Cambridge Lawyers Tell Council It Cannot Make Eversource Hand Over Weekly Payroll Records for Street Work

Cambridge cannot require Eversource or its contractors to submit weekly certified payroll records for work in the city's streets, and a court would "very likely" strike down any ordinance or permit condition that tried, the city's lawyers have told the City Council.

The conclusion is in a Sept. 30, 2026 memorandum from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, Deputy City Solicitor Elliott J. Veloso and First Assistant City Solicitor Kate M. Kleimola to City Manager Yi-An Huang. Huang transmitted it to the council as City Manager's Agenda item 2026-288 for the council's Oct. 19 meeting, in response to Awaiting Report 26-50.

The report answers a policy order the council adopted on Aug. 3, 2026. That order asked the manager to determine "whether the City may require Eversource, and any contractors or subcontractors working on Eversource's behalf in Cambridge, to submit weekly certified payroll documentation for work performed in Cambridge's public ways." It also asked whether Eversource's street work is currently covered by the state's prevailing wage and certified payroll rules, and whether payroll reporting could be made a condition of street-opening, trench, obstruction or utility permits, traffic management approvals or "any other City approval connected to work in the public way."

Certified payroll records are weekly reports of the hours worked and wages paid on a job. As the memo explains, they are tied to the state's Prevailing Wage Act, Chapter 149, Sections 26 and 27, which sets wage rates for public works.

The solicitors began with the city's home rule powers. Massachusetts municipalities may exercise any power the Legislature could give them that is "not inconsistent with the constitution or laws" of the state, the memo says, citing Article 89 of the state constitution. Courts decide whether a local rule is inconsistent with state law by asking whether the Legislature expressly forbade local action, whether the local rule would frustrate the state law's purpose, or whether state legislation is "so comprehensive" that an intent to bar local action can be inferred.

On utilities, the memo says, "courts have consistently ruled that state laws are so comprehensive that legislative intent to forbid local activity can be inferred." It cites three Supreme Judicial Court cases involving Boston Gas Co. In Boston Gas Co. v. City of Newton (1997), the court allowed Newton to charge an administrative fee, but no other fees, to utilities seeking permits, because state law requires utilities to obtain a municipality's written consent and lets municipalities recoup their costs. In Boston Gas Co. v. City of Somerville (1995), Somerville was not allowed to require utilities to use particular contractors and materials for street repairs after excavation. The memo also cites Boston Gas Co. v. Town of Bedford (2005).

Applying those cases, the solicitors wrote that "while Eversource must obtain the City's written consent before performing utility work, the City may not burden Eversource with any additional conditions in obtaining those permits, except that the City may recoup its costs for granting any permits." The city may require only that Eversource meet the requirements in Chapter 82A, Sections 2 and 3 of the General Laws, the state's trench safety law, and may recover its costs before issuing an excavation permit, the memo says.

"If the City were to require Eversource, or its contractors or subcontractors, to provide weekly certified payroll documentation for work performed in Cambridge's public ways, a court would very likely rule that such an ordinance is preempted by state law," the memo states.

On the council's second question, the solicitors said the Prevailing Wage Act, Chapter 149, Sections 26 and 27, applies to private companies, including utilities, when the work is a "public work," unless another law provides otherwise. Because the state's Commissioner of the Department of Labor Standards implements the act, much of its interpretation comes from the commissioner's determinations.

The commissioner has determined that road or other work done "only for the benefit of, at the direction of, and using funding provided by a private utility company" is not covered, according to the memo, which cites a 1994 letter to a contractor. But utility work that is part of "the construction of a public work" is covered. As an example, the memo cites a 2001 determination that installation of an underground conduit system that was part of a construction project for a local school fell under the act. The memo also notes that state law exempts utility relocation work performed by a utility's own employees on Massachusetts Department of Transportation construction projects.

Asked whether the city could create payroll-reporting or wage-compliance requirements through permits, regulations, agreements, ordinances or home rule legislation, the lawyers answered: "we believe the City cannot." They added that enforcement of the Prevailing Wage Act belongs to the Attorney General's Office, "not local municipalities."

The memo leaves one route open. "If the City contracts with Eversource for work on 'construction of public works,' Eversource, its contractors, and subcontractors will likely be subject to the Prevailing Wage Act and need to provide weekly certified payroll records to the City for that project," it concludes.

The memo does not address home rule petitions, which require approval by the Legislature, beyond listing them among the mechanisms the council asked about. It also does not describe any specific Eversource project or complaint that prompted the August order.

The council's Oct. 19 meeting was expected to run long because of a separate debate over divestment, and a continuation session was scheduled for the next day, the Cambridge | Somerville Independent reported. A search of local outlets on Thursday found no coverage of the solicitor's memo. Video of the meeting is posted on the city's meeting video site.