Audio Version

Meeting Minutes: Committee on Legislative Matters

Governing Body: City Council Committee on Legislative Matters Meeting Type: Committee Meeting Meeting Date: June 27, 2025 Attendees: Councilor Kristen Strezo, Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen, Councilor J.T. Scott, Chair Lance Davis. (Councilor Will Mbah was absent.)

Executive Summary: The Committee on Legislative Matters met to discuss and approve amendments to the city's condo conversion ordinance, aiming to reduce tenant displacement and update relocation payments. Key changes include increasing relocation payments for displaced tenants and extending the notice period for vacant units previously used as rentals. The committee also initiated a discussion regarding disincentivizing mopeds and other motorized vehicles on the community path, referencing Boston's recent ordinance on delivery providers.

1. Approval of Minutes - May 13th, 2025

• Discussion: No discussion.
• Motion: Councilor Scott moved for approval of the minutes.
• Vote:
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
  • Chair Davis: Yes
• Outcome: Approved (4-0-0)

2. 25-1044: Requesting Ordainment of Amendments to Sections 7-64 and 7-65 of the Code of Ordinances to Reduce Displacement of Tenants and Update Relocation Payments

• Purpose: To amend the condo conversion ordinance to address tenant displacement, particularly when properties are sold prior to condo conversion.
• Presenters: Director Alan Schachter (Office of Housing and Sustainability), Morena Zelaya (Housing Policy Coordinator, staff to the Condo Review Board).
• Key Discussion Points:
  • Background: The ordinance currently has two types of permits: rental conversion and non-rental conversion. The proposed changes focus solely on tenanted or formerly tenanted units.
  • Current Protections for Tenanted Units:
    • One-year or five-year notice period.
    • Right to purchase unit at "as is" price.
    • Relocation payment if vacating within notice period (current amounts: $4,000 for non-enhanced, $8,000 for enhanced protections).
    • Right to cancel lease with 30 days' notice.
  • Current Protections for Vacant Units (last used as rental):
    • Owners must notify tenants who lived there within the previous 12 months.
    • One-year notice period begins when the board issues a preliminary permit.
  • Main Issue: The current ordinance primarily protects current tenants, but owners often vacate units before sale, leading to displacement without full protections. Establishing "intent to convert" by the original owner is difficult.
  • Proposed Changes:
    1. Increased Relocation Payments:
       • $14,000 for tenants not entitled to enhanced protections.
       • $18,000 for tenants with enhanced protections (seniors, disabled, low to moderate income).
    2. Extended Notice Period for Vacant Units (former rentals):
       • Two years instead of the current one year.
       • Goal: To incentivize property owners to keep tenants in units, as the tenant notice period is not changing.
  • Pros of Two-Year Notice Period:
    • Encourages keeping tenants in units.
    • Deters emptying properties prior to sale.
    • Greater opportunity for tenants to purchase.
    • Expanded opportunity for tenant organizing or non-profits to purchase for affordability.
    • More manageable timeline for tenants to vacate.
  • Cons of Two-Year Notice Period:
    • Tenant properties are harder to sell, potentially increasing development costs.
    • Developers may keep properties vacant, leading to higher housing costs and unused units.
    • Potential for litigation, as Somerville already has stringent bylaws.
  • Data Presented: Applications for condo conversion came to the board vacant 92% of the time prior to the 2019 change (which added the one-year notice period) and 80% of the time after. This indicates that units are still largely vacant upon application, suggesting tenants are not receiving full protections.
  • Administrative Requests:
    • Effective Date: Recommend an effective date of October 1st to allow staff time for outreach and education.
    • Typo Correction: Correct "non-tent paying tenant" to "non-rent paying tenant" in Section 7-64A1A.
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen's Question: How do these changes make it harder to evict tenants secretly before applying for condo conversion?
    • Response (Morena Zelaya): The changes aim to alter the financial calculus for owners, making it more beneficial to keep tenants (who have a one-year notice period) rather than vacating units (which would then trigger a two-year waiting period for conversion).
    • Response (Director Schachter): The two-year waiting period for vacant units aims to disincentivize conversion by increasing costs and changing financial incentives for developers. It also encourages landlords to keep tenants in place.
  • Councilor Strezo's Question: Were there discussions about incentivizing Section 8 stock expansion or affordable homeownership during the waiting period?
    • Response (Morena Zelaya): The Anti-Displacement Task Force and this working group were separate. The task force did not specifically look into expanding Section 8 stock but did consider using Section 8 vouchers for inclusionary units.
  • Legal Review: City Attorney Amara confirmed the Law Department reviewed the proposed changes and believes they are on solid legal ground.
  • Community Feedback: Director Singh noted receiving outreach from constituents and suggested keeping the item in committee for additional feedback.
  • Councilor Scott's Comments: Praised the working group's collaborative effort and the staff's thoroughness. Expressed support for the changes, viewing them as a simple increase in relocation costs and a policy extension to improve outcomes.
  • Effective Date Discussion:
    • Mr. Salisbury advised against including an effective date directly within the text amendments due to drafting complexity, suggesting it would create an "unwieldy and difficult to parse" ordinance.
    • Councilor Scott suggested that if the administration wishes to pause implementation until October 1st for outreach, that could be an administrative decision rather than a legislative one.
    • Chair Davis suggested that if a streamlined way to add an effective date is found, it could be addressed at the full Council meeting.
• Motion: Councilor Scott moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
• Vote:
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
  • Chair Davis: Yes
• Outcome: Recommended for Approval (4-0-0)

3. 24-1740: Companion Item to 25-1044

• Discussion: This item was identified as a companion item to the previous discussion (25-1044) and was the initial discussion item.
• Disposition: Recommended to be placed on file as "work complete."

4. 24-0256: City Solicitor Discussion on Boston's Ordinance for Road Safety and Accountability for Delivery Providers to Disincentivize Mopeds on the Community Path

• Purpose: To discuss whether elements of Boston's ordinance could be used to disincentivize mopeds on the community path.
• Presenters: Brendan Salisbury (Legislative and Policy Analyst), City Attorney Amara.
• Key Discussion Points:
  • Mr. Salisbury's Analysis: Boston's ordinance primarily focuses on establishing accountability and insurance requirements for delivery drivers in case of accidents, not directly on disincentivizing specific vehicle types on paths. He noted it passed on April 2nd with minor amendments.
  • City Attorney Amara's Input:
    • The land for the community path is owned by the MBTA.
    • The lease with the MBTA prohibits motorized vehicles on the path.
    • Mopeds are currently not allowed on the community path.
    • Signs indicating "no motorized vehicles" are already present.
    • Distinction: State statute allows e-bikes on the path, but mopeds are prohibited.
    • Signage: The City Attorney would need to review the lease and consult with the MBTA to determine the City's ability to augment signage with more specific language (e.g., "no mopeds, motorbikes").
  • Councilor Strezo's Comment: Suggested that the City could potentially put up temporary signs and apologize later if it helps prevent injuries, rather than waiting for MBTA approval.
  • Councilor Scott's Request: Asked for a citation on which modes of conveyance are considered motorized vehicles under the relevant law and offered to review the community path lease.
  • Conclusion: The Boston ordinance's focus on insurance for delivery drivers does not directly address the issue of motorized vehicles on the community path. The primary issue is enforcement of existing prohibitions and clarity of signage.
• Disposition: Left in committee for future discussion, allowing for further research into signage options and potential collaboration with the MBTA.

5. 25-007: Chris Duan Submitting Comments Regarding the Urban Forestry Committee Recommendations

• Discussion: The recommendations have been codified and passed. This was a cleanup item.
• Disposition: Recommended to be placed on file.

6. 25-0154: Order that the Director of Economic Development Present this Council a Plan to Ensure Compliance with Section 8-18 of the Code of Ordinances

• Discussion: This item was discussed at length in the Licensing Commission last week, covering the substance of the order.
• Disposition: Recommended to be marked as "work complete."

Adjournment: * Motion: Councilor Scott moved for adjournment. * Vote: * Councilor Strezo: Yes * Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes * Councilor Scott: Yes * Chair Davis: Yes * Outcome: Adjourned (4-0-0) at 7:05 PM.