the submission of the Mayor's Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement February 24, 2018 meeting minutes

To: Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk From: Sumbul Siddiqui, City Councillor Date: March 13, 2019 Subject: Submission – Mayor’s Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement February 24, 2019 Meeting Minutes Madame Clerk: Please place the attached notes from the second meeting of the Mayor’s Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement on the City Council Agenda as “Communications and Reports from Other City Officials” for the March 18th meeting. Supplemental materials provided at the meeting are attached. Thank you, Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui Cambridge City Council

Mayor's Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement - Meeting Minutes Second Meeting of the Tenant Displacement Task Force Date: February 24, 2019 Location: Cambridge Senior Center, 806 Mass Ave, Cambridge MA Meeting Start: 4:07 PM Meeting Adjourned: 6:13 PM Task Force Members Present: Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Chair; Sarah Stillman, Aide to Councillor Siddiqui and Executive Assistant to the Task Force; Teresa Cardosi, Community Representative, Larry Field, Deputy Director, Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance; Sonia Andujar, Alliance of Cambridge Tenants; Cambridge Residents Alliance; Kuong Ly, Legal Aid Attorney; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Cambridge Community Development Department; Alexandra Markiewicz, A Better Cambridge; Betsy Eichel, Tenant Organizer; Field Coordinator at Massachusetts Voter Table; Beth Huang, Director, Massachusetts Voter Table; Maura Pensak, Director of Housing Supports, Metro Housing Boston; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Board Member, Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust. Task Force Members Absent: Patrick Barrett, Landlord Representative; Jessica Drew, Attorney, Cambridge Somerville Legal Services; Sean Hope, Principal, Hope Real Estate Enterprises, LLC. Members of the Public Present: Kathy Watkins; Michelle Malvesti; Sheli Wortis; nancy Ryan; Jean Hannon; Marilee Meyer; Carole Perrault; Giulia Campos; Jacob Solkoff; Carolyn Shipley; Hadassah Fleishon Hardouf; Phyllis Bretholtz; Kevin Donaho; Romaine Waite; Jon Glancy; Karen Chen; Peggy Barnes Lenart; Lee Farris. Materials related to this meeting are attached as follows; these will also be available on the Mayor's Office webpage, under "Departments", "Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement": City of Cambridge Communication Re: Richard Rossi Housing Assistance Fund, March 6, 2017. • "Residents facing short-term housing crisis get place to turn: Aid fund honoring Rossi, " Cambridge Day, March 7, 2017. • Boston Tenant Organizing Program Notice of Funding Availability, January 2017. • City of Cambridge: An Ordinance, 1983 • Cambridge Community Development Department Response to Policy Order #8 dated June 2, 2014, regarding limited equity cooperative housing Councillor Siddiqui opened the meeting at 4:07 PM. She addressed the room, greeting the Task Force members present as well as those members of the public, and thanking all in attendance. The Task Force members went around the room and introduced themselves to the other community members. Councillor Siddiqui proceeded to give brief opening remarks, explaining again to those present the reason for this Task Force and what its first meeting entailed--defining tenant displacement, identifying its various impacts, avenues for addressing these and prevention tools, and a discussion of what work is happening at the City level at present, and what can and cannot be done in Cambridge. Councillor Siddiqui noted Home Rule Petitions as a barrier the City and Task Force would face with certain types of proposed solutions/ policy changes. As a Task Force, she said, we are seeking to determine what things we can do that can happen now. She said that asked the members to fill out a survey--a list of potential action items by topic that was compiled from the first meeting--and to provide their feedback and prioritize what they'd like to personally work on and where they feel they can best contribute. This was completed by Task Force members between sessions and reviewed by the Chair. Councillor Siddiqui stated that she had divided the TDTF members by topic area, and they are sitting at tables corresponding to the topic number 1

they'll be leading discussion around today. We will break out in to these groups for approximately 45 minutes-hour. The public are invited to join a table, she said, but should defer to Task Force members to lead discussion. Tables were numbered as following Action Items (with the exception of #6, which was not discussed at this meeting). Action Area Breakout Groups (Task Force Members leading discussion) 1. Tenant Education (Ms. Andujar, Ms. Pensak) 2. Increasing Funding (Ms. Cardosi, Mr. Ly) 3. Building Tenant Organizing Capacity (Ms. Andujar, Ms. Pensak) 4. Outreach & Organizing: Landlords, Property Owners & Developers (Ms. Markiewicz) 5. Improving Quantitative/Qualitative Data Collection & Analysis (Councillor Siddiqui, Ms. Farooq, Ms. Pizza-Zeoli) 6. Housing Support & Eviction Prevention 7. Policy & Legislative Agenda (Ms. Eichel, Mr. Field) A few questions were provided to help guide the discussions [questions were posted on flip chart paper on the conference room wall]: What further information is needed (background, data...)? • What resources may you need to accomplish , y, z goal(s)? • What does success look like? • What timeline do you envision for accomplishing goal(s)? The Task Force members and Chair, divided by topic area at different tables, led small break out discussions and heard from different community members who had attended the meeting. The next 45 minutes were spent in these small group discussions. Councillor Siddiqui addressed the room--she stated that, as it was now about 5:00 PM, she'd like to reconvene and hear from each group. She requested that each Task Force member give a brief, high-level overview of some of their group's discussion. She said that would lead the discussion after that. Ms. Pensak reported out to the room on behalf of the "Tenant Education" discussion group: She said there are many groups and advocates that do a variety of tenant education; however, it often does not arise until there is a crisis. Housing is very confusing, and there is a need to disseminate information in a broader way, and really go start to finish. E.g. with community forums--how to access housing, what are rights and responsibilities, what are long-term options. What does it mean to want to move from one situation to another? Discussed the myths and fears and how to get this information out in a more thorough and comprehensive way, and before the fact, before it becomes a crisis situation. There are a lot of groups that do this work, so how do we consolidate and coordinate the work that's out there (she noted a few examples). How do we consolidate and distribute this info? Lastly, she noted that they want this education to be interactive and accessible through variety of methods and means. Ms. Cardosi reported out on the topic of "Increasing Funding:" Next year when participatory budgeting happens can we put the idea out that some of it go to attordable housing. They thought of grocery stores sometimes having option to give to charity, maybe could give to housing fund? Also wondered if revenue from the Cambridge plastic bag fee could be directed toward this. Option to increase taxes on private universities? What about property taxes? Seeking out grants, for example from companies like google, 2

local foundations, and how to do outreach on grants, and outreach to local neighborhood groups. How to work with City Life in collaboration with Alliance of Cambridge Tenants. Ms. Markiewicz was the sole Task Force representative present at this table discussing "Organizing & Outreach: Landlords, Property Owners and Developers." She reported out that for this group, success would look like more affordable units being made available, and that these would be based on different levels of income. They talked about having focus groups w landlords and property owners to know how they set their rents, and the need for gathering info on options for homeowners, especially those older homeowners. Need for understanding breakdown of landlords by property type, how many units, who renting to and why, and what the landscape looks like around evictions. Need more info to understand how to reach these property owners and understand incentives. On the "Improving Data Collection & Analysis" topic area, Ms. Farooq reported out that currently the City has very little understanding of what the landscape looks like in terms of evictions and the reasons behind them. Success would look like trying to identify and build a much better and more comprehensive understanding of that. The City has begun to look at eviction data form the court system. Ms. Farooq said that they [CDD] have gotten information that is high level, but the next phase would be to dive much deeper, to be able to discern what the causes are behind that and figure out what solutions might be employed. In terms of going out and gathering data about instances where there isn't an eviction, where people are getting displaced because the building is sold, and their rent just goes up, she said that CDD has in the past tried just posting fliers in the buildings and asking people to call, but that that hasn't really resulted in a lot of folks reaching out. Need to develop a couple of surveys - one for building owners, one for tenants - to understand what is happening to them. City's new Housing Liaison will help with this. How to get landlords to get section 8 tenants, and how to build CDD's capacity to work on this. Ms. Eichel reported out on the "Policy and Legislative Agenda" discussion group. The group had discussed condo conversions, questioned why the law had not been changed since 1983, and which parts would require a Home Rule Petition. They said this desperately needs an update, so what is the bare minimum of what Cambridge would need to be just as strong as Boston's ordinance? The group discussed what legislative work on behalf of the Right of First Refusal, Right to Counsel, and transfer or "Luxury" fees, and noted various transfer fee bills moving through legislature at the moment. They also discussed a vacancy fee, either as a standalone or combined with other bill, as well as a speculation/ international purchase tax, and something that might disincentivize parking dollars in real estate. Lastly, they touched on the topic of just cause eviction. Councillor Siddiqui thanked the breakout groups for reporting out to all on their discussions. She thanked members of the public for attending and providing their feedback and ideas to the Task Force. She said that at this time the Task Force will convene with just its appointed members in order to review what has been discussed, identify priorities and challenges, and further brainstorm ways the Task Force might choose to move forward in order to make headway in addressing these issues. Members of the public are welcome to stay and observe, however further questions or comments to the Task Force will not be allowed for the remainder of the meeting. Members of the public moved to leave or stay; some remained and held small group conversations in room and hallway. Councillor Siddiqui moved to transition the meeting and reconvene as a smaller Task Force group. By 5:30 PM the Task Force Members had reconvened as a group. Councillor Siddiqui began that conversation by saying that she'd like to review the ideas that were just put forth from the discussions, and talk together about prioritizing these, delineating the actionable items for each topic area. Task Force 3

members will then assign themselves to the area(s) / items they feel most drawn to working on and continue to develop further the more specific action steps for the Task Force to move on. Let's begin with some ideas around educational materials, continued Councillor Siddiqui. For example, a Tenants' Manual-that might include things like who to call if your heat isn't working, how to get an inspector in there, etc. Most people don't know they can call the inspector and have someone from the City go over and write something up. That's something she thinks the Task Force could maybe do. She said she thinks Boston has one [a tenant's manual]. Another thought, she added, is that a manual would likely include information that may change over the years. She asked if the Task Force would want to create something that could be easily updated. Could it belong somewhere that the Task Force could constantly get access to it and be able to update it-could it live perhaps on CDD's website? Councillor Siddiqui continued, emphasizing that then there are the questions of how to disseminate such a manual, and what would it look like. She asked if anyone had thoughts on doing a manual versus doing a mailing with information, for example? Ms. Andujar responded that, yes, those are the traditional ways of educating tenants. She stated that, at the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants [ACT], she [they/ACT] are doing self-advocacy sessions for tenants. She said that ACT has City-wide sessions every 4th Friday of the month--the last meeting was on inspections, clutter, judgements...they are on many topics, she said. Really any problem that tenants have. She said she thinks that we need to think more in terms of, for low-income tenants, the education piece-- things like where and how tenants are getting trained, [more experiential] like "This was my problem, this is how I solved it, and these are the contacts that I have who helped me solve it, etc...? Ms. Cardosi said that she just wanted to add to what Sonia [Ms. Andujar] is saying, to say that a lot of times tenants won't speak up because they're afraid or intimidated, especially with private landlords, and we might focus on giving people skills on how to get around that. She said that people are afraid to go beyond that, especially right now because of the housing situation, fear of losing housing [is strong]- Ms. Markiewicz agreed, and remarked that she likes the postcard idea a lot, in addition to some kind of more intensive education. She suggested maybe making it [postcard /magnet] flashy and simple, phone number or website oriented, and maybe saying something on it like 'put me on your fridge!' -- that way it doesn't get thrown out, and maybe people will be like, 'okay, I can have this here and next time when my window won't close, I can quickly find the phone number I can call.' She continued that maybe a mailing could work for this, or, it would be unlikely, but maybe if it could even be distributed in packets when people sign a lease...? She said she really doesn't know how that would work logistically...but at least maybe it could be passed out at schools, given to students, at different work locations where people are living and working in Cambridge. All of this in addition to mailings, she said, because as we know, mailings get lost, thrown out... Ms. Huang said that she thinks yes, in addition to mailings we need to think of other ways, whether it's a fridge magnet with an easy redirect to a website, or a targeted focus on reaching high-traffic areas around Sept Ist, or whenever that is, since we know that so much of the rental market turns over every Sept Ist. She added that, along with that, whatever hotline or website needs to be translated in to whatever set of languages are most commonly spoken, read and written here in Cambridge. Councillor Siddiqui asked, do others have thoughts? Ms. Pensak commented that she likes all the ideas, and specifically to the Councillor's question about the manual—she said she would like to have one but noted that it would take a while to do. She said she'd like to see the Task Force start with a few community forums, because it could be doing both at the same

time, while working on the manual. And to Sonia's point on popular education, Ms. Pensak agreed--that as she had also reported, it's so confusing and there are so many pieces to it, so although it could be something that the Task Force is working on designing, that materials like those don't cover everything even at her workplace [Metro Housing Boston]. She thinks that a way Cambridge could go beyond this really is a series; could be on topics like 'What is affordable housing?'; 'How do you apply?'; 'What are the options?'; and other topics like Fair Housing things, etc. She said we'd need to ask who already has these pieces, and what pieces aren't available, and that if we could collaborate and pull together all that's out there, whether it's the Tenant Association, or Cambridge Multi-Service Center, or her agency [Metro Housing Boston], or Cambridge Legal Services, that we could really have a huge series on all of the different topics. They could build on each other, she added--you wouldn't' have to go to everything...she said that she likes the magnets and mailings, but how do you get to every single issue? There are some generalizations the Task Force could come up with...so how do we dó that, but then still make sure we're filling in the holes? Ms. Eichel agreed. She said she thinks that, in working with large institutions—after asking them to pay more of their money!-that asking them to also disseminate tenant magnets or quick resources would be a really promising thing. She said that she knows mailings have worked traditionally, but a lot of people really don't check their mail, and especially if they don't recognize it right away they might just get rid of it- but if the Task Force could focus really at the places where a lot of renters are, she thinks that this would go a long way. Ms. Eichel continued that like with any element of any sort of popular education, something she thinks is crucial—not to be sort of "kum-ba-yah" here, she said—is addressing the shame element. Saying like, 'just because you're not a homeowner, you're still a resident of Cambridge, we still want you here '...that she thinks if that envelops everything and comes from the top, that's really important. That there's this sense of 'if I say anything, I might get evicted, or, well I guess I can just move...' It would help with changing the message to 'no, you don't have to do that, you can stay with your community, we want you here.? So, she said, she guesses that's not a tangible thing, but she thinks it has to be where we are all coming from. Ms. Andujar stated that she had just been looking at the document of the Ordinance [see attached materials] and policy number eight, 2014..even though the policy shows very important financial feasibility of condos versus coops, it fails to mention what the Task Force just mentioned, she said. That this social capital gain--it's not mentioned in this policy. She said she understands why, but the City of Cambridge is trying to implement fair and accessible options, and help people build equity. We know that home ownership options help people build equity. Being low-income and having no place to move to doesn't help build community. She said she finds it unclear when the City uses terms like 'low-income' 'affordable', saying, 'Yes? Affordable to whom, for whom?' Ms. Andujar continued--are there options? No, for us [tenants who are low-income] there are not. Even though it is on paper, and you see it in the city ordinance, you see it in the policy and so on, she said. She knows it is "politically correct" to include this so people do not feel left out, but she thinks words matter. When the City writes something, we take it at heart. She continued that she would tend to say to take the words 'low-income' out of there, because [those with low-income] really do not apply, and [the City shouldn't] try to fool people into thinking that there is an option when there isn't. She said that education means that she should be aware--that she needs to stay in her lane. She said she knows that this is not politically correct, and that politicians don't want to hear that... Councillor Siddiqui said that she thinks it's very important to hear how tenants are actually feeling, and what Ms. Andujar and Ms. Pensak said about community forums and doing a series, that resonated. Councillor Siddiqui continued, saying that there's a few things that came out of tenant 5

education--she is hearing perhaps a combination of community forums and outreach, and maybe not a mailing, but maybe something tangible like a fridge magnet. She said that what she's going to do is, after the Task Force talks about each area, she's going to ask that in the members priorities, they noted what they wanted to work on, and she has that list, but that if that is what they want to work on, then let's get that on paper before we leave. Let's move on to numbers [action areas] two and three. On ways to increase funding, she continued, she has an update for the Task Force, something that hasn't been mentioned yet. She said that the City has a fund, the Richard Rossi Fund--it doesn't have a way to really replenish this fund [which is running out], and in researching this, she recently found a statement in an old article saying that the fund is meant to be ongoing. It is meant to be replenished. Councillor Siddiqui said that she talked with the Department of Human Services, to Ellen Semonoff, the Assistant City Manager for Human Services, and there's this open question of doing something potentially with that fund. Maybe something like a campaign during Affordable Housing Action Week, asking for donations. The fund started with thirty-five thousand dollars; she said she doesn't have the actual number to-date but has requested this information and the City Manager is getting back to her with it soon. This is an idea, she said, and she is curious what the Task Force thinks, if we're identifying potential sources for funding. It's a municipal-type fund, she added. Ms. Farooq commented that [the Richard Rossi Fund] is set up as a fund through the City, but the challenge is that City Staff are not allowed to fundraise because it's a conflict of interest. So in some ways if the Task Force could be an entity that helps with fundraising outreach in the way that Councillor Siddiqui is talking about-and Harvard and MIT have actually both contributed in the initial version, modest amounts, but there was some--so if we could get people to donate to that....She explained that currently the fund is being used as "last dollar" -- meaning that when the City has [exhausted] all of the standard sources of state funding and city funding to support people who are facing eviction, and there is still a gap, that the City is then using this fund. Just because it is so finite right now. She continued that, if it were a larger amount, it would give us [the City] a lot more capacity. Ms. Cardosi said that she knows that with stores, often when people come through the stores will ask for donations--might say something like 'Would you like to donate to the local affordable housing?' She added that it's usually a different charity, but that stores could do that. She said that actually a lot of the stores, like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's she thought, will do community things like this. It's good PR for them, to donate [and locally]. She said that you do get a lot of donations when people come through the check line this way. You get a lot of donations--well, she does anyway. [The group laughed.] She clarified that she always tries to ask in a way that doesn't make people feel pressured. Councillor Siddiqui continued, stating that, well, this can be something that Task Members could work on, replenishing that fund. Ms. Cardosi said that she'd be willing to go to the stores and ask them, that there is usually require come kind of piece of paper that needs to be filled out, something like that. Councillor Siddiqui thanked her and turned to the group, asking if there are any other ideas on how we can identify non-municipal sources of funding for tenant displacement? Ms. Eichel responded saying that she thought that what Ms. Cardosi had said, about going to the many, many tech companies in Cambridge, like Google, or, others like the Broad Institute. Ms. Eichel mentioned a connection there and said she'd be happy to do some work on that. 6

Councillor Siddiqui, addressing Ms. Cardosi, asked what her group had discussed around the topic of participatory budgeting. Ms. Cardosi said she did not know if this was in the parameters, she forgets what you can give money to-- Ms. Markiewicz asked if it must be capital. Councillor Siddiqui replied that, yes, it must be capital. Ms. Markiewicz added that she wonders if there's something else. She suggested the Task Force keep it in the back of its mind, and see if something comes up that would be a possibility for participatory budget funding...maybe for some of the advertising? Ms. Cardosi asked if building a house is considered capital, like if the city owned land... Ms. Markiewicz said that unfortunately we'd need the whole Participatory Budget fund just to build one, because it's only like eight hundred thousand. Ms. Farooq concurred that we couldn't do that-the City would not be able to build more than one house! Right, of course, Ms. Cardosi laughed. Councillor Siddiqui moved the conversation along to action area number three, "Building Tenant Organizing Capacity." She said that another idea was this partnership with an organization like City Life Vida Urbana, for example. She said that the issue she is coming up against when she looks at advocating for funding for that... that it could be hard. She said that she is willing for this Task Force to request that funding, that it goes to perhaps a community organization, and that community organization partners with City Life--but I wanted to get the Task Force members' thoughts on this. She asked if this is something that they think is worthwhile and important, trying to make a request to fund a city organization or otherwise that could partner with one of these tenant organizing organizations. Ms. Huang responded that she thinks in order to do continuous tenant education on a thorough and ongoing basis, there needs to be some substantial organization responsible for continuing to provide this education for tenants, connecting them to legal aid services, and a lot more. She added that something she has seen, something that was pretty newsworthy, was that Boston Children's Hospital funded City Life as part ot its grants to help address social determinants of health. Housing is certainly a more upstream factor in community health. She continued that considering how many institutions in biotech and tech there are in Cambridge--e.g. Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis--and that these are all, in name, organizations that deal with health, she wonders if there is a track record of some hospitals or health institutions that provide funding for tenant organizing given that housing is a social determinant of health. She wonders if there's a way to leverage some funding from City of Cambridge, and some funding from CHA (well, CHA is public too, she said) as well as some set of institutions to support ongoing tenant education and organizing. Councillor Siddiqui said that if someone would be interested in taking this on that yes, we could look at grants that these private organizations may have that could help us get funding for this. Ms. Huang said so if it's not only the City that is getting funding for this, she imagines that it would make this a little more appealing to the Councillor and Ms. Farooq's colleagues and the City Manager, but she does think it would be useful to see if there are larger institutions that see this as a determinant of health.

Ms. Farooq added that currently, in terms of organizations, the City works with CEOC, for these functions-- Ms. Huang asked what the CEOC is. Ms. Pensak clarified that it's the "Cambridge Economic Opportunity Coalition." Ms. Farooq continued, saying that the City funds services through the CEOC to do both organizing and tenant support; the City also supports Just-A-Start in terms of mediation if people are in situations of conflict with landlords, and also if getting close to eviction. Both of these are funded, she said, so it would probably be good to think about whether it's better to stay with the same organization or better to expand. Ms. Pensak commented that also Cambridge Multi-Service Center, although doesn't do tenant organizing, she sort of sees this piece as tying in to education. She said if we coordinate with the education, it just fits--perhaps whoever is working on the actual education piece can tie it in to the advocacy piece. Ms. Farooq agreed and said that maybe this is something we ought to doMr. Cotter and her and perhaps Ms. Pensak-before the next meeting, is to create a snapshot of what it is the City already does on these topics, so that we're not trying to replicate these things and we're moving forward from these. Councillor Siddiqui reminder Ms. Farooq that she has a meeting with her and Mr. Cotter tomorrow, so they could discuss this then and update the Task Force sooner rather than later. Ms. Andujar commented that she would also like for the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants to be taken into consideration in this. [All replied absolutely, yes.J Mr. Ly, returning to the topic of non-municipal funding, asked what are the big philanthropic entities in greater Boston who focus on housing, outside of Cambridge Community Foundation? Maybe that would be a good project for someone to work on is how we pitch a proposal to them and figuring out who the big players are in this area in greater Boston. Ms. Markiewicz mentioned the Barr Foundation does a lot of transportation work and might be a natural fit. Mr. Ly mentioned Heinz does racial equity, Boston Family Foundation does health, Cambridge Community Foundation has done immigration stuff it looks like, he's not sure of the big players in housing work, so again reason to look in to this. Mr. Field added that with Barr, transportation is under the climate focus, so he isn't sure they would be doing tenant protection work, but Heinz is an example of 'one... Ms.Markiewicz said, sure, maybe Barr Foundation is more narrowly focused, but she thinks it's still worth looking into, they've invested a lot in Cambridge already... Ms. Andujar said one more thing is that some members of ACT have an informal partnership with CRA, at least with some very good homeowners there, and CRA has community organizers that have helped ACT in the past. So this would be another community organization potentially. 8

Councillor Siddiqui said let's move on to number four, "Outreach and Organizing: Landlords, Property Owners and Developers." This group talked about things like focus groups, and less on the question of 'what would success look like here.' She continued, saying that she had been doing a bit of research on some of the programs that exist, like the Boston Landlord Guarantee Program, and thinks the Task Force would have a hard time doing that here. In Austin, she said, they considered giving something like a "Certificate of Excellence" to landlords who gave below market rents--like a "good for you for keeping rents below market!' award. These were some of the things she encountered as models for working with landlords, and she's open to more ideas in this category. Landlords are very important at the table, she said, so what is it that we want to do here? Is it more just getting some information? Ms. Markiewicz said that she struggles with this one because it seems like there's not that much opportunity. It's unfortunate because, it's one of the places that if there were, say, a magic bullet, it would be like, really, really good to employ, because so much housing is provided by private landlords. So, she doesn't know. There are so many things we want to focus on and she's not convinced that this is an area that we'd really be able to move something forward, like with the other areas. But it's sad because she wants there to be. Maybe the focus groups would be a place to start that's a tangible next step--we could ask like, what would incentivize you to accept Section 8, or to lower your rents, how do you set them, etc. Ms. Eichel commented that she just doesn't think that landlords are actually going to do anything... Ms. Pensak wondered if a simple first step might be to include them under education--not to say that education is everything, but knowledge is power, and maybe if the Task Force has a piece of whatever education it's doing focus on property owners as well, this could help. Because, she said, they just don't know. Yes, there are a lot of really not good ones out there, and there's room, but she thinks that if some folks were to just get the information, they may then do the right thing. So helping them know that there's resources, what does it mean to take those resources, so it's not always an "us vs. them". Bringing them into the fold by giving them information could go a long way. This is just a piece; I know there are a lot of things here that are really important that don't touch education, like AirBnb and all of that. But just in terms of resources. Ms. Cardosi commented that for those landlords that do keep the rents low, the private landlords, maybe if we could ask them why they want these tenants to stay, and if they give their reasons, perhaps other landlords will see that they're sincere. This is why we want to keep these tenants, and we still make what we need to pay the mortgage, etc. Ms. Farooq said that it's very challenging to obtain this info, short of tenants volunteering it. There isn't a great way to ask. She said the City doesn't know how to target the right people, so there's no way to really know who these landlords are. Some of the landlords that keep it low keep it low for people who don't necessarily need low rents, they're not necessarily going with people who are Section 8 tenants. She said that she herself had a place at one point where she was above--although not hugely above--what would qualify, and her landlords kept the rent low. They were like, okay well, here she is, she's single, she has a job where she works all day, she won't be in the apartment a whole lot, she won't mess it up, etc. They're factoring in things like that, Ms. Farooq said. So how can we get people comfortable with the notion that if you rent to a Section 8 tenant, it's not that you're renting to somebody that's going to destroy your home or create a negative outcome. She said she's not sure she has an answer to this, to how to get to that piece of education, because she doesn't know how to target the right people. But if we could, that would be something that would be good, like say, 'Here's the face of people who are Section 8 tenants' Ms. Cardosi said right, like breaking the stereotype. 9

Ms. Pensak said that she thinks another important thing that ties in to it too, and applies to both market rate and Section 8, is helping landlords to know who to call on for services when there's an issue. She referenced that hoarding had been brought up before, which cuts across every socio-economic group-- how do landlords access resources that help them in dealing with these types of issues? And unfortunately, yes, they stigmatize and may think that of course the Section 8 person is going to do that and not the market rate person, but yes, and I also want to through it into the mix that so many of the renting here, and across the board, is through realtors, and I think we also need to educate realtors. Ms. Farooq interjected, saying but that may be the workaround, if we can get realtors comfortable, then maybe they can communicate with landlords... Councillor Siddiqui agreed that is a great point. She said let's move on to five and six, briefly. It's six O'clock so she said she'll keep it short and will keep people for just a few more minutes since started late. So, five and six she said she thought they gave a good recap of what's needed. Some of it has been requested already, so we're in process of getting it and analyzed. Some of it is new things, like these surveys. So some of the questions will be what do we put in these surveys, and kind of the how, and it may be worth doing when the City has a Housing Liaison person come on. That's her take, but if people feel strongly, the Task Force could dig in to this issue and think about the questions. She could go other way and said she isn't sure when the Housing position is coming online..? Ms. Farooq said that they haven't started interviews yet...but, soon, they have scheduled them. Councillor Siddiqui said, okay, well that's good to hear. So she'll leave it up to the Task Force--they could decide on this issue later and wait until the City has someone in place, so that person could maybe give some guidance at a later point of what should be on a survey? Does that sound good to everyone? Окау. Councillor Siddiqui continued saying that with topic number five, the data piece--this was an easy ask so if we want more legal aid funding, we can ask for it. [comments of agreement.] And I think we should, so we can do that. Ms. Markiewicz asked how much? Councillor Siddiqui answered that currently, in the FY19 budget there is 113k allocated. This doesn't include the request that was made in the fall, that was for about 65k. So we're under 200k just on that issue. So, we could increase it and this is something the Task Force could make a recommendation for. This is the kind of the data that she has. Finally, on the topic of Policy and Legislative agenda issues. What she heard from the group is that if we want to look at condo conversions, there are some questions we need to figure out, like getting the number of conversions that are happening here. In her conversations with Ms. Farooq and CDD, it seems that a lot of what's happening right now is actually luxury rental. Mr. Field added that this was a point that Ms. Farooq was making, which explained a question that they had which was why there hasn't been focus on doing this. And their answer seemed to be that it's been a lower priority, because it hasn't been the biggest cause of displacement. 10

Ms. Farooq noted that but yes, right now, but as we know the market changes. So she wouldn't say that this shouldn't be in the set of recommendations, but it might not be a 'we have to do this right this minute', rather it would be in the pool of what makes sense to work on. Mr. Field continued, saying that right now the question in his mind is whether this is something where, eventually, there might be one paragraph written that would say something like 'the City should consider a condo-conversion ordinance', or would it be something more substantial that would recommend specifically what such an ordinance should look like? And if it's the latter, he thinks that we need to have a group discussion and that it's worth taking the time to do this. Councillor Siddiqui said that she thinks, based on people's interest, it's the latter. There are questions that need to be answered before we get in to digging deeper on this policy. She said that she can work on getting some of these answers form the Assessor's Office, like how many conversions have happened in the last X years, how many units were these buildings, etc. Councillor Siddiqui said she thinks we'll have to wait and see on this because this piece is a longer-term idea. Ms. Andujar said that one question she has where she is confused about the condo conversion ordinance, is that it mentions in the document that there were two hundred units removed, and was this a recent condo conversion? Mr Field said that this was in 1983. Ms. Andujar said so we don't have anything updated? Councillor Siddiqui added no, and this is all the information we would need to try to get, and if there's interest from Task force members to try to work on this, she thinks it's definitely an area where it can. Another piece she heard from the group is the issue of how do we support the Right to Counsel movement. She said she'd love to do this, and it's something she thinks all of us can do, and she's wondering form them what this looks like. Mr. Field said there is a coalition forming on this; his organization [MA Smart Growth Alliance] is part of this. But it's in an early stage, that is bills have yet to be put into committees. He said that he's assuming that in the past the City Council has not yet put in an order publicly supporting the right to counsel. He asked if the City has in fact endorsed this. Councillor Siddiqui responded yes, the Council did. A resolution, she thinks. Mr. Field asked if it was this legislative term. Councillor Siddiqui said that yes, she thinks the Council did recently put in a resolution in support of Tenants' Right to Counsel. Ms. Huang said this would be helpful even to do again, since it is so close to the beginning of the session, and especially with the media cycle... Mr. Field said he doesn't know whether then there is really anything formally needed in terms of the City being part of a coalition. He said he's not sure spending time and resources on this would be worth it, that if this just means being part of a policy order or resolution, then maybe that can be enough. 11

Councillor Siddiqui continued that she knows the group discussed the Transfer Fee as well. She said that's also ongoing; the City Council has asked for a petition, people are joining the coalition, so she thinks that's kind of moving. She said she can check in with Ellen Shachter about how they might want this Task Force to get involved. The discussion at the Council level hasn't happened yet. Although we're trying to make it happen, it hasn't yet and she's not sure when it will. So, she's on that. In the interest of time, she said, we have a lot of notes and we'll follow up on this meeting as well. It would be great before we leave today just to get an idea of what area each of you would like to work on, where each Task Force member would like to focus, so that she and Sarah [her legislative aide] can reach back out and get together a work plan and see how it's all going. She said she's incredibly grateful for the members' time- -this is all volunteer-based, and she'll be working on all these things. She said she'll leave it up to their discretion to choose one area, and if they'd like to work on more than one area, she'll leave it up to them based on their capacity. And some areas overlap, and we can figure out where the overlaps are and combine work plans, but she'll leave it up to them. Task Force members self-assigned to one or more action areas and working groups were determined. The group discussed placing some topics, like landlord organizing, under others, like education. Also placing some in a 'Parking Lot' as more secondary items to work on in the context of others. Councillor Siddiqui thanked all the members very much for their time, she said she really appreciates it, especially on a Sunday. We have a good list of things here, and we'll be in touch with each of you about specific tasks and setting up meetings in between this meeting and the next. The meeting adjourned at 6:13 PM. 12

City of Cambridge Executive Department LISA C. PETERSON LOUIS A. DePASQUALE Deputy City Manager City Manager March 6. 2017 To the Honorable. the City Council: I would like to request that the City Council establish the Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund (the "Fund"), and that $35.641.46 in donations received be appropriated into this Fund. The proposed Fund is attached hereto for the City Council's review and approval. together with the proposed Procedures and Guidelines for the Fund. With the retirement of City Manager Richard Rossi. the Housing Assistance Fund in his name was established through the Friends of Richard Rossi. and donations were received for this fund during the fall of 2016. The purpose of this Fund is to provide limited emergency financial assistance to residents experiencing difficulty remaining housed Cambridge. Pending availability, the Fund will be used to assist Cambridge residents primarily in the following areas: • First month's rent (and. where required, last month's) and security deposit for houscholds needing these funds in order to lease a new unit (e.g. for an inclusionary unit) - funds could supplement funds offered through other sources including the Multi-Service Center: • Funds for families at risk of foreclosure due to mortgage and/or condo fee arrearages - there are currently no funds available for this which can be a significant issue for lower income homeowners as fees and legal costs can quickly add significantly when an owner falls behind in payments. • Credit repair - credit can be a big barrier to accessing housing, especially for lower income applicants with poor credit. Access to funds to address (with some limit) credit issues to repair credit could help some applicants who are now denied based on credit: and • Funds for families at risk of homelessness due to rent arrearages - funds could supplement funds offered through other and/or be offered to houscholds who are not eligible for other funds. 1am very pleased to be recommending the creation of this Fund and I respectfully request that the Cily Council approve the creation of the Fund in the form attached hereto. As City Manager and Deputy City Manager. Richard Rossi was dedicated to the creation and preservation of affordable housing and City Hall • 795 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge • Massachusetts • 02139 [phone removed] • (ty: [phone removed] • www.cambridgema.gov

improving access to affordable housing in Cambridge. The Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund will, in Mr. Rossi's name, continue this commitment by helping residents access new housing and assisting in effors to keep residents with housing risks suitably housed in Cambridge. Very truly yours, Lavis 8 Pasquale Louis A. DePasqualc City Manager LAD/mec Attachment(s)

City of Cambridge Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund Establishment of Fund. There is hereby established a fund to be known as the I. "Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund," which is established in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44, Section 53A, with the approval of the City Manager and the City Council (the "Fund"). IL. Purpose and Use of Fund. The public purpose of the Fund is to provide limited emergency financial assistance 1o Cambridge residents and households (collectively hereafter "Households") experiencing difficulty in obtaining housing or remaining housed in Cambridge. Pending availability, the Fund will be used to assist Households, primarily in the following areas: a) First month's (and, where required, last month's) rent and security deposit for Households needing funds in order to lease a new unit (e.g. for affordable housing units); such funds could supplement funds offered to Households by or through other sources; b) Funds for use by Households at risk of foreclosure due to mortgage and/or condominium fee arrearages; c) Credit repair for Households with poor credit seeking access to affordable housing units; d) Funds for Households at risk of homelessness due 10 rent arrearages; such funds could supplement funds offered to Households by or through other sources. III. Governance of the Fund. The Fund shall be governed by a Board of Trustees, which shall consist of three (3) Ex Officio Trustees: the City's Assistant City Manager for Community Development, the City's Assistant City Manager for Human Services and the City's Budget Director. N. Distribution and Use of Principal and Income. a) The principal and income of all contributions received and accepted by the Trustees shall be held by the Trustees and their successors in an account to be established for the Fund (the "Fund Account") until such time as the Fund may be dissolved, al which time all remaining funds in the Fund Account may be transferred to an established charitable tax exempt organization (with a federal 501 (C)(3) designation under the Internal Revenue Code) that includes housing assistance to low income Cambridge Households as one of its purposes. b) All amounts received by or for the Fund will be deposited with the City Treasurer. who shall have the authority to invest the principal and income of the Fund as he/she deems proper and in accordance with Massachusetts laws. c) The Trustees may from time to time distribute such portion or portions of funds in the Fund Account, be it principal or income, as the Trustees deem to be appropriate and consistent with the purposes enumerated in Section Il above;

d) Each award of funds from the Fund Account shall require the favorable vote of at least iwo (2) members of the Board of Trustees; e) The maximum award amount shall be established by a favorable vote of at least two (2) members of the Board of Trustees based upon the amount available in the Fund Account. In no event will the sum of funds awarded from the Fund Account exceed the balance available in the Fund Account. V. Powers and Operation of the Board of Trustees. a) The Chairperson shall be the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, who shall be responsible for convening and conducting Board of Trustees' meetings; b) The Board of Trustees shall meet on dates determined by the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees; A quorum of the Board of Trustees shall be present at each meeting of the Board of Trustees if at least two (2) of the members of the Board of Trustees are present in person; d) Except as otherwise herein provided, the Board of Trustees shall act by majority vote of the members of the Board of Trustees present at the meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board of Trustees may be taken without a meeting if all members of the Board of Trustees entitled to vote consent in writing to the taking of such action without a meeting. Such written consent shall be treated for all purposes as a vote by the Board of Trustees at a meeting, and shall become part of the records of the Board of Trustees; e) The Board of Trustees will establish and at least annually review and periodically revise written rules and regulations for the operation of the Fund and for the Board of Trustees, which may include eligibility requirements for Households assisted by the Fund, amounts of assistance made available to Households, and rules for evaluating and assessing each individual case. VI. Amendments. Any amendments to this document must be in writing, signed by a majority of the members of the Board of Trustees, and approved by the City Manager and by the City Council. » wins her, is lomen is made and execut 2 6 Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager Approved as to Form: Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor 2

• .. "'. Approved by vote of City Council on MARch 6 2017, certified copy of vote attached hereto: danna p Kaps onna P. Lopez, City Cler 3

City of Cambridge AGENDA ITEM 2B IN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 6. 2017 ORDERED: That the City council go on record appropriating the donations in the sum of $35,641.4610 the Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund.

City of Cambridge AGENDA ITEM 2 IN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 6. 2017 Former City Manager Richard C. Rossi was a tireless champion for Cambridge WHEREAS: residents in need of affordable housing: and Generous private individuals and organizations in the Cambridge community have in WHEREAS: the past and will in the future want to contribute financial support to Cambridge residents who in cases of financial emergency are having difficulty remaining affordably housed in Cambridge: and The City of Cambridge is authorized by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44. WHEREAS: Section 53A to accept grants and gifts of funds and to expend those funds with the approval of the City Council and the City Manager for the purposes of the grants and gifts without further appropriation; now therefore be it hereby ORDERED: That the City Council go on record voting to create the Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund; the purpose of which is to provide limited emergency financial assistance to residents experiencing difficulty remaining housed in Cambridge: In City Council March 6, 2017. Adopted by a yea and nay vole:- Yeas 8: Nays O; Absent 1. Attest:- Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk A true copy: ATTEST:- Donna P. Lopez. Cily Clerk

Procedures and Guidelines for Distribution of Funds for Housing Assistance from the City of Cambridge Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund Purpose. The purpose of the Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund (the "Fund") is to provide limited financial assistance to Cambridge residents and houscholds (collectively "Houscholds") who are at risk of losing housing in Cambridge. The situation of cach Household that may be awarded funds from the Fund will be different and, therefore, these procedures and guidelines are hereby established by the Fund's Trustees to assist their review and approval of requests for the distribution of these funds. 2. Procedures: a) The City's Housing Director (Housing Director") and the Director of the City's Multi-Service Center ("Multi-Service Director") (collectively the "Directors") shall coordinate the intake and assessment of requests for assistance from Houscholds. b) Using the guidelines below, the Directors shall forward any applications they have reviewed and approved to the Fund's Board of Trustees pursuant to Section Ill of the Fund for approval and disbursement. c) The Board of Trustees will discuss the merits and circumstances of any such request and the pending availability of funds, and will take a vote to approve or deny the request. An approval requires a written vote of 2/3rds of the members of the Board of Trustees or better. d) The Directors and the Board of Trustees shall use the following guidelines when conducting their determinations. 3. Guidelines: The Household must have the ability to share in the costs of continuing residency in Cambridge; b) The disbursement to any Houschold from the Fund will be limited so that the Fund's assets can be used to assist multiple Houscholds: ¿) The disbursements will be paid directly to the Household's landlord, credit repair agency, lender. condominium association or other service providers, as may be appropriate and as determined by the Board of Trustees: d) When considering requests for assistance, the Board of Trustees will consider the income, assets and other resources available to the Houschold. c) Households shall be eligible for assistance no more than twice in a five-year period, or such other period as determined by the Board of Trustees. These Procedures and Guidelines were approved by a vote of the Board of Trustees on May 23, 2017. Iller Se Ellen Semonoff. Assistant City Manager for/t luman Services TonsA David Kale. Acting Budget Direcior

3/13/2019 Residents facing short-term housing crisis get place to turn: Aid fund honoring Rossi | Cambridge Day Residents facing short-term housing crisis get place to turn: Aid fund honoring Rossi By Marc Levy. Tuesday, March 7, 2017 People facing a sudden money crunch that might leave them homeless have a friend at City Hall - at least, he was Monday, as former city manager Richard C. Rossi stopped in for the creation of a housing aid fund in his honor. With the Richard C. Rossi Housing Assistance Fund in effect, the city's housing director and director of the city's Multi- Service Center will be able to refer for help any case of looming eviction or trouble getting housing when there's a head of a household out of a job but actively looking for work. In addition to rent and security Former city manager Richard C. Rossi returns Monday to City Hall for the deposits, or mortgage or creation of a housing aid fund in his honor. City councillor David Maher is condominium fees, the fund at right. (Photo: John Hawkinson) could step in with help repairing credit, according to documents released by the City Manager's Office. Trustees would be able to release funds in flexible amounts, and there is no call in the documents for repayment. "This is a really needed pot of money in this community. So many times over so many years, I had been in the middle of ... trying to help individuals who were really stuck on housing issues where smaller amounts of money would be of great value to them," Rossi said to councillors during his trip to City Hall to see the fund become a reality. "As you've heard me say many times, I don't think there's anything worse than going home at night worrying about whether you can continue to live in the house you've become accustomed to." "I hope it serves Cambridge residents who need this kind of service for many, many years," Rossi said of the fund. Rossi was Cambridge's city manager for a little over three years, but before that had been deputy city manager since 1981. Upon his retirement in the fall, a group called the Friends of Richard Rossi donated the fund's starting amount of $35,641. The City Council allocated the funds officially Monday, hearing from Assistant 1/2 http://www.cambridgeday.com/2017/03/07/residents-facing-short-term-housing-crisis-get-place-to-turn-aid-fund-honoring-rossi/

3/13/2019 Residents facing short-term housing crisis get place to turn: Aid fund honoring Rossi | Cambridge Day City Manager Lisa Peterson that further injections of money were expected to come from private donations. "My expectation is that the fund will continue to grow," said councillor David Maher, who is also president of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. Councillors said they were glad to do their part to get the fund started. "There are a lot of people in our community living on the edge, week by week, paycheck by paycheck," councillor Tim Toomey said. With real estate costs surging regularly, even people who seem like high earners are at risk, vice mayor Mare McGovern said. In a 2015 online survey about income insecurity, most made more than $100,000 annually - and yet half reported having no money to save at the end of the month. "You have a lot of people that you would think, oh, they make $125,000 a year - that's great money if you live in certain communities, but in Cambridge they can't save anything," McGovern said. "There are so many more people than we would think who are one paycheck away from being in a very, very different situation. This will go a long way toward helping folks." 2/2 http://www.cambridgeday.com/2017/03/07/residents-facing-short-term-housing-crisis-get-place-to-turn-aid-fund-honoring-rossi/

Boston Tenant Organizing Program Notice of Funding Availability January 2017 Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation (CEDAC) is pleased to announce the availability of approximately $75,000 in funding for the Boston Tenant Organizing Program (TOP). This program, administered on behalf of the City of Boston's Department of Neighborhood Development, supports tenant organizing activities in privately owned multifamily rental projects located in the City of Boston. Eligibility Criteria 1. The projects to be supported must contain at least five units of rental housing, be non-owner occupied, and have some low and moderate-income tenants. 2. Applicants must demonstrate in writing that they have the support of the tenants in the property they propose to organize within three months of the award. 3. The property cannot be owned, even in part, by the applicant (or any of its affiliates). 4. The applicant must be a Massachusetts Chapter 180 non-profit organization. 5. Projects that were awarded BTOP funding in FY 2016 are eligible to re-apply for additional funding in FY 2017. Eligible Uses of Funds Grant funds may only be used to pay for staff costs of the tenant organizing staff. These staff costs must be incurred during FY 2017 (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017). FY 2017 Priority Categories Although the eligible activities are unchanged from previous years, for the current fiscal year, there will be two priorities for BTOP funding: 1. Applicants proposing to conduct organizing in at-risk projects with expiring Section 236 or 13A mortgages. 2. Tenant organizing efforts in buildings located in downtown neighborhoods, like Chinatown, experiencing high levels of potential displacement of low income tenant or conversion to market rate housing. Application Deadline Complete applications are due by February 17, 2017. Rolling applications will be accepted after that date for any unallocated funds. Maximum Funding Award Funding awards will not exceed $8,000 per housing project. In addition each applicant may apply for no more than $35,000 in BTOP funding in FY 2017. More information about the BTOP program as well as the required application is available on CEDAC's website: https://cedac.org/housing/about/application-forms-guidelines/

City of Cambridge In che Year One Thousand; Nine Hundred Eighty-Three AN ORDINANCE In anendment to an ordinance formerly entitied "The General Ordinances of the City of Cambridge" as revised in 1972 and now designated as "The code of the city of Cambridge". Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Cambridge as follows: "Regulations Pertaining to Controlled That Chapter Iwerty-Three entitled Rental Housing Units" is hereby amended as folloWs: CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE: REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO CONTROLLED RENTAL HOUSING UNITS. Section 1: Removal Of Controlled Pental Units Iron Market. (a) DecLaration of emergency. À serious public emergency. continues to exist in the city of Cambridge with respect to the housing of a substantial number of its citizens, as declared by Chapter 36 of the Acts of 1976, for the reasons stated in the Act. The 'emergency has worsened since 1976 because of the removal of a substantial number of rental housing units from the market, by condominium conversion, de- nolition, and other causes. As a result, more than 2,000 ox over 10 percent of the controlled rental units in the city have been removed from the housing market since 1970, and the vacancy rate has fallen below one percent. In order to carry out the purposes of the Act, and to continue to provide a sufficient supply of decent, affordable rentai housing accormodations especially for families of low and moderate income and for elderly people on fixed incones, it is necessary for the Cambridge City Council, in the exercise of its powers under section 6 Of the Hone Rule Amendment and under section 5(c) of the act, to regulate of controlled rental housing units from the market. the removal .. - 1-

c.c. 108 City of Cambridge Definitions. As used in this section! ""Act" means Chapter 36 of the Acts of 1976, as amend- ed from time to time. "Board" means the Rent Control Board established by (2) section 5. of the Act. "Controlled rental unit" means any unit included in the definition under section 3(b) of the Act. (4) "Removal from the market" as applied to a controlled rental unit, includes but is rot limited to: (1) occupy, as an owner of a unit which is a condominium mit, if the most recent occupant was a tenant, even if the pro- spective owner-occupant is the tenant, unless the prospective owner-occupant is the current tenant of the unit. who has continuously occupied it as a tenant since before August 10, 1979 and intends in good faith to occupy it indefinitely as its owner; or demolish, büt no unit has been removed (11) from the market by demolition until its physical destruction has begun; or (iii) rehabilitate, repair oi improve, other. than as required by the laws of the Cormonwealth or the city, in such a way as to prevent residential occupancy dur- ing the course of the rehabilitation, re- This provision pair or improvement. shall not appiy to rehabilitation, financed at least in part by Conmunity Development Block Grant funds, of a building owned bi i non-profit corporation and intended fo Owner-occupancy by low and moderate income persons; oi (iv) convert to a cooperative, as the term is used. in or part of any ding we canad • any controlled rental unit. - 2-

C. C; 106 City of Cambringe (v) cause a unit, not the primary residence of a legal unit owner, to be vacant for one hundred twenty (120) days or more by refusing to tent or to offer for rent said unit in good faith ör, when a unit is cited as unfit for human habitation, by failure to perform repairs requirec o restore said unit to habitable con- dition. The existence of a vacancy for one hundred twenty (120) days or more, without a showing of good cause, shall constitute removal from the market. But, this term "removal from the market! does not include occupancy of a non-condominium unit by the owner of the building in which it is located or by any member of his/her immediate family; or a condominium unit which the owner occupied before the tenant occupied it; or a condominium unit as to which unit it can be shown with respect to its initial sale after the recording of the master deed that a purchase.. and sale agreement has been entered into prior to August 10; 1979, a cancelled check being conclusive proof of the transaction, or a unit deed recorded in the Middlesex Registry of Deeds prior to August 10, 1979, whether or not the unit was being used for rental housing on August 13, 1979. No condominium unit once legally occupied by the unit owner shall ever again be subject to this section for any reason.: (c) Removal regulated. No owner or other person shall remove trom the market any controlled rental unit, unless the board after a hear- ing grants a permit. The board may issue orders and promulgate regulations to effectuate the purposes of this section, and to prescribe the pro- cedure for applications, notice, hearings, and che granting and withdrawal from the market a unit in a building. con- A permit to rémove of peimits. verted or proposed to be converted to a condominium may be gtanted to the owner of the building before the sale of a unit.. One year after the date of a hotice of juling, the Board shall review and confirm that the circunstances. and conditions which led the Board to grant any removal permit hereunder, except for a condominium unit legally occupied by the unit owner, continue to warrant said permit. If, äfter a hearing, the Board finds that the circumstances and conditions no longer warrant shall immediately treat the unit as a controlled the permit, the Board rental unit and initiate whateyer action is permitted and appropriate shall under this section. After August 1, 1981, no (ct) Prohibited acts by developers. for which a condominium master deed has been recorded owner of a building shall directly or indirectly sell, offer for sale, or agree to sell any controlled rental unit therein, unless the board has granted a removal for that unit, or unless the sale or offer is tö, or the agreement permti is with, a current tenant of the unit who holds an exemption certificate: The board shall issue an exemption certificate to any person who files with it an affidavit in à form prescribed by the board, stating that he is a current ténant of the unit, that he occupied it as a tenant before August 10, 1979, and that he intends in good faith to occupy it indefinitely No. person shall file a false affidavit under this subsectión. as its owneI. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent. an owner of a building or any

c, €, 106 City of Cambridge portion thereof from conveying his entire interest in the building in good faith to one purchaser, who shall then be subject to the provisions of this subsection to the same extent as the original owner. (d) Considerations- In deciding whether to grant a permit under the board shall consider: this section, (I) the benefits to the persons sought to be protected by the Act and by this section, (2) the hardships imposed on the tenants residing in he unit proposed to be removed, including ar itigating provisions made by the applicart, an (3). any aggravation of the shortage of decent rental incomes, which may result from the removal. Limited equity cooperative ownership. As used in this subsec- țion, "adminisbrätor" means the Assistant City Manager for Commnity Develop- ment or his or her designee. Notwithstanding the considerations of subsection the board may grant a permit for conversions to limited equity cooperatives only if the administrator files with the board an agreement executed by the adninistrator and a cooperative housing corporation which shall contain the following provisions: (1) Al1 cooperative documents and all amendments or modifications of the cooperative documents shall be valid. only if executed by the administrator: and the articles of incorporation shall so provide. The cooperative documents include the articles of incorporation, the by-laws, occupancy agreements, Each transfer agreements, and management plan. transfer shall be reported to the administrator and all documents effecting the transfer shall be The administrator executed by the administrator. shall execute documents only if each of the pro- visions of this subsection is meto (2) The resale price of the cooperators' membership which includes the right to occupy the unit shall not exceed the transfer value plus the amount of principal anorized by the corporation on its blanket mortgage attributed to the urit and paid by the member involved, Iess any amounts due to the corporation under the occupancy agreement and less the cost of all deferred maintenance and repairs deemed necessary by the corporation to put the dwelling in a suitable condition for another occupant. The transfer value is the sum of: -4._

c, F; 106 City of Cambridge - the share value paid by the former occupant of the unit (not including the amount of any subsidies) adrusted from the date of the stock payment to the Consumer Price Index for Housing for the Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical - the value Of improvements approved by the: corporation and installed by the member in his including a fair value of labor donated by a member or others as conclusively established by the administrator at the time the labor is donated. Residents of at least 80% of the units in the building as of the date of the articles of incorporation shall sign commitments to become resident shareholders of the limited equity housing corporation. -5-

(4) A majority of the current residents must be low and moderate income persons as defined by the curienc income limits set forth in regulațions of Department of Housing and Urban Development, under Section 235 of the National Housing Act or its successor oI. comparable index as determined by the adminiștrator. Current residents who do not become sharetiolders (5) shall have the right to remain in their units as tenants of the cooperative corporation. Controll- ed rental units shall remain subject to the áct and to this section and no permits shall issue for controlled rental units while occupied by non- shareholding tenants. If a controlled rental unit is vacated, that unit may be converted to a coopera- tive subject to the provisions of this subsection and to the cooperative documents. (6). Residents of the City of Cambridge who are low and moderate income persons; as defined in paragraph (4). shali be given priority when turnover or vacant units OCCUI. (7) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, ancestory or marital status with respect to any aspect of the opération of the cooperative. (8) Family size per unit shall conform to Chapter 1l of the State Sanitary Code or other comparable index as determined by the administrator. (9) Buildings shall have at least six units. (10) In addition to other remédies; the city may recover. in danages twice the amount of any net gain on resale which exceeds the amount allowed by paragraph (2), and this provision may not be waived in any mannet.. The total number of units for which such permits may be granted spell not exceed 100. The board shall revoke any permit granted pursuant to this subsectión whenever it of the administrator determines that any of the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), (5), (6), (?); OF (9) has been material- invalidared and the unit shall then again be subject to the Act and to this section, notwithstanding the last sentence of paragraph (iv) of subsection (b) or any other provisions. -6-

c. c. 106. Oity of Cambridge (e) Effectiveness. This section shall apply to all con- trolled rental units which had not beer removed from the market betore August 13, This section shall take effect immediately, but shall cease to be effec- tive if the board files its certificate with the city clerk that; (1) the vacancy rate in the total supply of controlled rental units exceeds four percent, or (2) the total number of rental units in the city excluding public housing units; exceeds that number as of January 1, 1970% If such a certificate ceases to be correct, the board shall withäran it by filing a new certificate, and this section shall then again be effective until one of the above conditions again prevails. (F) Penalty• Any person who violates this section shall The removal of be punished by à fine of not more than five hundred dollars. Where, after a hearing, the each unit shall constitute a separate violation. Board finds there are repeated and/or flagrant violations of this section, the Board shall recommend to the Cambridge City Council or to the Cambridge Hous- ing Authority that the public interest can best be served by taking the / st the ste sterest unit (s) by power of eminent domain in order to restore the unit(s) to service as housing for people with low and moderate incomes. Equitable reliel. The Board or any person aggrieved by a failure to comply with this section may enforce its provisions in a civil action for injunctive or declaratory relief. (h) Severability. The provisions of this section are severable It a count declares invalid any such provision, or its applicațion to any person or circumstance, the invalidity shall not affect the validity of any other provision or application. Chapter Iwenty-Three including all of the following amendments: SEAR Ordinasee #2014 brisined on August 15, 1964 - 7- .....

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Community Development Department BRIAN P. MURPHY Assistant City Manager for Community Development To: Richard C. Rossi, City Manager From: Brian Murphy, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Date: July 15, 2014 Re: Policy Order #8 dated June 2, 2014, regarding limited equity cooperative housing A housing cooperative is a legal structure for housing ownership where multiple units are collectively owned by a corporation. The corporation is made up solely of resident households who own shares in the corporation, and enter into an occupancy agreement that grants them the right to live in their unit. The corporation arranges for management, maintenance, insurance, and common utilities, and obtains any needed mortgage financing under the terms of each ", similar corporations by-laws. Coop residents pay a monthly "carrying charge" to rent or a condominium fee. The carrying charge generally includes costs of all common expenses and payments on any bank mortgages on the property. Limited equity cooperatives are coops in which resident shareholders are subject to share price appreciation limits as well as requirements that shares can only be transferred to income-qualified households. There are currently eight limited-equity cooperatives in Cambridge which include a total of 102 units. Seven of the coops received some financial or technical assistance from the City and now have some oversight by the City. These seven coops contain a total of 46 units. In most cases, City involvement is limited to a requirement that the Community Development Department approve by-law changes and approve transters of shares to new shareholders. Coop by-laws contain limited equity provisions and restrictions on the sale of the building, while the City also holds additional affordability restrictions on some buildings. City-assisted limited equity coops CDD staff work with City-assisted coops when units become available. These limited equity coops see very little turnover. In the past seven years, only five units have turned over. When a unit becomes vacant, the coop selects a new shareholder according to its by-laws which specify marketing and selection requirements. CDD generally assists coops with a vacancy by sending out materials to potential applicants on the City's affordable housing mailing list 344 Broadway and publicizing the opportunity. Cambridge, MA 02139 Voice: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] TTY: [phone removed] www.cambridgema.gov

When a new shareholder has been selected by the coop, CDD reviews the applicant's eligibility based on each coop's specific selection requirements, anc signs off on the share transfer. There is a "buy-in price" for each new shareholder. This price is determined by a process outlined in each coop's by- laws. The specifics differ for each coop. Recent share transfer prices have been between $20,000 and $33,000. Financing for Share Transfer "Buy-In" A share loan for a coop is different than a mortgage loan on a condominium in that there is no real estate pledged as collateral to secure the repayment of the loan. While loans made to assist buyers purchasing condominium units are secured by mortgages, loans to assist shareholders buying into a cooperative typically have only the member's share as collateral. Coops are therefore very different than condominiums for lenders. In the case of a loan default, a lender would have to look to the value of shares that are often difficult to sell quickly and may require approval from other shareholders. Therefore, banks do not offer loans similar to traditional home mortgages that are secured by coop shares. New shareholders can get a personal loan, which is unsecured and generally has a higher interest rate than a secured mortgage loan. In some cases, the cooperative corporation may have access to a bank line of credit that allows them to provide loans for a portion of the share buy-in price. The shareholder then makes monthly payments to the coop to both repay the share loan and cover regular carrying charges. This has been the most effective mechanism to finance share purchases in recent years. The Community Development Department has discussed share loans with lenders and some limited equity coops where shareholders have wanted to offer share loans through the coop. We will remain available to work with coops and lenders to explore how best to assist new shareholders in buying into limited equity coops. Creation of New Limited Equity Cooperatives Existing limited equity coops were created using different mechanisms, with most created during the 1980's as a means of allowing tenants to purchase their buildings in compliance with rent controls requirements which made condominium conversion difficult. That was the rationale for using the cooperative ownership structure as a strategy to create affordable resident- controlled housing during rent control. Since the end of rent control, City affordable housing programs have focused on creating affordable

homeownership units in limited equity condominiums instead of limited equity cooperatives. There are several reasons for this. While the monthly carrying charges for existing limited equity coop units are very low, this is mainly due to the low cost of creating these coops. Property values were much lower when these coops were created, and in some cases were created without the need for subsidy funding. Carrying charges include the payment on shared mortgages, which are also now very low for many coops as they approach 30 years of age. Developing new limited equity coops today would require a combination of subsidy funding and mortgage debt held by the coop. Overall development costs would be similar to current costs for the creation of other new affordable ownership and rental housing. In ownership projects, the proceeds from the sale of the units are used to cover a significant portion of the costs to create the affordable units. In a new coop with a modest buy-in price, sales proceeds would need to be replaced by a significant mortgage held by the corporation, which would be then be repaid over time through monthly carrying charge payments. A mortgage carried by a multi-family coop building is more costly than a mortgage loan a first-time condominium buyer would receive. A cooperative corporation might receive a commercial loan with a 20- or 25-year term at approximately 5.5% today. Income-eligible first time homebuyers have access to many special loan products, most notably the state's OneMortgage program, which provides a below-market interest rate, currently approximately 3.75%. Further, while the share transfer buy-in can be prohibitive for new shareholders, the buyers of limited equity condominium units are generally required to put down a minimum of 3% of the purchase price, which is less than $10,000. To assist the comparison between developing new limited equity coops vs. new new limited equity coop versus a new limited equity condominium using costs comparison assumes both the coop and condominium are newly constructed buildings containing ten units with identical development costs. It also assumes that both buildings receive identical amounts of public subsidy. In this model, the condominiums sell for $180,000 and each coop shareholder makes a $10,000 "buy-in" contribution: Condominium Cooperative $4,500,000 $4,500,000 Total Development Cost $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Public Subsidy Sources

$0 Unit Sales Proceeds $2,000,000 $0 $ 100,000 Coop "Buy In" Proceeds $0 Permanent Mortgage $1,900,000 As you can see, the coop is carrying a $1,900,000 mortgage that will require nonthly payments. In the condominium, each unit owner will be also have nortgage. This comparison assumes that each condominium owner makes th minimum down payment of 3%. With these assumptions, the monthly costs can Condominium Cooperative $898.00 $0 Monthly Mortgage $0 Monthly Coop Mortgage $1,167.00 Condo Fee/Carrying $ 400.00 $312.00 Charge (excluding mortgage)/ Taxes $1,210.00 Total Monthly Cost $1,567.00 With these monthly costs, an income of approximately $48,400, or 57% AMI for a tamily of three, is needed to afford the condominium. An income of approximately $62,700, or 74% AMI is needed to afford the coop unit. When developing new housing, coops would require more subsidy to create the same affordability as condominiums. It is also not clear if a new cooperative development would be able to obtain subsidy funds; we have not seen new limited equity cooperative developments funded with subsidy funds in many years. Limited equity resident-controlled housing The Community Development Department works with residents in limited equity coops and in affordable homeownership units. We assist coop shareholders with calculating share values, marketing units, shareholder selection, assessing and undertaking rehab, and referral to other available programs and assistance. We will continue to support these units to ensure their successful operation and long- term affordability. The creation of limited equity coops was an important strategy to create affordable resident-controlled housing under rent control, and the existing limited equity coop units are an important component of the City's affordable housing stock. These coops were created in an environment where rent-controlled multi- family buildings were sold at prices well below the current market for similar buildings. Because these buildings were removed from the private market before the significant market increases in the 1990s and 2000s, they remain a uniquely affordable option in the city.

As market prices have escalated and costs to create new affordable communities have increased significantly, the financial burden for shareholders in any new coops would also have to increase, decreasing the affordability of the units. The limited equity cooperative model is not the best strategy to create new resident- controlled affordable housing in today's environment. New coop units, if feasible to finance and create, would be significantly more costly for shareholders than older, existing units. We appreciate the City Council's interest in limited equity coops and desire to expand the stock of limited equity affordable housing. We will continue to work with existing cooperatives and residents, and will pay particular attention to financing issues encountered by new shareholders. CDD will also continue to explore opportunities for new affordable housing, however given the advantages of the limited equity condominium model, we recommend we continue to use this strategy for expanding the stock of resident-owned affordable housing.