s more readily available can actually drive the applicants, using the example that we know 3 bedroom units in this program are rare, and thus we do not see as many people applying for 3 bedroom units (because many would-be applicants realize how challenging it would be to obtain a 3 bedroom unit and therefore they do not apply for the program).

Councillor McGovern said that, for the Cambridge residents out of that pool of 683 applicants, 100 are waiting for a 1 bedroom and the rest are waiting for either a 2 bedroom or a 3 bedroom, and that is a different breakdown than what is shown on Slide 3. Councillor McGovern said that on this slide, it looks like most applicants are waiting for 1 bedroom units. Mr. Cotter said that this reflects the fact that the program is able to serve 1 bedroom applicants more quickly, and we don’t typically get to the non-Cambridge residents. He said that the program sees the most unmet demand in family sized units.

Councillor McGovern said that he really wants to prioritize the program for people who are in Cambridge and have been here, as opposed to applicants with no previous ties to Cambridge and who may never have set foot in Cambridge.

In regards to the emergency designation based around homelessness, Councillor McGovern has had to say to people who are unhoused and are couch surfing that they must spend a couple nights in a shelter so they can qualify as being homeless. He said that it is awful to tell someone that this is what they must do. He asked if we have thought about the couch-surfing issue, and is there a way to include those people as emergency homeless applicants? Mr. Cotter said that as we think about changes and developing more details, the Trust has talked about trying to be more expansive in terms of how homeless applicants are looked at. He said that the concern is that it becomes an easy threshold to meet, if we simply take people at their word that they’ve been couch surfing, and then everyone now meets this emergency criteria. He said that the Trust has talked about looking at expanding the types of resources that they rely on to confirm that someone is homeless, such as looking at if they’re working with a service provider, or with a social worker.

Councillor McGovern said that he does still worry about the “cliff effect” where someone living in an Inclusionary unit has the opportunity to get a raise at work, and if they accept the raise they make just enough money to now be just over income, and they no longer qualify for the Inclusionary Housing program, but they don’t make enough money to rent a non-subsidized unit, nor enough to buy a unit. He asked if there is any way to address that issue, and is it as big an issue as he believes it is. Mr. Cotter said that the CDD does see this from time to time, but it is not an overwhelming issue to the extent that it is brought to the CDD’s attention. He said that for the home ownership program, there is no ceiling in terms of income eligibility once a person has signed on to the program and has purchased a unit. In terms of the Inclusionary Rental program, he said that there is a built in cushion in the ordinance for a tenant to remain eligible, and to the extent that an Inclusionary tenant’s income extends over 100 percent AMI, which has happened on occasion, then CDD works with those people to look at their options, and they have had success on a case-by-case basis. Councillor McGovern said that it is important to let people know about this, as there may be many cases where it doesn’t reach the attention of the CDD because tenants facing that raise that places them just above the income threshold ultimately decide not to take the job, for fear of jeopardizing their housing.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that, in terms of feedback, he agreed with Councillor McGovern’s points in needing to expand how we define homelessness and the documentation that is accepted. He said that we must explore giving additional weight to emergency housing needs. He said that we must prevent more people from getting priced out of Cambridge. We should also make sure we are increasing information to applicants and current participants, and we also need to increase the information to applicants about income changes they may experience during their wait.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked how the CDD looks at preferences from other affordable housing providers in Cambridge, and how changing the Inclusionary preferences can be done to possibly meet the needs that are not being met by those other housing providers. For example, he cited that military veterans are given the same weighted preference at the Cambridge Housing Authority whether they come from Cambridge or whether they applied from out of state; if the veterans preference is already being addressed by the CHA, he asked if there might be other preferences that we could be addressing here. Mr. Cotter confirmed that some of the emergency criteria is more in line with what the CHA has in their criteria, but the CDD has kept some things that CHA does not have. He said the big difference is the preference for families with children, and this is not a typical preference that is seen. Mr. Cotter said that, by and large, our preference system is about as complex as one will find; in the CHA, you either get local preference or you don’t, but in the Inclusionary program there is a graduated approach that is pretty complicated.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked if there is a way to have a preference for people that grew up in affordable housing. Mr. Cotter responded that it is something that has been discussed. He said that most residency preferences are either live in or work in the community. He said that moving away from this could begin to create questions of fair housing. The advice the CDD has had is to not have preferences that require some duration of time, or time limited preference, or something that looks back very far into a person’s housing history. He said that the CDD is now looking to include provisions that would include former residents.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that he would like to think about changes where, if you have a family member or friend that you can stay with, but if you grew up in affordable housing and cannot go back to your family, it should be addressed. He said that he would be happy to follow up on this thread at a later time.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this is a complex problem, and we clearly have a huge need for emergency housing. He stated that one of the things that he is seeing are cases where someone who was a Cambridge resident 4-5 years ago is now homeless, and how do we better address the needs of these people. Mr. Cotter said that in cases of someone who is homeless and whose last permanent address was in Cambridge, they would get the benefit of the preference. Councilor Zondervan said that he would appreciate an early look at some of the more detailed definitions of “resident” and of “homeless” that CDD comes up with. In terms of the point system for emergency housing, Councilor Zondervan said that he appreciates the effort into looking into this. He asked if it reasonable to try to increase the weight of the homeless preference, in some way. Mr. Cotter responded that the CDD is happy to get the feedback on the weighing of the various points, and they want to hear from the City Council on what the priorities were. In terms of emergency housing, they have tried to allow the emergency need to surpass the preference for veterans and families with children. He said that the question is more about the residency. With applicants that are homeless, he said that they try to look at the whole picture. Councillor Zondervan said that he appreciates the difficulty of the challenge.

With regards to better serving those with Cambridge ties who are currently homeless, Councillor Zondervan mused that there may be a way to better align the CDD’s criteria with the criteria utilized by the local shelters to confirm someone as being a Cambridge resident.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that there are people in emergency situations that could be affected by potential changes. Regarding the list that was shown by Mr. Cotter, she said it would be helpful to have it broken out by bedroom type and by Cambridge residents versus non-residents. In terms of recently displaced former residents, she asked what documentation is going to be needed? Mr. Cotter said that they try to be flexible, and they might look at a past lease, a past utility bill, and a range of other options. Vice Mayor Mallon asked if the CDD had any idea what additional documentation may be considered in proving residency. Mr. Cotter said that they are in the process of discussing how they might expand residency documentation, and they are trying to give people more choices in documentation. He said that they might consider weighting different documents to provide greater flexibility. He said that CDD has been looking to other housing programs and other cities to look at different models, and this is still being developed. Vice Mayor Mallon thanked Mr. Cotter for this work so far, and she looks forward to the next part of this process.

Mayor Siddiqui said that this has come a long way since June of 2019, and many suggestions of the City Council have been incorporated. She said that, with regards to documentation to homelessness, many families who are couch surfing are in touch with City departments, such as the Mayor’s Office or the Multi Service Center, and she suggests that perhaps we broaden the scope to include people that have worked been working with City departments or agencies as proof of homelessness.

Councillor Simmons asked Mr. Cotter, regarding Slide 7: when the CDD is looking at former residents who met residency requirements at time of application, are we speaking to those who hold a mobile voucher? Mr. Cotter said yes and no. He said that the CDD had recommended, in the last meeting, to preserve residency status of any applicant in the program as long as they have an active application. This means that if someone lived in Cambridge when they applied to the program, they then are forced out of the City, and then their name reaches to the top of the list, they will be still be treated as a Cambridge resident because they were a resident at the time of applying. Mr. Cotter said that this is the change that CDD thinks will most dramatically affect resident applicants. He said that the second piece involves Cambridge residents who are issued a voucher, cannot find a unit in Cambridge, and secure a unit outside the City in order to keep their voucher active. Mr. Cotter that the new change being recommended is that these people, who have been displaced from Cambridge, would be able to apply for an Inclusionary Unit for up to one year after leaving Cambridge and they will still be treated as Cambridge residents, and this will be a big boost to giving these people the opportunity to move back to the City.

Councillor Simmons said that she was happy to see the new veteran status. In terms of emergency need, she asked where domestic violence survivors fall in these criteria. Mr. Cotter said that on page 10, victims of domestic violence are listed. He said that the CDD wants to have the appropriate definitions in place, but they have allowed some flexibility for applicants to meet the criteria.

Regarding time-limited transitional housing, Councillor Simmons asked if this housing wouldn’t necessarily have to be in Cambridge. Mr. Cotter said that someone living outside of Cambridge would get that preference, but would not necessarily get the residency preference. He said that CDD would look at the address of the person prior to entering transitional housing. Councillor Simmons said that some victims of domestic violence have their address embargoed for safety purposes, and we would not want this to be an impediment to their getting housed. Mr. Cotter said that this is something that can be looked at when planning out how to establish criteria for that preference. Councillor Simmons then asked Mike Johnston or Maura Pensak for comments.

Maura Pensak stated that she does not have anything to add, but that she appreciates the work of CDD and she appreciates expanding emergency and residency requirements, and recognizing the need of folks with children over the age of six having high priority. She looks forward to the next steps of this process. Mike Johnston stated that Mr. Cotter and his staff have done a great job, he thinks this is a great piece of work, and he looks forward to seeing it put in place.

Councillor Simmons thanked Mr. Cotter and his staff, she said that this has been a long time getting to this place and she wants this issue to be expedited. She invited the Housing Committee members to put into writing any additional questions that they may have and she will have this material forwarded to Mr. Cotter.

Councillor Simmons summarized her understanding that Mr. Cotter will now take recommendations and thoughts from the Housing Committee and work to update the guidelines, there will then be a 30 day period of Public Comment, then this will be brought back to the Housing Committee. She said that having a written timeline submitted to the committee would be helpful. Mr. Cotter confirmed that the next steps are to take what has been presented tonight and develop draft standards and procedures. He said he will share that with the City Council, and the schedule will include a 30 day public review comment process.

He said that we will want to comply with the ordinance, and this will be mapped out. Councillor Simmons asked that Mr. Cotter get a timeline for the standards and procedures and then sit with the Housing Committee Co-Chairs to ensure that it fits with the trajectory. She said she would like to receive a timeline and then work through and get back to the committee, and Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler concurred.

Councillor Simmons thanked the Committee, she said she is excited to move the process forward, and she is committed to working as expeditiously as possible to move this along.

Councillor Simmons and Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler thanked all those present for their attendance.

On a motion by Vice Mayor Mallon to adjourn the hearing, the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern and Councillor Zondervan -5
NAYS: -0

And the meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm.

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

Committee Report #2  Amended
Public Safety Committee meeting – Wed, Oct 7, 2020, 10:00am, Sullivan Chamber

Present: Zondervan, Carlone, Mallon, Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern (late)

Public Safety Committee will conduct a public hearing on the Surveillance Technology Impact Reports and annual reports on ShotSpotter, BRIC, and COPLINK, and other outstanding surveillance annual reports, time permitting.

Councillor Zondervan called the meeting to order. He opened the floor to a presentation from the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) on Shotspotter.

Police Commissioner Bard explained that Shotspotter is a gunshot detection system designed to be an ever vigilant reporting ear. He stated that across the country residents have become so immune to this type of gunshot that incidents go unreported and that criminals count on this indifference and become emboldened in such environments. He explained that gunshot detection systems provide a perpetual reporting to local law enforcement of these incidents and that he provided a lengthy diagram as to how the actual technology works. He explained that: the technology consists of 12 microphones condensed into a 1.1 square mile area and that CPD has no listening capabilities. The company’s headquarters are in California. When gunshots occur, they are picked up by microphones, analyzed by algorithm, and the numerical address is sent to the local police department, along with a brief audio clip of the gunshot.

In response to a question by Councillor Zondervan, the Commissioner stated that after receiving an alert from ShotSpotter, ECC emergency communications dispatches patrol units, and they go to the numerical address and attempt to locate the source of gunfire or gunshot victims.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan about the availability of any data on how often police are able to recover evidence of actual gunfire, how often gunshot victims are encountered, and how often shooters were apprehend as a result of ShotSpotter activation, the Commissioner stated that they can provide that evidence and that they frequently recover evidence of a shooting after a ShotSpotter alert.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked where ShotSpotter is deployed in Cambridge and if shots can be detected from anywhere in Cambridge, or only if they're in a certain section of a neighborhood or part of the city. The Commissioner replied that prior to the installation of the system, a detailed analysis was done as to the areas of where gunshots were most concentrated. Based on that analysis, the microphones were placed in a 1.1 square mile radius area. He said that he has not publicly stated the exact locations of the microphones for security reasons.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked about the analysis and how many gunshots led to it being deployed in this area? The Commissioner responded that the number has remained largely the same and that there has been no statistical reason to ask for relocation of the equipment and that he wasn't a member of the (Police) department at the time of (ShotSpotter’s) installation.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked about false positives with ShotSpotter in Cambridge. Commissioner Bard replied that there are occasions where heavy loading equipment during construction will trigger an alert, and certain heavy categories of fireworks also will trigger an alert, but that it's a very small percentage of the time that (Shotspotter) generates a false alert.

Councillor Zondervan stated that while the Commissioner did not want to disclose the exact locations of the microphones, it's well known that Shotspotter is installed in the Port neighborhood in Cambridge and he asked why we deployed that technology only in that particular neighborhood? Commissioner Bard responded that it was based on an analysis of where gunshots were most prevalent in the city.

In response to questions from Councillor Zondervan, Commissioner Bard stated that the Port area continues to be where the most persistent episodes of gunfire occurred, but that didn’t necessarily mean that Shotspotter is not effective because there are times when gunshots would have gone undetected if not for the presence of the ShotSpotter technology.

In response to questions from Councillor Mallon, Commissioner Bard stated that Shotspotter is not meant to be a deterrent but a tool to assist law enforcement in understanding the prevalence of gunfire. He added that he believed that some activists had concerns about ShotSpotter recording conversations. He stated that it is not unreasonable at all to expect that when an incident of gunfire occurs, and that Shotspotter begins recording, that it would also pick up hollering and other noises that can also be made at the same time that the gunfire occurs.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked about how many shots that ShotSpotter did not detect. He stated that Fall River, Massachusetts stopped using it because it missed about 50% of the shots fired. Commissioner Bard stated that he was not aware of any instances in Cambridge when ShotSpotter did not detect gunshots that it would have been expected to detect.

Councillor Zondervan stated that ShotSpotter raises racial equity and privacy concerns. He stated that Shotspotter is not a tool to proactively reduce crime, it merely identifies gunshots. In terms of the surveillance, he mentioned a case in New Bedford where some of the snippets of conversation that were picked up, were ultimately used as part of the conviction.

Commissioner Bard responded that individuals discharging a firearm in a public way is a grave public safety concern and as far as he is aware Shotspotter is not capable of listening into homes.

In response to questions from Councillor McGovern, Commissioner Bard stated that Shotspotter allowed the Police Department to detect gun shots that might otherwise go undetected. He stated that some ShotSpotter responses lead to the police finding an injured person. Commissioner Bard stated that ShotSpotter identifies the number of shots fired.

Councillor McGovern stated he was interested in receiving data about the threshold number of gun shots to then decide to install ShotSpotter in a neighborhood.

Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street, expressed concern about Shotspotter. He stated that the system is a failure based on the original promises.

Councillor Zondervan moved to close public comment (5-0).

Commissioner Bard stated that the police department does conduct test firing to ensure that the system works and that the neighborhood is notified of these events. He stated that Cambridge is not immune to gun violence. In 2018, the Council ordered the police department to form a task force because of the gunfire. He stated that there are many instances of gunfire that the police department only became aware of because of Shotspotter.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon about deploying Shotspotter citywide, Commissioner Bard stated that he did not believe that there would be widespread support for citywide deployment of Shotspotter. He stated that he was not opposed to citywide deployment, but he was not sure that there has been a need to cover the entire city.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon about the purpose of the conversation about Shotspotter, Councillor Zondervan stated that the committee was examining the need and usefulness of the Shotspotter technology. He stated that the committee could vote to approve the STIR or recommend that the Police Department stop using Shotspotter.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that the committee should specifically ask for the data that it is interested in reviewing.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone about facts regarding the efficacy of Shotspotter, Councillor Zondervan stated that in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 10,000 ShotSpotter alerts translated in to roughly 170 arrests, but in San Francisco, Shot spotter alerts translated into only two arrests and it is unclear how ShotSpotter has affected Chicago's clearance rate.

Councillor Carlone stated that he understands that Shotspotter can report gunshots that might otherwise go unreported. He stated that he is not opposed to deploying the technology citywide. He stated that he would like to receive input from the ACLU at some point.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that he would like to have more data about this technology’s effectiveness. He recognized the potential privacy concerns raised by this data. He wanted to know how specific the location data is for where a gunshot occurred as reported by Shotspotter.

Councillor McGovern stated that he believed that the Commissioner stated that Shotspotter is not meant to be a crime deterrent. It is meant to reduce police response times, to help with investigations and rendering aid to injured persons. He encouraged the committee to specifically ask for data that the committee is interested in reviewing.

In response to a request by Councillor Zondervan, James Mulcahy, Legal Advisor to the Police Department explained the Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) omega dashboard to the committee. He stated that the BRIC is a crime intelligence platform that allows participating agencies to analyze what types of crimes are occurring and where they are occurring. The police department submits certain incident and arrest reports to the platform. The police department does not submit confidential information, which includes domestic violence, juvenile and sexual assault victim information. He explained that the Omega dashboard allows participating agencies to plot where incidents were occurring geographically.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan if the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) has access to this information Attorney Mulcahy stated he did not know and that access is determined by the BRIC.

In response to a question by Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler about the agencies comprising the BRIC, Commissioner Bard stated that as far as he knew the members consisted of the Metropolitan Boston Transit Authority, the city of Boston, other Transportation Agencies, Metro fire, Port Authority, and other cities and agencies.

In response to questions from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Attorney Mulcahy stated that the department will contact the BRIC to find out who is allowed to access the Omega dashboard.

In response to questions from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about the specificity of BRIC data, Commissioner Bard stated that certain identifying information is uploaded but some information is redacted.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler expressed concern about federal immigration agencies having access to BRIC data.

Councillor Mallon confirmed with Commissioner Bard that the Omega dashboard has a minimal impact on privacy. He stated that the dashboard analyzes, and maps incidents reported by participating agencies. This allows different jurisdictions to work together to solve crimes.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan about analysis performed by the Omega Dashboard, Attorney Mulcahy explained that the dashboard allowed users to break-down information by type, location and time.

Commissioner Bard and Councillor Zondervan had a discussion about whether the analysis performed by users of the dashboard is new information that can be submitted to BRIC through the dashboard. Attorney Mulcahy explained that users run queries that at not necessarily reports and that the results of those queries are not re-uploaded to the system.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan about surveillance technology acquired by the BRIC, Attorney Mulcahy explained that there is a difference between the Omega Dashboard, which is a technology used by the Department and the BRIC which is an entity separate from Cambridge. Councillor Zondervan stated that he was interested in the type of surveillance data utilized by the police department through its participation in the BRIC.

In response to questions from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler and Vice -Mayor Mallon, Attorney Mulcahy and Commissioner Bard explained that the BRIC pulls data directly from the departments records management system, limited by certain predetermined rules and protecting confidentiality as explained earlier.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Mr. Mulcahy stated that the police department does not have a gang database.

At the request of Councillor Zondervan, Mr. Mulcahy provided an overview of COPLINK. He explained that COPLINK operated much the same way as BRIC, except that COPLINK is a statewide database. Participating agencies submit incident or arrest data, motor vehicle crash data or citation data to COPLINK. Similarly, to BRIC, COPLINK has a feature that allows users to parse data by location, type and time to find patterns. This data has been helpful when determining when to issue firearm licenses to individuals requesting them.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Commissioner Bard stated that COPLINK is provided by a private entity. Mr. Mulcahy stated that COPLINK works with public safety agencies nationwide, but Cambridge only accesses data provided by agencies in Massachusetts. The Commissioner did not know if the data was available to federal agencies. He further stated that the service is provided through a federal agency.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he would like information about COPLINK’s data retention policy. Councillor Mallon stated that she did have concerns about the links between COPLINK and federal immigrations agencies. She stated that she would like to have a larger conversation about this with the ACLU. Commissioner Bard stated the police department shares the concerns about for the immigrant community and would not knowingly put them in jeopardy. Councillor Carlone shared those concerns.

Councillor Zondervan moved to send the following policy order to the city council:
“The City Manager and Police Department are hereby requested to provide data on Shotspotter, BRIC and Coplink to the City Council including: Shotspotter (broken down by year): number of gunshots reported through ShotSpotter, average response time, resulting arrests, resulting gunshot victims treated, number of gunshots reported by people across the city, number of gunshots reported by people in the ShotSpotter area, gunshots reported by people but not by ShotSpotter in the ShotSpotter area, data retention policies; BRIC: Federal agencies that have access to BRIC information, data retention policies; COPLINK: Federal agencies that have access to COPLINK information, data retention policies; and any other information that may be deemed helpful and informative to the Council in executing its duties with regard to the Surveillance Ordinance.”

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler moved to amend the proposed policy order to add: Data on difference in response times between shots reported by Shotspotter and shots reported by humans and data on location pinpoint accuracy.
YEA: Carlone, Mallon, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
ABSENT: McGovern

Councillor Zondervan moved to send proposed amended policy order to the city council:
The City Manager is hereby requested to work with the Police Department to provide data on Shotspotter, BRIC and Coplink to the City Council including: Shotspotter (broken down by year): number of gunshots reported through ShotSpotter, average response time, resulting arrests, resulting gunshot victims treated, number of gunshots reported by people across the city, number of gunshots reported by people in the ShotSpotter area, gunshots reported by people but not by ShotSpotter in the ShotSpotter area, data retention policies, data on difference in response times between shots reported by Shotspotter and shots reported by humans and data on location pinpoint accuracy; BRIC: Federal agencies that have access to BRIC information, data retention policies; COPLINK: Federal agencies that have access to BRIC COPLINK information, data retention policies; and any other information that may be deemed helpful and informative to the Council in executing its duties with regard to the Surveillance Ordinance.
YEA: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan (5-0)

Motion to adjourn
YEA: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan (5-0)

1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to second Annual Surveillance Report concerning City departments’ use of Surveillance Technology or Surveillance Data.

Pursuant to Chapter 2.128, Section 2.128.060 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, I hereby submit the City of Cambridge Departments’ second Annual Surveillance Reports concerning City departments’ use of Surveillance Technology or Surveillance Data.

The Annual Surveillance Reports and the Surveillance Technology referenced in those reports are as follows:

No.	Department	Technology
1.	Emergency Communications	Rapid SOS Emergency Data Integration System
2.	Emergency Communications - Police	Trespass Tracking Database
3.	Executive/City Manager	• Media Monitoring-Meltwater • Social Media Monitoring - Meltwater Engage (Powered by Sprout Social)
4.	Finance – Assessing	Atlas RMV Portal
5.	Finance - Revenue	Atlas RMV Portal
6.	Information Technology	IP Address Collection Platforms (Multiple)
7.	Law	WestLaw Public Records Search function
8.	Mayor’s Office	TweetDeck
9.	Police - Crime Analysis & CID	• Accurint Workstation • BRIC Omega Dashboard • Coplink • QED • Incident Database • CLEAR • LexisNexis • Focused Deterrence Database • LENS
10.	Police - CID Days, DV/SA & Cyber	• GPS tracking devices • Digital Intelligence Workstation • Dell Laptop BCERT • Magnet Forensics-Axiom • Getdata Forensic Explorer • Shotspotter
11.	Police – SIU	• Covert Cameras (Keltech Covert Streetlight Camera, CSA Pole Camera, IVC Covert Camera) • DTC Body Wire
12.	Police - Crime Scene Services, Booking & Records	• Morpho Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) with camera (Massachusetts State Police (MSP) System) • Live Scan (3 devices)
13.	Police – EOD	• Wireless Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) robots with cameras: Robotex Avatar II 2 (3); Foster Miller Tallon 4; Foster Miller Dragon Runner 4; Remotetec F6A 4 with fiberoptic • Tactical Electronics VF52 Fiber Scope • ATF Bomb Arson Tracking System (BATS)
14.	Police – Fleet	Prisoner Transport Security Cameras (Transport Wagon 236 & 240)
15.	Police – SRT	Throwbot XT
16.	Police – CID	Case Cracker
17.	Police – Professional Standards	Infraware
18.	Police – PIO	TweetDeck
19.	Public Health	MAVEN (Massachusetts Virtual Epidemiologic Network)
20.	Cambridge Public Schools - Information, Communications & Technology Services	Securly for Chromebooks Web Filter
21.	Cambridge Public Schools - Safety & Security, Transportation	• Bus Video Recorders • GPS Devices • Edulog Transportation System
22.	Traffic, Parking & Transportation	• ATLAS: Massachusetts RMV Website Portal • Traffic Signal Detection Cameras • MioVision Traffic Count Mobile Camera Units
23.	Water	Automated Meter Reading (AMR) System

The first Annual Surveillance Report was submitted on Dec 9, 2019 and referred to the Committee on Public Safety. That report is still before the Committee, see January 22, 2020 Committee Agenda, and is available here: Annual Surveillance Report 120919

The second Annual Surveillance Reports include any updates regarding the use of Departments’ Surveillance Technologies since the first report was filed. The second reports also incorporate additional details about the Surveillance Technologies. These additional details reflect information provided in the revised Surveillance Technology Impact Reports relating to each Surveillance Technology, which were before the Council on Mon, February 24, 2020. The revised Surveillance Technology Impact Reports are available here and here.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have concerning the enclosed Annual Surveillance Reports.

2. A communication was received from Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street, for the Public safety meeting on Oct 7, 2020.

Proposed Order     Dec 14, 2020  Amended
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The public safety committee met on Oct 7, 2020, and;
WHEREAS: During the meeting, the committee voted to favorably recommend the following order to the city council. Now therefore be it
ORDERED: The City Manager is hereby requested to work with the Police Department to provide data on Shotspotter, BRIC and Coplink to the City Council including: Shotspotter (broken down by year): number of gunshots reported through ShotSpotter, average response time, resulting arrests, resulting gunshot victims treated, number of gunshots reported by people across the city, number of gunshots reported by people in the ShotSpotter area, gunshots reported by people but not by ShotSpotter in the ShotSpotter area, data retention policies, data on difference in response times between shots reported by Shotspotter and shots reported by humans and data on location pinpoint accuracy. BRIC: Federal agencies that have access to BRIC information, data retention policies; COPLINK: Federal agencies that have access to BRIC COPLINK information, data retention policies; and any other information that may be deemed helpful and informative to the Council in executing its duties with regard to the Surveillance Ordinance.