City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. A quorum of the City Council being present. I call tonight's October 6, 2025, regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present. Adam Clark.

Azeem. Wilson. Absent. Councilor Zusy? Present. Present. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have two members recorded as absent and seven recorded as present.

Thank you. If willing and able, please join me in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance and pause for a moment of silence.

of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God.

Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, adopted by the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the governor, the city is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge City Council. In addition to having members of the council participate remotely, we have also set up Zoom teleconference for public comment. You can also view the meeting via the city's open meeting portal or on the city's cable channel 22. To speak during public comment, you must sign up at cambridgema.gov slash public comment. You can also email written comments for the record to the city clerk at cityclerkatcambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation and you can sign up until 6 p.m. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records this meeting and makes it available for the public for future viewing. In addition third parties may also be audio and video recording this meeting. Just sort of a note.

At 6.30, we have to break from the regular meeting to go to the tax rate public hearing. and we have a separate, the people we'll be calling now will be people who signed up to speak on the regular agenda and then there's another public sign up list that we'll do when we get to the tax rate. But just for folks who are in the audience, depending on how long things go, we might have to interrupt the regular meeting and then go to the other tax rate meeting and then come back. So I just want to make sure people understand that. So the first order of business is go to public comment. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G, and City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you have finished speaking the next speaker will be called. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers.

Please state your name and address for the record and the item that you're speaking on. And just to clarify, you are allowed to speak on any item on the City Council agenda with the exception of awaiting reports and communications. There are 16 people signed up to speak, which means you will have three minutes each. And with that, we will go to public comment. Ms. Steffen.

Our first speaker is Catherine Ahern, followed by Suzanne Blier, then Patrick Barrett. Catherine, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, thank you. My name is Catherine Ahern. I live at 13 7th Street in East Cambridge. I'm here regarding the Gold Star Park closure, item 138 on today's agenda. I want to first thank the city for its transparent and swift action with respect to the Gold Star Mother's Park soil testing. My family was both saddened and scared to learn of the toxic results, but the city's quick closure of the Gold Star spaces An open publication of its findings and plans have been a small consolation. I am one who takes comfort in information and in action. My focus tonight is on the playground and by extension the safety of the area's families. For those here or listening and for the record, the results published on September 11th regarding the Gold Star Playground specifically. reported multiple levels of toxins at rates beyond even some of the charts and graphs that I referred to in order to interpret the results.

For example, a Kansas State University chart of recommended soil lead levels limits tops out at 1,000 ppm. The highest level measured at the Gold Star Playground is 8,200. North Carolina State University has published charts regarding levels of cadmium and arsenic in soil which max out at 25 noting high risk at 16 parts per million. The highest cadmium measured at the playground is 210. For arsenic, it's 100. For PBCs, the state's own RCS1 limit is 1. The highest measured at the playground is 68. And these are just a few examples. Since 2018, my husband and I have owned our home on 7th, where we now live with our baby, toddler, and dog. Gold Star Mothers Park was our backyard, and until recently, We began each day at the fields off-leash hours and picked up our kids at the playground before dinnertime.

Their daycare, along with many others in East Cambridge, went to this park twice a day. It's here my toddler played under the water feature on hot summer days and embarked on her first snowy sled ride down the gold star, small but notable hill. I note this hill because it's part of why we thought the playground toxin levels would be safe. As a playground design not even 20 years ago, it was purposely elevated and constructed, as far as I understand it, after talking to a city employee. in order to insulate the play space from, quote, historical uses of the land. So tonight I ask simply and in good faith what went wrong. and if officials thought the playground test would come back okay and then they most certainly did not, what other playgrounds may not be safe for our families despite our current assumptions that they are? Our daycare now brings its kids to Silver Park, not far from Gold Star. Other daycares and schools in the area go to the Kennedy Longfellow Playgrounds along with others.

Can we please, please test these parks? Given the unexpected and dangerously toxic results at Gold Star, I feel that we must and that it is a moral obligation of the city to tell us, its residents, with certainty, where our kids can play safely. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Suzanne Blier followed by Patrick Barrett, then Sharmell Modi. Suzanne, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place. And I'll wait to speak to manager's agenda number one. On policy order number four, zoning code related to the Institutional use regulation compliance with state law. One of the serious problems with the ill-conceived February 10th upzoning was a mess it made of Cambridge vis-a-vis the Dover Amendment. Please do not allow non... and others to take over more of our precious city land. We already are seeing a toehold of a foreign university campus in the residential neighborhood where I live. Please draft a resolution that we can take to the Statehouse to preserve the residential and commercial land we now have in our very tiny footprint of a city. Please also read and follow the letter of Helen Walker.

On Charter Right Number 2, it addresses another problem with the February 10th upzoning, the impact on solar panels. Solar is one of the only ways that Cambridge and many other parts of New England will be able to get viable energy because so much comes from Canada, which has been thwarted thanks in part to the Trump tariffs. Converting gas to electric itself uses dirty fuel and increasingly electric costs are escalating because of needs for AI and labs. Please return to residents the ability to add solar panels with the expectation that they will not be thwarted by taller buildings that are not consistent with neighborhoods. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patrick Barrett, followed by Sharmell Modi, then Lisa Burke. Patrick, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Patrick Barrett, 907 Main Street. I'm here to speak on the policy order that was chartered right in dealing with solar panels and I've written to the council already. I represent multiple projects in the city. and while I can tell you about the deleterious effects it'll have on those projects right now, C1 Zone is the largest zoning district in the city now by the creation of the council. It's almost... The effect of a change like this will probably not affect the small projects that don't include inclusionary units. In fact, projects on 5,000 square feet or less will probably proceed as they are currently proceeding.

Anything above that threshold that looks to actually make use of the so-called bonus that we get through inclusionary zoning will absolutely not go forward. The amount of cost and time it takes to get a project of that size off to the races is about nine months. I already have several, currently one tonight that's going to go before the mid-Cambridge conservation check, although I was told they don't have a call room. So we're delayed for another two weeks. The life of development in this city. So we will go through that process like we're going to go through the same thing on Story Street on the 9th. and nine months from that point forward, we may have a permit set that we can actually build on. And in that time, they're gonna change zoning again on us. and that's going to have an effect. And as you go up with setbacks to a building, you lose square footage, you lose size. And for what? I've been in the city for 20 years and I've seen the CDD reports. Never have I seen a CDD report that on so many pages told you not to do something.

And that CDD report does that. Although I think if this council had asked CDD to tell us about the effects of maybe Sailing on the Titanic, that they would come back with a report that says, or at least gives you the pros and cons of navigating icebergs. They're never quite specific, but in this one they kind of are. The effect is maybe an increase of 18% efficiency on houses. Also the unknown because we don't know how far and wide this will go. If you want to take a look at the multifamily housing zoning, you ought to take a look at it, but you ought to do it comprehensively. If you want to take a look at just protecting solar panels, you ought to weigh it against housing because that's what you're doing. When you decide to do something like this in the C-1 zone, what you're effectively saying is that there should be no five or six story buildings in the C-1 zone. And that means that no one will be pushing forward on inclusionary units in those buildings. because if we can't get to five and six, which we won't be able to do, then where is any bonus at all for inclusionary zoning?

The question that you should be answering tonight, if you vote this in the affirmative tonight, you're effectively saying no to every project I represent. That is contrary to what I've heard so far. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sharmell Modi, followed by Lisa Burke, then Anne McDonald. Sharmell, you have the floor. Three minutes.

Thank you. Sharmil Modi, 271 Cambridge Street. Dear members of city council, I'm writing to strongly urge you to reject the proposed additional fifth and sixth story solar setbacks for new residential buildings. While the desire to protect existing and future solar may be well intended, the proposed setbacks, which I'll point out, are being entertained before a single new building permit has even been pulled under our nationally acclaimed new residential zoning. Those setbacks are tantamount to capping residential construction at four stories, especially on mid-sized lots, those in the 5,000 to 10,000 square foot range. Simply put, these setbacks are divorced from economic and construction reality. A typical apartment unit depth is 25 to 30 feet. That's from the front door to the exterior window wall. As deeper units and deeper unit depths can lead to awkward layouts and lack of natural light.

As we all know, multifamily residential projects in Cambridge are extremely difficult to pencil as is, and developers need to take advantage of every efficiency possible, including utilizing regular rectangular unit layouts, stacking like unit floor plans directly above one another and locating plumbing walls in adjacent units back to back. As such, a setback of even 10 feet from the front or rear bulk plane of the lower floors has the unintended effect of either A, rendering the units on those floors to be extremely shallow, for example, only 15 to 20 feet in depth, or B, requiring an entirely different unit layout on those floors consisting of fewer, more irregular, and more costly units. In other words, five and six-story buildings are significantly less likely to get built, and more developers will be encouraged to pursue nine-unit townhome projects versus four-story multifamily. Sound familiar? If this council truly wishes to see more residential units built in the city of Cambridge, this proposal unquestionably runs exactly counter to that goal.

While the concern for future solar is understandable, Council would be better served to incentivize six-story buildings to incorporate rooftop solar and or to compensate neighboring existing installations commensurately with the impact to their solar capture. I strongly encourage you to defeat this proposed measure and to redirect the CDD towards finding more ways to lower the barriers to housing production as opposed to expending city resources on yet another requirement to increase them. Thank you.

Before you call the next speaker.

Councilor Wilson. Present. Present. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lisa Burke, followed by Anne McDonald and Joel Nodrick. Lisa, you have the floor, three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you so much. My name is Lisa Burke. I'm from the Alewife Study Group. I live at 20 Castle Park. I want to thank specifically Councilors Nolan, Wilson, and Toner. for policy order 2025-142, number five on the agenda. I want to thank you both for this policy order and for walking the paths on the IQHQ, the old grace site with Alewife Study Group. and to city staff for walking these paths. This site, as you know, hosts the kids' playing fields, Russell and Como, the MDC pool area, two playgrounds, the Alewife Tea, IQHQ's biotech development and it is crisscrossed with the Minuteman and other heavily used paths. Now for weeks, probably a year, year and a half, Elway Study Group, in collaboration with IQHQ, sends a newsletter to neighbors about construction issues because we're heavily affected by them. That's closed roads and noise, etc.

This summer, the content of the newsletter changed radically from construction only to safety on the paths. People wrote in to say a child was pricked by a used needle at nearby Gibbons Park, that they had witnessed someone shooting up. That happens a fair amount, and that they worried about a kid seeing that. They wrote in to say to be alert for human feces, encampments, and campfires. You know from See, Click, Fix how much this is happening. Many of us are worried for the safety of the unhoused and the housed. You have made a difference with the Wednesday collection of used needles on this site. It's an innovative program and I'm thrilled about it. We understand 3,500 used needles were recovered in four weeks. Now we need this policy order and your ability to coordinate across many different property owners. There are five by my count. We believe this information gathering and report is an important first step to increasing safety for all.

It's gonna take more than one step I'm sure of it. Please vote in favor of Policy Order 2025, Number 142, Agenda Item Number 5. And thank you for taking this step.

Our next speaker is Anne MacDonald, followed by Joel Nodrick, then James Zoll. Anne, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Anne McDonald. I live on Columbus Ave in the Whittemore area of North Cambridge, and I'm speaking on policy order number 142. I walk the linear park path around Russell Field and IQHQ to access the Alewife Tea Head House and along Whittemore Avenue and the Alewife Station access road to the Alewife Reservation stormwater wetlands, typically once or twice a day. So as darkness closes in, this area is inconsistently maintained and lit and can feel unsafe. I could have reported hundreds of incidents of the need for needle pickups or the frequent stink from the Brooke's Raw Sewage over the years. I didn't, but I want to thank my neighbors for reporting the frequent needles overflowing public trash receptacles and fires in the tent encampments on these paths.

The Russell Field Textile Recycling Bin is a ready source for scavenging for those in need, and I've seen just a pair of legs sticking out of the bin in the process of retrieval, and multiple people draped over the shopping carts in the Parkway Pond Path, aka Drug Alley or Scary Path. as I walk on Alewife Station Access Road through the curved tunnel under Alewife Parkway. So I really want to thank the care team for completing frequent needle sweeps before we had the boxes in this area. The Casper Outreach Program van that daily brings food and water and other necessities to the unhoused residents of the area and even DCR for alerting encampment residents before their sub NEDT cleans out the encampments repeatedly that border our area paths. I was quite upset that the linear park renovation plans only show detour routes for bicyclists and none for area pedestrians who use the linear path daily to get to the Red Line and Russell Field and beyond and I want to thank

The Alewife Study Group, IQHQ, and the City Councilors who have put time and attention to the paths in this Alewife area and are working together to offer safer, better lit detour options when Linear Park is under construction. Anyone who lives and walks in this area knows the responsibilities are complex and often fall between jurisdictions and institutions, Cambridge, the amputee, DCR, and Arlington. with no owner even listed on the state database for the Parkway Pond area. So quoting from Click and Fix, ownership of sidewalks and paths in this area is varied and confusing. I just want to give a shout out to the unknown Cambridge employee who last winter took time to map out visually the ownership of many of the paths in the area to help bicyclists address spotty snow removal and resulting icy buildup. and dangerous conditions. Pedestrians benefited. But all too often the responses and issues in this area are as follows. Thank you for reporting this issue to the city of Cambridge. Unfortunately, the city is not able to address this.

It's on MBTA property. or it's on DCR property, ask them to investigate. We'll contact them, but contact their community relations. So I want to support the policy order's intent asking cameras to take a leadership role in coordinating Thank you.

That's, Anne, that's your time. You can send the remainder of your comments to the city clerk and the city council. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joel Nogic, followed by James Saul, then Ned Melanson. Joel, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you, everybody. My name is Joel Nodrick. I live at 94 Clifton Street, just next to Russell Field. And I have lived there with my wife My daughter grew up there for 33 years and 11 years in other parts of Cambridge. And I was a founding member along with Lisa Burke of the Elway Study Group in 1995 to address Big issues in the neighborhood and we've been working on issues ever since along with many many other neighbors. I want to thank Councilors Wilson, Nolan, and Toner for the policy order number five about The Elwife Paths. And I want to thank Deputy Manager Kathy Watkins, who I understand has done three walks on the paths with other city staff and also the police department. and so I'm not going to repeat all the things that Lisa and Anne have said and also that Eppa Rixey said in his letter to the City Council because he wasn't able to be here.

but I'll just add a few things in my 33 years of walking those and biking those paths over and over again and average a few times a day The amount of needles on there and the dispersal of needles in many different locations, the amount of open drug use, the amount of the numbers of unhoused people, the number of encampments, and other things has been many fold increased since any other time that I've seen. And I do understand this is a regional problem that when sometimes when encampments are cleared out, like on Mass and Cass or in other parts of Cambridge or whatever, they end up at places like here. So I do appreciate that. and so I hope that the city council will back this ordinance which is very reasonable just asking the city manager to collect information about what has been done

and to report it to the city council and I want to encourage the city government and the council to play a coordinating role given what Lisa and others have said about the you know multiple ownership and so so that things don't fall through the crack because this is not on our watch somebody needs to play a coordinating role I say humbly that our study group has played that role among citizens and that has been very good and I would like the city to not just report back but also play a coordinating role within the community with groups like Elway Study Group and other property owners like the TEE, DCR, IQHQ, and so forth to try to pick long-term solutions to these problems. I think that's all I want to say and thank you very much for your attention to this.

Our next speaker is James Saul, followed by Ned Melanson, then Edward Stewart. James, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. This is James Zoll, 203 Pemberton Street, and I'm speaking about the policy order on zoning changes for solar panels. rooftop solar panels are far from the best way to generate electricity in terms of efficiency and the environment. If the Council is concerned about energy efficiency and climate change, there are better ways to address energy issues than this. There's the, well, I'm not going to list them because I'm sure you know them, the city electricity production option for residents and other things. Also, I hope you consider the negative environmental effects that this proposal would have on the environment. Housing near jobs would...

More housing near jobs would mean less traffic, less greenhouse gas emissions, and bring a host of benefits to the city. And this proposal, as CDD has pointed out, would result in slices being taken out of housing units to I hope you seriously consider hopefully rejecting or at best finding an alternate way to preserve the environment while still removing the barriers to badly needed housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ned Melanson, followed by Edward Stewart, then Rafi Friedman. Ned, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Ned Melanson, 163 Alston Street. I'm speaking out against Policy Order 137, the zoning changes related to the solar panels. I think a lot of speakers have already talked about this in detail, but this really seems to me like a down zoning in green clothing. If you reduce the available square footage on the top floors, what you're really doing is taking those floors out entirely. and if we you know we want to discuss the down zoning that should be brought forward as its own policy order but you know doing it this way I think it's really unfair from a democratic and noticed perspective. As other speakers have noted, there's a lot better ways to increase environmental resiliency in Cambridge. and I don't think that we should be sacrificing the much needed housing supply for rooftop solar on residential buildings when things like community solar are actually much more efficient and generate a lot more renewable energy.

Of course, I'm for rooftop solar, but everything needs to be taken from a holistic approach. And we need to balance the needs of homeowners and people who have rooftop solar installations with the needs for people to actually live in these buildings that we so desperately need. and you know there's also for people that currently have solar you know installations and those could be potentially threatened by taller buildings reducing the efficiency of those panels there's plenty of ways that already exist that We can make those homeowners and solar owners all, whether that's through buyouts, whether, like I said, that's through investments in community solar. that are much cheaper and much better for the entire city rather than when it's effectively a down zoning and essentially reversing the multifamily housing up zoning that was done in February. So that's my thoughts there. And I would also just like to comment on the policy order related to ICE incidents in Cambridge.

So I think the city is really a leader in the country on its response to ice, and we need to keep the foot on the pedal there. you know, I'm very concerned about information that's being shared and how there's, I believe there was close to zero detainer requests Thank you. Thank you. discussion and really really strong responses including what can be done about clearly unconstitutional sweeps and federal agents utilizing masks and not identifying themselves on the street of Cambridge. Thank you.

Our next speaker is speaker number 10, Edward Stewart, followed by Rafi Freeman, then Lance Green. Edward, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Stewart, 146 Huron Avenue. We've lived in Cambridge for over 40 years. 30 years ago, I opened up my retail shop in this location. And 15 years ago, we were able to purchase the building along with the land We're retiring. We put the property up for sale. And aside from the building, we have a vacant lot in the back, over 5,000 square feet. Completely buildable lot. Nice, clean lot. We have an interested buyer. He actually wants to put an apartment building in there. 20% affordable units and with this proposal to do the setbacks on the fifth and sixth floors we'll be losing the developer will be losing so much square footage It's not going to be viable. They will walk away. And what will be left is marketing that lot to a developer who will build for

Townhouses, just slightly less than 2,500 square feet, so they stay under the 10,000 square foot limit. And we'll have four luxury townhouses in the back. and absolutely zero affordable housing. I don't think the trade-off for solar panels is worth that. I think we need to

Our next speaker is Rafi Freeman followed by Lance Green, then James Williamson. Rafi, if you can unmute yourself, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Rafi Freeman, Prospect Street. I want to open up with the context that in my professional life, a large part of how I spend my time is developing large scale solar projects in Africa. and also I have solar panels on my house here in Cambridge and also a separate solar system on a rental property here in Cambridge. I did the rough math on how much actual production solar energy provides from residential rooftops in the city. If you do the math, there's probably something like five megawatts of residential solar in the city in a city that consumes hundreds of megawatts or potentially over a gigawatt. That's only 1% of peak power. When you multiply that by a typical 13% capacity factor on solar in Massachusetts, that amounts to something like 0.1 to 0.2% of our power production in the city. Unfortunately, it's just not that impactful. I wish it was more impactful, but it's not.

I think it's super important to be grounded in the facts when we're making decisions like this. Installing solar on our residential rooftops is a nice thing to do and helpful, but unfortunately just not that helpful and more of a rounding error when it comes to the city's climate change impact in a dense urban environment. I want to say it again, residential solar is not a meaningful path to climate change mitigation in Cambridge. The roofs are just too small and the capacity factors are too low. Restricting structures that are near solar panels will probably cut back around 10 to 30% of the developments made possible under the multifamily housing zoning. Those of you on the council who were sponsors of this legislation, you're unfortunately, perhaps unintentionally, undermining the pioneering and exciting work that you did. Our lots are simply not big enough and projects not profitable enough to survive setbacks and restrict development in this type of material way.

Again, I'm someone who has solar panels on my house. I hope someone puts a large building next to me, shades my house, and builds 100 or more new units next to me. You cannot live in a dense city and expect the shade dynamics around you will not change in the future. Nobody has that right or should have that right. When you put solar on your house in a dense city, you take some risk that in the future there will be more shade. The social impact of building more housing and indeed the environmental benefits of building more housing are far more important than losing a few hundred or thousand kilowatt hours in a property of solar production. Like other speakers have said, there are more efficient ways to decarbonize, including electricity like building community solar in places where land is more abundant and cheaper. I appreciate that this is a catchy time before the election and this measure is inviting bad optics. No one wants to be seen as voting against solar energy.

I vote for solar energy every single day with my professional time and money, but I would vote against this specific measure. I hope we can make decisions here based on the real impact and tradeoff.

Thank you, Rafi. Your time has expired. Please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Lance Green, followed by James Williamson, then Nicola Williams. Lance, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, thank you, Honorable Vice Mayor McGovern and the Cambridge City Councilors. I just want to note I was born in this great city. About 56 years ago, Cambridge City Hospital resided for many years at 29 Fairfield Street in North Cambridge. My father grew up here with the great mayor, Walter Sullivan. So I grew up here and went to an Emmy Fitzgerald school, Madinot High School. And in my early 20s, I left for New York City to pursue an acting career. I returned as a realtor. and try to raise my family in the city, but unfortunately unable to afford it. And I landed in next door in Arlington about 18 years ago. As a Cambridge realtor, I am currently working on numerous projects that I am selling or advising builders on that will potentially add hundreds of inclusionary units desperately needed. I'm here to express my concern regarding the proposed policy order 137. While I understand the intention behind the measure, I know this passage would inadvertently hinder the progress of inclusionary housing development in our community. Though solar energy important, there's enough technology in the solar arena to allow for solar optimizers to be added to a solar array that is inadvertently affected by any shade.

The solar technology is there, and unfortunately, inclusionary housing will not be, should this item pass. I want to note that the numerous builders I work with are currently interested in contributing to affordable housing projects and may find themselves forced to shift their focus towards constructing luxury townhomes instead. would ineffectively reduce the availability of much needed inclusionary housing options, thereby affecting the socioeconomic diversity of the Cambridge values. I urge you to consider the broader implications of this agenda item and the potential impact on our city's housing landscape. Please vote against item. and I support the continued development of inclusionary and diverse housing options in Cambridge with a non-change to the new zoning for at least two years. I want to further note that tabling this item for a future vote and the delay will have them pivot to luxury townhomes instead. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Thank you. Our next speaker is James Williamson, followed by Nicola Williams, then Justin Safe. James, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Thank you. I want to speak about the proposed appointments to the Cambridge Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. The city manager has violated the law in how he went about this. and it's not as if he didn't know because this process specifically choosing the tenant representative on the CHA Board of Commissioners. We went through that last year, and the manager should be well aware of what the law requires. The law is very clear. Within 10 days, of a vacancy, the tenant vacancy is what I'm speaking to. The manager is required to notify legitimate tenant organizations, the citywide organization, which is

the alliance of Cambridge tenants and any local tenant council of the fact of there being a tenant vacancy. Then after 60 days, after 60 days, Those organizations, if they so choose and if they can get it together, are empowered to submit lists of the proposed of the Tenant Representative, no less than two and no more than five. Here's what happened. The manager tried to pull a fast one at the end, just before the summer break, and moved a person who had applied to a non-tenant seat over to, when the tenant seat became vacant, the manager put in the city agenda

The council agenda, an appointment of a tenant who had applied to a non-tenant open seat and with another appointment to that open seat. So reshuffling the deck. ignoring this process entirely. Apparently, a member of the council, a prominent member who I will not mention, complained that This would result in a not very diverse or all-white board of the Cambridge Housing Authority, commit board of commissioners. So those proposals, those items on the agenda were withdrawn. The manager advertised that applicants would submit their applications to the manager, not to the recognized tenant organizations, and that they would respond within 30 days. No.

So do the tenants in CHA housing have a right to choose their own representative or don't we? By the way, there's no evidence that the act have endorsed any of the names that were submitted.

And it's not going to be a five-year term.

It's going to be more like a three-year term.

James, that's your time. Please email us the rest of your comments. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nicola Williams, followed by Justin Safe, then Charles Franklin. Nicola, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, everyone. Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street. First, I'd like to touch on the, I'm saddened to learn that Mr. Red T. Mitchell, of his passing on September 18th, and I Sincerely feel for his family my deep condolences. I work with Mr. Mitchell on the Prince Hall Monument. which was a very important project for him and the city of Cambridge and this will have an important legacy on the Cambridge Common, you know, to perpetuity. I will also plant a tree. in Mrs. Mitchell's memory. I wanted to touch on the PO for the solar roofs from Health and Environment.

As an environmentalist, I generally support efforts for the city to limit our impact on the environment, decarbonize, including the promotion of solar panels. I feel like given the complexities of our city zoning, I think this proposal warrants further discussion and hope that it will move to the appropriate city council committee. I look forward to further engagement on this matter. and thanks for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Justin Safe followed by Charles Franklin. Justin, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, Justin Safe, 259 Hurley. The solar protection policy order before you this evening has brought in what seems like bad faith and out of nimbyism rather than concerns for reducing carbon pollution. In fact, it's most likely that this would increase carbon pollution because it leads to suburban deforestation as well as suburban development of Large single-family homes in communities where there's lacking public transit and residents are forced to rely entirely on their vehicles for travel.

In addition, this encourages very large, very expensive homes in Cambridge, as you heard, instead of building inclusionary multifamily buildings. and inclusionary multifamily buildings in Cambridge are incredibly green buildings. They're built to the Passive House standard. They're all electric with no gas hookups. and it's rather ironic that we would block some of the greenest possible residential construction probably in America for the Thank you for watching! or none. There may not be any solar around and it's still blocked. I've spoken with builders. You've heard builders tonight say that

It's very clear that these step backs are both structurally and economically infeasible. They make The social housing that was on last week's agenda that everyone was excited about. Impossible to build. Step backs blocked housing under the Somerville affordable housing overlay. until Justice Dart successfully petitioned the Somerville City Council to have them removed. I hope we can explore workable solutions, but unfortunately the step backs presented here are not. On the Institutional Use Policy Order, I think you should require the solicitor to opine on the vulnerability of the previous version of Cambridge's exemption that relied on exclusionary housing and drove up the cost of housing in Cambridge. It appears from the outcome of the lawsuit that though was likely vulnerable from the outset, regardless of any of the recent zoning changes.

And finally, I do hope you test all of the parks in East Cambridge to see if any of the other ones for my kids and their soccer teams play. Heavy Metal Contamination, like we now know Gold Star Park does. Thank you.

Thank you. Our final speaker is Charles Franklin. Charles, you have the floor, three minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, Council. Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street. I'm here to speak in favor of setbacks, maybe not necessarily this specific proposal, but in general. While there have been and still are many tools that mostly serve to stop development, setback requirements do not have to be among them. Protecting solar installations is important. Maintaining sky visibility for the increased number of people who live here with our new zoning is important. The new zoning, even with setbacks, will result in so much more housing than compared to before. I think it's okay to shave a little bit off the top in exchange for some other concerns. In addition, some of the world's most stunning architecture is part of the result of setbacks and man suit requirements. Paris, New York, Chicago, they all have both low and high rise neighborhoods with setbacks and plenty of density.

Maybe the numbers on this proposal need to be adjusted, but let's at least take this next step and keep the conversation going. Another similar addendum, there are lots of non-luxury row houses in D.C. in neighborhoods that are just as dense or more dense than ours currently. And before anybody tries to call me anti-housing, don't forget I supported the original six-story as-of-right multi-family petition. So, definitely still pro-housing. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, it looks like we have one more speaker, Heather Hoffman. Heather, you have the floor, three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I did sign up for the correct meeting, but it decided that I actually signed up for the ordinance committee meeting tomorrow. Go figure. I would like... I'm so glad to see that anything anyone ever does that could ever interfere with building bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger is in bad faith and that green nets can be in just as much bad faith as anything else. What I would say is that this was brought up You could have looked at it when you were so bent on passing the massive upzoning. You could also have looked at the institutional use regulations, which were also brought up.

But it was way too important to plow ahead with something and then think about the consequences later. Perhaps it will occur to you to do something differently in the future, but I doubt it. With respect to the linkage nexus study, sure, have a nexus study. I have heard from people who spoke earlier tonight and didn't mention this, that they've called for an inclusionary zoning nexus study because 20% is too big. Who knows? With respect to the zero emissions transportation plan, I would like to know how you're working to improve public transit How you're working to improve things for pedestrians, especially pedestrians who are not young, fit, without any mobility or vision disabilities.

Where do we think that delivery drivers and the Uber and Lyft drivers live? Are we thinking about any of that stuff? with respect to Gold Star Mothers Park and Russell Field. As is well known to the Alewife Study Group, because this is why they exist, there is a huge amount of asbestos right by Russell Field, which is going to be dug up. Tons and tons, according to The answer to the question I asked at a meeting, we're talking about 500 truckloads of dirt being taken out of that field for the MBTA Highline Tunnel.

plus the digging that the city is in fact going to be doing on linear park. And so, yeah, let's let us actually do the Do the drilling and check these things because the city of Cambridge should have absolutely zero Zero. Grace on that.

Thank you. Thank you, Heather. Okay, so that's... Mr.

Chair, that concludes all that were signed up to speak.

Okay, so on a motion by Councilor Zusy to close public comment.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Tan, Toner, Wilson, Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay, so we have nine minutes before we have to switch over to the tax rate. And we need a few minutes for IT to switch over to the other public speakers. So I'm actually going to ask that we take a recess for nine minutes. Councilor Siddiqui?

Vice Mayor, I was just going to say, I guess... Just so that we're on the same page, should we just choose what we're picking from the city manager's agenda so folks can go home?

We could do that. Councilor Nolan?

Yeah, I support that. And then we could pass the ones that have no discussion.

Sounds good. Well, the only, I mean, the only thing... No, that's right. No, we're good. That's right. Councilor Siddiqui, do you want to pull? No? Pleasure of the committee.

Number seven.

Vice Mayor.

Nolan.

Number eight.

Four and six, please.

Four and six.

Anything else? Mr. Vice Mayor?

Councilor Wilson.

Thank you. One and two, please.

Nobody's going home.

Okay, so we have pulled one and two, Councilor Wilson, four and five by Councilor Zusy,

I'm sorry, it's my fault.

Four and six. Seven by Councilor Toner and eight. Nolan. So on the balance.

Roll call. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

We now have six minutes.

Do we want to approve communications and resolutions?

I have to move suspension and bounce around. I mean, I guess we could. All right. Just trying to keep it organized, but all right. Councilor Toner moves suspension of the rules to bring forward communications. I guess we don't need a roll call, right?

Because we're going out of order, so yes. Okay, roll call. Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Simmons is absent. You have made eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent. Okay. Motion to place all on file.

On a motion by Councillor Toner to place communications on file, roll call.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Councilor Toner, yes, Councilor Wilson, yes, Councilor Zusy, yes, Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay. On to resolutions. I motion to suspend the rules to bring those forward. I'm suspending the motion by Councilor Toner to suspend the rules to bring forward resolutions. Roll call.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Yes. Councilor Toner?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay. Resolutions are now... Before us, I'd like to pull one of them. Is anyone else pulling any others? All right, so I'm going to pull number seven on one through six, making unanimous upon adoption. Roll call.

Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. And Mayor Simmons is absent. Eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Number seven is condolences on the death of Kate Frank. I just would like to be added. I've known Kate a long time and was a longtime friend. So I'm adding my name to the resolution.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sieniewicz, Simmons, Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

On the resolution as amended, making unanimous upon adoption.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay.

The other thing we could do while we're waiting is communications and reports from other city officers. There are two. I'm assuming we're going to want to talk about the second one because that has to do with the ICE report. But the first one we can dispense with. So on suspending the rules to bring forward communications and reports from other city officers, roll call.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. Eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

on placing on file communication reports from other city officers, number one. Roll call.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sieniewicz, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Tan, Toner, Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent. All right, 629.

We could do committee reports. We could do committee reports into the ordinance.

We're right up on it. Okay. So we are now going to recess the regular city council meeting and move over into the tax rate classification meeting. We have 30 seconds. Anybody have a good joke? Welcome, everyone. Hope you're having a good time. A lot of new faces out there. Not sure what brings you all out tonight, but welcome. All right, let's get to it. We are moving, I'm gonna call this.

The time of 6.30, having arrived, the council will recess the regular city council meeting and move

Yes. On the recess, roll call. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded is absent.

Okay, great. A quorum being present, I call the meeting on the public meeting of October 6, 2025. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the property tax rate classification. First order of business is a roll call of members present.

Azeem. Yes. Vice-Mayor McGovern. Present. Present. Vice-Mayor McGovern. Present. Present. Councilor Nolan. Present. Councilor Siddiqui. Present. Present. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Present. Present. Councilor Toner. Present. Wilson, Mayor Simmons is absent. You have one member recorded as absent and eight recorded as present.

Okay, great. Sorry for folks who've been here since the beginning. You're going to have to hear this again. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A, Section 20, Section G, and City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you have finished speaking the next speaker will be called, individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. We ask that you please state your name and address for the record. There are nine people signed up, so folks will be given three minutes. And with that, we will go to public comment. Ms. Steffen.

Our first speaker is Denise Gilson, followed by Theo Biscos, then Dan Marshall. Denise, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Denise Gilson. I'm the executive director of the Harvard Square Business Association. I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. It was only today that we learned of the special hearing and of the proposal to raise the commercial tax rate by 22% for 2026. This abrupt and significant increase will have far-reaching consequences for our community. While it may be tempting to view this measure as a way to address this as a way to address fiscal shortfalls by targeting large, possibly faceless, corporate property owners. The reality is that in Cambridge, Property ownership varies, and this will have deep, profound consequences. Our commercial property owners include small family firms,

local universities already struggling, and countless small businesses, retailers, restaurateurs, and service providers who either rent or own their spaces. They are our employees, our neighbors, and the heart of our commercial business districts. A 22% increase in commercial property taxes will not stop at the property owner's door. It will be passed down to tenants in the form of higher rents and ultimately to consumers through higher prices. At a time when so many are already struggling to cope with rising costs, this measure risks doing real harm to our small business community and to the economic vitality of our city. We urge the Council to reject or postpone this proposal until there can be proper analysis, transparency, and stakeholder input. Let's work together on solutions that are

Sustainable, fair, and that keep Cambridge small businesses strong and keep our residents and visitors shopping and dining in our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Theo Bisbisios followed by Dan Marshall. Theo has not joined us. We will go to Dan Marshall. Dan, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. I'm Dan Marshall, the President and Executive Artistic Director of the Cambridge Community Center for the Arts. We are a service organization. Most recently, last few years, we renovated the Multicultural Arts Center and I've been operating out of there. However, we are in the process of identifying and negotiating a couple of new art center locations for the benefit of Cambridge. and one of them we would have to pay commercial real estate taxes if we either purchase it or rent it. As the previous speaker said there's a lot of small businesses as well as tenants who would be affected. If we're paying triple net rent, then it passes along to us. The real estate taxes in Cambridge are already really high. as they are in other small towns.

And raising them 22% is a significant proposal I also am surprised that the notice was just today. I was just very lucky to see the email. and wanted to say something. And as you may know, getting a tax abatement if a nonprofit owns a building is not a given. It takes time and a couple thousand dollars more a month of real estate taxes on a rent of let's say $10,000 a month is a significant chunk and sometimes can make or break the ability of a business to survive. I do want to repeat what the previous speaker said, that this should be a process beyond what has already been done. That's open, that you get a lot more feedback and discussion from the community.

I want to add to that, that also we have not recovered from the pandemic, not by, you know, Not even close to recovering from the pandemic. A lot of businesses are still, especially in the arts, but also in bars and restaurants, are still not seeing the same level of customers as before the pandemic. but the taxes have kept going up and this is not the time to raise taxes when you have a bunch of empty storefronts as well and instead let's work together to revitalize the city and create real income. And once there's real income, there's more contribution, more commerce, and there's other ways to enrich the city. And eventually when we all recover, then just having a nominal tax increase

It's totally fair as the city has increased expenses, but 22% is not great at this moment and I think will make or break some businesses. Thank you so much and I hope, thank you for your consideration.

Our next speaker is Ivy Moylan followed by Raj Danda, then Nicola Williams. Ivy, you have three minutes, please go ahead.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

All right, perfect. Wonderful. Hi, Ivy Moylan. I reside at 54 Lee Street. and I'm calling because I'm the executive director of the Brattle Theatre and the Brattle Film Foundation in Harvard Square, one of the businesses that Janice Gilson was directly referring to. and I just urge that the city council members exercise their charter right and delay This tax decision moving forward, 22% tax increase for real estate taxes on commercial real estate specifically is so out of bounds with the normal increase that happens. And although the Brattle is a nonprofit, we don't own our space, so we do pay real estate taxes.

Currently, it is 20% of our budget, the real estate taxes that we pay, because we're a large space, as many arts nonprofits are. and we pay triple net because our landlord doesn't pay real estate taxes it's passed down to us as everyone has mentioned and that is pretty standard for most organizations so the The landlords are not going to be the people who are hurt. And it's going to disproportionately hurt small businesses and nonprofits. Where is a nonprofit going to find the money for something like this? It isn't even going to come from retail. It's going to have to come from fundraising. and is that going to be an option in a time like now? So it's just it was sort of a really gobsmacking to get the email about this happening today.

And so I really urge you to take serious consideration on this decision. And if it really has to go, I really need some transparency as a resident and a business owner in the city to understand the justification for this decision. Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Raj Danda, followed by Nicola Williams, then Suzanne Blier. Raj, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you. My name is Raj Danda. My involvement with Harvard Square began in 1998. When I purchased what is referred to or known as Crimson Galleria. And Harvard Square from so many points of view was The Place, if you had any interest in real estate and all. Since then... I have fortunately been able to acquire a number of buildings in the square. And what that has given me as we speak today, as I speak today, is perspective of where we are and where we are going.

About, I'm going to say five, maybe a little more than that, eight years ago, it was... Any national, international, top of the line retailer or business Almost every time I'd hear about it, many of them established their businesses here. Over time, some have succeeded, some have not so much. But in the last one year, Maybe a little more. The demand has gone down significantly. We are not getting the number of inquiries. We're not getting the rents.

And leaving that aside from my point of view, My comment is that it's so important to have the square be the vibrant place that it was, I'm going to say, 10 years ago. We are not getting the same inquiries. We're not getting the same quality. At the end of the day, I think the square needs help. And if you're going to put in a 22% increase, which most landlords like me pass on to the tenants, but in the big picture,

Thank you very much. Thank you. That's the challenge you have. This would be very very problematic. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker, Denise Haynes, has emailed to say she cannot join us. We will move on to Nicola Williams, followed by Suzanne Villiers. Nicola, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Bye again. Nicola Williams, A. Brewer Street. So I would love to... I'm a facilitator of the Cambridge Summit for Black Business Network. I'm a member of the Cambridge Local First. I'm on the board of the Harvard Square Business Association, and I've been a business owner for more than 30 years. and regarding the tax rate, not all businesses are affected the same way. I mean, it could be different from neighborhood or even blocks. Small businesses are taking the blunt of this economic downturn. Many are still struggling to recover from the pandemic and not to mention the terrorist situation is making things worse and it's just really trickling down. So obviously the time is not great, but we need more transparency. We need more notice. We can't just find out day of what's going on and immobilize.

That's really unfair to the businesses. and quite honestly, disrespectful to the small business community. So if I miss something or notice, let me know, but I think I'm not the only one. In terms of, you know, I understand the city needs funds. I mean, this is a situation that as counselors, you need to be fiscally responsible. So our expenses are increasing and our revenue is shrinking. That's the reality. We all need to tighten our belts across the board. Not just lean so heavily on the small business community because we're trying to recover too. So I get it. I acknowledge that. I understand that sacrifices need to be made across the board. Like I said, the increase came to my attention just this morning. It was announced, you know, like really late.

And, you know, I suggest we table this, not just as a charter right, because that's not enough, one week. We need to... really table it for a really thorough and healthy conversation with the business community. We need to analyze the situation, its impact on our businesses, and we just need some grace in relation to this. So thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Suzanne Blier followed by Heather Hoffman. Suzanne, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Suzanne Blié, Phi Fuller Place. And let me speak as president of the Harvard Squared Neighborhood Association. Where is this coming from? A lot of areas, certainly, but national impacts are a key part of it. Empty offices in Kendall and elsewhere. And that is really important, but don't go after small businesses. Local businesses have been hit very hard by tariffs. I was just speaking with the owner of Bob's Slate. Will these and other stores be able to survive with these additional tariffs? That is something that we really have to think about. I'll also speak as somebody who's at a local university, and we had to, in our departments, come up with a plan to possibly decrease our expenditures by 20%. So when you have here potentially greater impact in terms of raising taxes, I think it's time for us to ask the hard question.

Ask the city to reduce its expenses by the same 22%. That should be on the table. We can't simply go on as we are and we're heading into much harder times. Let me add that for many homeowners, taxes are also going up dramatically, in part through the upzoning, but for other reasons. and neighbors will be charged even more for taxes, many on fixed incomes. So let's really put the onus on the city to come up with a plan to reduce its expenditures The same amount that they're asking small businesses to provide. We've got to think of equity. We've got to think of the needs of the city as a whole. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman followed by Robert Winters. Heather, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. First, I want to commend the people who wrote this memo for how much information is in it. It's got so much that people need to understand all of the factors that go into figuring out how the taxes get apportioned. And I wish that the city would have a hearing to lay that out in front of people because it really matters. One of the things I noticed is that we're eating up more of our excess levy limit. That's something that should concern people. With respect to the commercial taxes

I may have misunderstood, but I believe that commercial values are coming down by a noticeable amount and the tax rate Thank you very much. I would love to know how much of this is the upzoning. And how much of this, how much of the much smaller increase

Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much for joining us. I would also like an explanation of exactly what contributed to the new growth.

that's in the the table of new growth because that's a large number for residential and we keep being told no residential is being built but There are things that the city could not do and save money. Think about it. Thank you.

Our final speaker is Robert Winters. Robert, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Oh, thank you for the three minutes. My name is Robert Winters. I live at 366 Broadway. Primarily just a few questions, but first off, I'm a little surprised that people are saying they only learned about this today. The city manager's letter was available Thursday night. I think anybody could have read it then, so I really agree with that. I think Heather sort of touched upon something I think really needs to be emphasized, which is that The letter does speak about a 22% increase in the tax rate but there is, I believe, an 11.5% decrease in commercial values. So I don't know what that really comes out to. Maybe it's more like 10%, 12% increase, probably. But here's the catch, is that if I was looking at the residential tax rate, and I'll speak to that in a minute, I could look at the map of the various tax districts and I could sort of see how well what does that really translate into if you're in

you know, into tax district number three, whatever, because it doesn't fall uniformly across the board, particularly if the tax rate increases or decreases. Now, in regards to the commercial tax rate, I can look at that map. Excuse me, for the residential, I can look at that map. But I can't tell from this here, and I would hope that the folks from the city can speak to this, I imagine, I'm just guessing now, that the decrease in property values, commercial values, probably was most strongly felt in places like Kendall Square with very high vacancy rates. So whereas maybe it's not true. Maybe the tax, maybe the valuations in just regular neighborhood retail, maybe those valuations were flat, which is they're going to get hit with the full 22% increase. and their tax, not tax rate, but taxes, period.

So it would be very helpful, I think, for all of us to hear a word or two about how the decreasing valuations were distributed from Kendall Square, from lab buildings versus neighborhood retail, mom and pop stores, whatever. Because I don't think it's going to be the same all across the board, and I really think the who's going to bear the brunt of this, it's going to vary quite a bit. So those are the main things I wanted to just bring up here. But I do want to say one last thing on the tax rate. You know, the tax bill, never mind the rate, the tax bill, condominiums going up 13.3%, single family 10.2%, two family 9.2%, three family 8.9%. Rate of inflation, my friends, is about 2.9%. So we're talking about tax increases that are triple the rate of inflation.

I would like you to think about it especially in the context when people take votes like they did last week and many weeks for new programs, new things that have costs associated with them and what that's going to translate into in terms of tax impacts in future years. Are we going to be seeing 20% next? Thank you.

Mr. Chair, that is all who are signed up to speak.

We need to keep public comment open until 7, which is six minutes from now, so we will do that, but we can move on to discussion. Mr. Manager, you all want to bring up your... your team. And this is city manager agenda item one, a communication transmitted from Eon Wong, city manager relative, oh, I'm sorry, wrong one. Communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to votes necessary to seek approval from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue of the tax rate for fiscal year 2026. So that's what's in front of us. I will open it. Mr. Manager, why don't we start actually with you first and then go to questions.

Thank you so much, Vice Mayor, and thank you all. I think we'll probably have a more robust conversation about the tax rate this year than usual. Maybe just to set some context and I think provide a bit of the background. I would say first, a reminder in terms of when we actually start the budget process. We really started last year in November and had a conversation about the overall economic environment and how we were thinking about both The economic downturn that we're going through as a city, we just went through five or 10 years of incredible growth that really supported a lot of the budget needs that we've invested in. Everything from our sewers, streets, bike lanes, schools,

Universal Pre-K, Human Service Programs, all of those were really funded by a lot of the growth that we saw in Kendall Square over those years, and we are really seeing that turning around, and that macroeconomic cycle is going to take a little bit We set a much lower operating budget target for FY26 than in prior years. We went from budget growth rates of for the FY26 budget that we're voting on the tax rate. On tonight, we landed a budget growth of only 3.8%. And that was a significant conversation that we were all having together both to ensure that we're able to make this work fiscally, we're able to invest in a number of the programs that our community really needed, but also understanding that there are constraints that we're facing.

One of the challenges as we were going through that budget process that we've been discussing is that even though the operating budget growth was only 3.8%, the tax levy growth is actually much higher than that. and that's again a consequence of the economic cycles. When we were going through as a community, these years of economic growth, a lot of the other sources of revenues in particular, building permit revenues are going up really fast. and all of that money essentially means that we don't have to raise taxes by as much in order to increase health benefits, COLAs, All the program investments that we are making. We're now seeing a lot of that turn around where every year we are actually seeing and this will continue in Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So for this budget in 26, we had an operating budget that grew at 3.8% and we had a tax levy that was an 8% growth. And that was the vote that this city council approved this past June for the FY26 budget. What we're now here tonight for is the values that ultimately drive how much we raise and where the tax rates are set come in in the fall, and then we set the tax rates. I think these things can both be true. The reality is the commercial tax rate is going up by a lot more than we're used to. The values are coming down. And so the overall dollar amount that many people will pay is going to be a little bit moderated by changes in the valuations. Now the other challenge, and I think just to validate a lot of the public comment that came in, There is a real difference across classes.

And so within that commercial class, a lot of the biggest value declines are in the larger corporations, office and lab space where we see persistent vacancies. and so those are the areas where you're likely going to see much more moderation so the rate is going up but their values are coming down so the overall dollar change is going to be pretty moderate And it may be the case, and I think in particular, we're sharing a bit more data tonight, but in some segments, like hotels in particular, the values have actually been pretty stable, which means that they're going to see a much higher dollar increase in line with the increase in the rate. In terms of what we're actually discussing tonight, really the votes are to decide on first, We've always used a split rate. So most communities that have a strong enough commercial sector use a split tax rate. And so we have one rate for commercial and one rate for residential.

and I think that will continue. The part of that that's the vote is how much we're shifting so what is The percent that we're going to charge commercial versus residential, and state law essentially allows us to charge a higher rate for commercial than residential, hence why you want a split rate. and we have always consistently as a community prioritized a lower residential tax rate. And so in the case of this conversation tonight, Consistent with how we've approached this every year, we are proposing a shift where last year commercial was taxed at 140% of the residential rate, and this year commercial will be taxed at 152%. That is mostly to protect the residential rates and the residential taxpayers. If we were to keep that at 140%, we would see significantly higher residential tax rates, and we're happy to sort of share more of those numbers.

but that's been the policy that this council and the administration has pursued for a really, really long time. I think just the other note in terms of process is, We can sort of answer a lot more questions tonight, but the decisions that really drove this were part of the budget process. And the overall amount that we need to raise ends up driving How the rates play out. And there are a lot of structural constraints. We don't get to say that we want to charge certain small businesses less and certain labs or corporations more. It really is this commercial versus residential rate. and then this is kind of how it plays out across the classes. I would probably say we've got a lot of expertise at this table. I'd love to get through all of your questions and be able to provide any more data that we can and we can maybe go from there.

Before we go on, on a motion by Councilor Toner to close public comment, roll call.

Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Toner, Councilor Wilson, Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative. One recorded is absent.

Okay. So, Mr. Manager, were you going to pass it to Ms. Spinner or you want to go straight to...

I think straight to questions is good.

Alright. I have Councilor Azeem first and then Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I just had some quicker questions at the beginning just to get facts straight and then like more complicated questions at the end. My first question was that the budget has been set for FY2026. Is that correct?

Through you, Vice Mayor. Yes, that is correct. When the City Council adopted the budget in June, the Adopted budget was set, and that included the revenues. And at the time, as we were setting the budget, we did, as part of that, we talked about what the levy would need to be, because our property taxes funds approximately 68% of our operating budget. And at that time, we discussed with the council that the levy was going to increase by 8%.

So, through you, Mr. Vice Mayor, my second question is, so then the only decisions that we have given that the budget is already set for us tonight is, What is the balance of how much commercial will pay versus residential, not are we going to reevaluate what the total budget is going to be?

That is correct.

I just thought that that was helpful table setting in the sense that I know people can be very have strong feelings about taxes and for rightfully good reasons. We're at a place tonight where the only vote is just how do we balance the two, not can we scale programs back or anything like that. My next question is that we heard about this 22% rate, right? I just wanted to confirm something, which is that, and I think the city manager mentioned this a little bit, Because the rate is based on the value of a property, and the property values are going down, the rate can go up, but that's not how much more you're paying in taxes. I don't know, like, if you paid $100 in taxes last year, if the average is going up by 8%, you might be paying $108 even though it's a higher rate. So it might only go up 8% on average. Is that right for commercial?

Mr. Mayor.

I would say, I think, as through you, Vice Mayor, I think to the City Manager's point earlier, that as we, the values across commercial did decrease across the entire class by about 12.5%, and I think the assessors can go more deeply in this, but it did not impact within the classification properties in the same way. So values for labs decreased significantly for instance, but hotels did not. And so across the class, We are going to raise 8% more taxes, but how it will be felt across the class will be different. Some taxpayers may indeed feel a 22% increase if their values stayed exactly the same as last year and the rate increased by 22%.

And yet if your value fell by 15%, you won't experience a 22% increase.

Councilor Azeem.

Through you, Vice Mayor, I think I would also add that it does depend on what type of property it is. So the office and lab classes have had the greatest decreases. Retail slightly down, no more than 3%, but hotels have actually gone slightly up, somewhere between 1% and 3%. How that does play out is the hotels will take the full brunt of that plus the value increase. And you can see on where we did an example chart, As a handout tonight because there were so many questions to give people some idea of how this plays out across the different classes. So I would say retail, restaurant, hotel will feel more of the brunt of the higher tax rate. It will be less felt by the lab and office, and that's just shifts within the commercial class.

Thank you, Mr. President, through you. So I think that you actually got to my next question as well, but on average, we're going to see an 8% increase in commercial tax rate. It's going to be different by sectors. But on average, it's 8%. So people are not going to see their taxes on average jump by 22%. Obviously, some might. My next question was that that's a percentage. We still have the lowest commercial tax rates in the area, right?

Yes, and you can see that on the chart that we provided. It's comparing last year's tax rates for the other communities, this year's tax rate for us because we set our tax rate much earlier since we're semi-annual as opposed to quarterly.

So I think that that was just a part of setting the stage that like there is a bigger than average tax increase and it makes total sense that some people are concerned. and we're still doing better than our neighbors. And on average, you're going to see an 8% on a 22% tax increase. My first question was that, I saw that we have a $38 million increase in budget overall. We have also seen growth shrink by, I think, $11 million. And so I assume like a third-ish of our tax rate increase is just because we have less development in the city. Is that correct?

Not necessarily. I mean, the growth is about how much we can collect, how much the levy can go up. And so it's also feeding into how much we have for excess levy capacity.

Okay, that's actually very helpful. So I think that with those questions, my last two were just, What are the options before us, right? So I think that this year's budget is kind of baked already and this tax rate as well. What do you see going forward for like next year, for example?

Oh, so I think for next year, based on where we are right now, it looks like the trends are going to hold of what we have seen for the prior year. All the values that we're doing now are based on what happened during calendar year 24. were most of the way through calendar year 25, it would appear the trends would hold. So unless there's something dramatically different that happens between now and the end of the year, I think that we're in a holding pattern. Too much lab space. There is too much office space. People have changed the way that they have worked. And this isn't just a Cambridge problem. This really is a regional problem, that regionally there's just too much space. in these particular areas of lab and commercial, lab and office.

If I were to just extend that, I would say, I think, thank you, Gail, we are sort of expecting these economic trends to continue What we're experiencing today is what Boston is not able to do anymore because they've hit that limit. And so, I think these are the challenges that The vote tonight is really about the commercial residential shift, and our policy has been to prioritize lower residential tax rates. One of the things that we discussed last November and that I think we'll continue to be discussing is we're currently proposing as part of this shift, we'll be at 152%. 175% is the max. And once you hit that, you can't increase the commercial anymore and you're essentially at a single tax rate.

where all the burden of the increase will be on residential and even more if actually what happens is if commercial value continue to come down and residential rates are flat or increasing, You're going to see an even greater burden on the residential side. And so if you think about the levers that we have, Some of the challenges on this front is you're really just shifting tax burden between commercial and residential. Part of the strategy that we're trying to find from a fiscal perspective is to moderate some of that growth so that The tax burden and the increase isn't so high. And so moderating our overall budget growth is really the best way to ensure that we don't end up with too big a jump. during the economic downturn. And when there's economic growth again, it'll be easier to find those new revenues. It'll be easier to make investments. So I think that that's part of the broader story that I think we're continuing to work through.

But we haven't seen significant economic changes since we last talked. In fact, I think as Gail was saying, Mostly we're seeing a continued downturn, and it'll be a little bit before we come out of that. Councilor Zing.

Thank you. My final question. First, I just wanted to comment and say, well, at least in the lab and office space, I think it may not be what we wanted, but it's just interesting to hear that we built so much that the property values have gone down. which we're always talking about with regards to housing. My final question was just about the excess levy capacity. I think we often hear like we could be going higher, funding more services. I was just wondering, what is the status of our levy capacity? And where do we think that it's headed?

Yes, through you, Vice Mayor. Within the memo, I think we have a chart that shows our excess levy capacity over the last maybe four or five years. and it is on page seven. And this is an actual, we can see here that our excess levy capacity this year, FY26, the estimate with the setting of the tax rate That our excess levy capacity will be at 172 million, which is actually a decrease of 8.6% from what our excess levy capacity was last year. and you can see 25 we actually had a decrease and in 24 we had a decrease and so yes you know that has allowed us to actually set a tax rate or a levy increase at eight percent

and we have sort of gone into our savings account called excess levy capacity in order to set a tax rate to balance our budget without having to do reductions. We can do scenarios out for five or six years, particularly if an economic downturn persists for a number of years. and that new growth, as you noted, the new growth was about 40% less than the new growth last year. And so when we're not adding new growth into our tax base, that means that we're not fully replenishing our excess levy capacity with what we spend in that year. And so it is there for these kinds of times, right, when there is an economic downturn. We are actually a very lucky Community, in that we have those and we are not forced to make precipitous reductions. But it is also one of those things that we talk about a lot, right?

Our necessity to maintain our financial flexibility. by trying to maintain a certain amount of excess levy capacity. And I think to the city manager's point, our biggest lever is ultimately our budget growth. And in the times when The economics are not in our favor. We should be trying to moderate budget growth, and then when the economics turn around for us, we can again begin to think about additional expansion of programs. Concierge Azeem.

Thank you. So just on the levy capacity point, I just wanted to leave off by saying, so it seems like we still actually have a healthy amount of space in the levy capacity. I guess the fear would be if there was a downturn where we could not use it. But at least for now, even with this level of budget growth, It seems fine in the short to medium term. Thank you.

Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. First, a couple confirming questions. Thanks for putting this together. And I do want to point out one of the things I think all of us were wondering about. And it's very helpful. It hasn't been talked about as much as the I think that's really critically important for us to understand. The impact overall might be X percent, 22 percent on the rate, but the impact overall on the actual payment is probably more on the order of 8 to 10 percent as we had during Those budget discussions, but by class it can range from anywhere from your actual bill will go up from 1% to 25% depending on your category, or it may be 30 or 40%. That's really important to understand, and I think it's why it's a message that I hope we take the time, I think we might, in order to ensure that

Even though this was kind of discussed in June, so many of our business community and our commercial Folks throughout the city just got a shocking, oh my gosh, it's going up 22%. It's not, however, we do need to explain, and I think we should take the time to do that. I do want to ask one thing I heard these are we're talking about the commercial versus the residential rates my understanding is that we can't actually we know we can't have different rates for small locally owned businesses versus big national change we would Many of us, I would like to, we can't. Can we even have any distinction, which I don't think we can, but I want to confirm between retail versus office versus lab, or is it just all one category? I just think it would be helpful to confirm to people because a lot of people have come to us and said can't. you do this for us and my reply is I'm pretty sure we can't.

Ms. Willett and then I think the manager wants to address your first question.

Thank you, through you, Vice Mayor. No, we cannot make that distinction. So it is commercial, industrial, personal property all get the same rate. residential, and if we had open space, open space would get the residential rate. But those divisions are decided at the state level. That's nothing that we have control over.

Mr. Manager? I think just a clarification and maybe I think Taha you could confirm this, but I know there's been a little bit of discussion about people feeling surprised and I think this is meant to be the tax rate hearing. So I think there is a need certainly to have engagement with especially the businesses that are saying, oh, this is a really high rate. It's turning out based on the valuations that we're really seeing an impact. I think this is the moment when we've got the full valuations we're able to calculate the tax rates we release them publicly and then we have the conversation with the council and so I think I think this is the moment when people are supposed to hear and then give us feedback, which I think we're getting. And I think this is always helpful for us to both incorporate as we think about

you know how we can make some of this data more clear and also how we how we incorporate this into the next budget process but i'm seeing nodding from tah so i think i got that i got that right we don't typically release information before this hearing because this is meant to be the hearing where we bring forward the tax rate information.

And I think I'd like to just add one thing to that, and Gail and Andrew can elaborate, but we spend, you know, they spend You know, the summer, you know, basically ticking and tying things, but we go through a process that lasts several weeks in putting in information through the state's review and certification process. We really are releasing the rates at the earliest moment that we can release the actual rates here with this tax hearing.

I think the challenge though is we're also being asked to take the votes tonight on this right so this may be we're releasing it early and this It may be appropriate in terms of when it gets released, but we're having this discussion and these concerns, but we're also being asked to vote for it tonight when we haven't had the opportunity to have you go back Nolan, and think about the input and then come back to us. So I think that's where the rub is. Sorry, Councilor Nolan.

No, that's an excellent point, Vice Mayor, Chair McGovern. I understand the timing it's challenging and yet I think next year anytime we can do it to say yes we're having the hearing and ten days before the hearing we're going to put the information out so people know I understand We can't do it until we've had the rates and we understand the valuation, but it just ends up being something that People who have really busy lives and understandably it affects their lives. Now I actually think in general that classification is good news for many of the folks who are concerned about it and that we see for Office, if this is an example of general commercial tax rate, offices, actual percent change in dollars is The valuation went down 17%, but the percent change in actual dollars they'll probably pay is only 1% more. And for labs, it's 7% more.

In retail, restaurant, it is 11% more. So still, that's four times inflation. For those folks, a big increase. And then for hotels, it's 25 percent. So I think the more we can do to make sure that once we have it set, we have a communication We have business associations. We have the Kendall Square Association, the Chamber, and all these others to say, hey, we're going to have the hearing, and it's going to be in 10 days, not on Monday. I know it's hard to get this information. It just means it's all going to be in the spirit of transparency for us. I will say at this meeting, as Councilor Azeem said, it really is a question of the residential versus commercial. We do want to honor that. And I do want to note, as we had those budget hearings in June, it's a really high increase for everybody.

including many of our residential for the average single family, two family, three family, it's as much as an 11% increase in the average tax bill. It is high and it's something for some people. It really will affect them for if they own a three-decker and they're going to have to increase the rent for people. So even though we've heard mostly about the commercial tax rate, this is also something to consider. for the residential tax rate, and is there a way that we can shift that? I will say, if we see more residential development, taxes won't necessarily go up. That's where the new growth will come from, and in fact, taxes could stay the same, correct? Yes, that's correct. Because that's something we also heard. Oh my gosh, this multifamily zoning, as all these houses are being built, your property tax are going to go up. Regardless of how you feel about it, if we had all that development, we've already seen that new development actually holds taxes even and steady because it provides opportunity for us to fill in budget gaps.

And I do have one other question, which is we would have the option if we so chose, and if this was a calamitous review that we found out taxes were going to have to go up 80%. We could mid-year correct on our budget if we so choose. I'm not saying it's easier we would ever do that, but that is something that would be possible, correct?

Ms. Spinner?

Through you, Vice Mayor, I would say that at this moment, the first quarter of our fiscal year has already passed. And so making mid-year corrections would be extremely difficult because you are saying that you would like to potentially lower the levy increase below. That would be a very difficult exercise for us to do.

I understand. I'm just being clear. And particularly for the future, it means setting up for next year. If we don't want to see this kind of thing, we need to be very conscious and cognizant of The levers we do have and frankly what we may be facing given the headwinds that we're entering. We've already seen this decline of commercial overall down 15%, labs down 10% in value. That may not change. Our largest employer is going through layoffs and are really incredibly difficult financial times. And we know what's going on at the other end of Mass Ave. A $300 million hit to an endowment from MIT that's gonna really affect us. So I hope that we have a chance to communicate this more broadly And again, I think it is good news if people actually look at it. It's at least better than the idea of everybody is going to see a 22% increase. But for anyone with a triple net lease, it is going to hit them.

and for some of, if I'm looking at this, if this is exempt for retail restaurant, it won't be 22%, but if it's an 11% increase in your taxes and you're already on the edge, it's certainly something that is causing some question. Just one final question. Are these actual examples or is this the overall view that we have? I'm referring to the examples of commercial tax rate. I'm really glad to see this because we get it on the single-family, two-family condos. We haven't had it typically for this breakdown. I think it should be included in any future developments as we move forward. Is this typical or is this just everything we've seen that we know will happen with commercial?

Ms. Willett.

Through you, Vice Mayor. This is just examples so that people would understand what the impact would be. I mean, obviously, we've picked one value for the example, so that is what the impact would be. The values would have different impacts on them because you have different values of property. It also depends on what's the mix of the property. But this was just to give people some examples so they could wrap their head around what does 22% in the rate translate into when looking at it on value.

Vice Mayor. Just to provide a bit of additional color in terms of what we're sort of seeing in this downturn, and I think this does relate to we have the lowest commercial tax rate of all of our neighboring cities. I think the reason is because we've seen so much growth in a lot of the office, especially the office and lab market. What we're seeing is the reverse of what we experienced over the last five to 10 years. Over the last five to 10 years, office and lab were growing so quickly, those values were going up so much that they really took on a lot of the burden. A lot of our small businesses did not see significant tax increases because they were buffered from that. and so that's why our rate is actually very low and then as the economy is turned around that's the challenge that when those values come down then it sort of flips and then we're seeing

Dean, especially for the hotel class right now, if those values are stable, they're getting, as Gail noted, the full brunt of the rate increase. So I think it doesn't change, I think, the experience of a lot of the small businesses that are going to see a pretty significant increase. I don't think most of them will see 22%. It won't be the same 1%, 2%, 3% increase or sort of the experience that we've had over the last 10 years.

Yeah, I obviously, I understand that, and it also, just like for our housing, our rate is really low, the chart is in here, and yet if your value's high, the amount you're paying makes up for that. So we are still needing close to a billion dollars of an operating budget. 60% or 58% comes from our property levy. 33% of that is from residents. The other comes from commercial. So that's a lot of money we have to raise. So even if the rate is relatively low, when the values continue to go up, then the taxes can go up. So those are my comments. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you. I have Councilor Zusy and then Councilor Toner.

Thank you very much, Chair McGovern, and through you. I think the shock to the system is because the increase is so high, 22%. And also because electricity bills are going up, gas bills are going up, and we know water sewer bills are going up. So people are going to be spending a lot more. as part of the cost of business. But what I'm wondering, and again, I still am fairly new to this. So when we were talking about the residential tax levy in June, Did you know that the commercial tax levy would be, could you have modeled that it would be about 22%? Because I think it would have been, so I'd love to hear that, but I think it would have been useful in our budget discussions if we had understood the implications of the budget decisions that we were making because maybe we would have

We wouldn't have committed to spending so much money if we realized that the commercial tax rate would have to go up so high. So my question is, could we have modeled that the commercial tax levy would have been about 22% in June?

Through you, Vice Mayor. So for both 25 and 26, commercials paying the exact same percentage of the levy as they did last year. they're not paying more of the levy they're paying the same percentage they're going up eight percent residential is going up eight percent we did know Thank you. Thank you. what that rate is going to be.

And again, through you, Chairman McGovern, I realize it's counterintuitive because you're looking, when you set these rates, you're looking through the rearview mirror. So we're talking about fiscal year 25, so the taxes that we're going to pay, the property taxes going forward, will be based on property evaluations. of the last year, right? Yeah, so anyway, so I think if, so maybe there's some way this coming year, That we can talk more candidly. I mean if it seems clear that property values are going to continue to remain low and growth will continue to be It would just be good for the council to understand what the implications would be for taxation.

And then I just, so then I just had some questions about, so I know one of the things you want us to vote on are that we keep the five classifications classes for property tax levy. So are industrial and commercial properties separate or are they together? I'm really confused on page six. It sounds like industrial property, we have tremendous growth in industrial property, but what is that? And then we've got quite a bit of growth in residential property. So what is that and how is industrial separate from commercial?

Through you, Vice Mayor. So these are classifications that we get from the Department of Revenue. It's written into state law for the classifications. Commercial is mainly office, retail, hotel, restaurant. Industrial is mainly lab space or R&D space or it could also be like a You know, a car garage, a car repair garage, something like that that would be an industrial use. But for us here, it's almost exclusively lab and R&D space.

So again, for you, Chairman McGovern, so it looks like with industrial, it's over a billion, you know, 323 million. and new growth. So that was new growth in Lab and RD and car garages.

Ms. Willett. Sure. Thank you. Through you, Vice Mayor. Yes. So any new buildings that are built, any buildings that we're always looking at as of January 1st, what is the status of the building? So any building that's under construction and you know typically what we're finding is any of the lab buildings and a lot of the large office buildings it's a three-year build out that they're doing so we're not picking everything up in one year it's continuing as they're finishing out the building So each year as of January 1st, we're determining what's the status and we're saying how much further along are they, how much does that affect the growth, and then we're capturing that as New Growth, because the Prop 2.5 is you can raise your levy by 2.5% plus new growth.

Again, through you, Chair McGovern. Anyway, we're in a very prosperous city that's just like an amazing amount of growth. Glad to hear that we're at 621 million in residential property growth, too, because that suggests that residential actually is really growing, or does it?

Just a point through you, Vice Chair, Vice Mayor. So that was the FY25 growth and we actually put that in as a comparison to FY26 and you can actually see How much less in FY26 new growth added to additional taxes? So the new growth in FY25, which yielded $24 million in additional tax levy, as compared to the FY26 which yielded only 13.7 million, right? So it's actually, this is really to emphasize the trend that we are currently in.

Thank you so much again for you, Chair McGovern. Thank you so much for that clarification because that is a real shock to the system. So that really demonstrates how much growth has slowed down both residentially, commercially, industrially. and so that's really important to understand. And I wanted to ask, to pick up on Robert Winter's good question, can you, and maybe this is for Gail, So are there places that there's more growth and less growth? Is it pretty evenly distributed? Are some areas being hit harder than others? And again, this is, again, through you, Chair McGovern.

Through you, Vice Mayor. I think I would say because it's such a long construction time for a lot of the large buildings, we certainly are still seeing new growth in Kendall Square. We have headquarters that are being built there. That is a huge part of the new growth. We also have the Volpe site. That is that moves forward. That will be a large amount of new growth. We certainly have stuff There are certainly lots of permits that have been pulled. Whether people will move forward on those is uncertain, I think, at this point. and I think the other thing I would say is a lot of the buildings these large office and lab buildings if they do not have a tenant at this point they will not move forward on Fitting Out the Interior. So those buildings really are at 70% complete. We are not moving forward to 100%. We're not capturing that new growth. So if you think about

The courthouse, which I don't know if you did the tour when they opened the building, you went inside and it's raw space. And it is because tenants are very particular about what they want. And so no landlord wants to fit it out and then pay to fit it out. and then rip it all out to get exactly what the tenant wants. And so I think that that's another piece of the new growth that we are losing.

Thank you so much. I'm about done, don't worry, Chairman McGovern. Anyway, again, I thank you for all of your work. and I we need to adjust to the times and so what this is just making me really feel is that again going forward we'll really need to be evaluating programs consolidating programs maybe eliminating some programs and working smarter and more efficiently because we're going to have Less resources, and we can't keep adding fees, linkage fees, building demolition permit fees, certificate of occupancy and zoning fees, the CPA surcharge, all these special permits. and Variance Fees. If we want Cambridge to remain a vital place and if we want people to come here, we just have to make sure that

We can't overwhelm them with fees, so they'll choose Cambridge as their location. With that, I yield and I thank you for your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. First of all, I want to thank the city manager and the staff because, quite honestly, none of this is shocking to me. I understand people feel like They were surprised with the posting of this information, but the three prior years I've been on the council, this is what we do every year. I think the challenge is always we build a budget, vote on a budget, and then we figure out how much the actual dollar amount is the people getting in their tax bill, which is I do want to point out that Councilor Nolan and I, while I was still co-chair of the Finance Committee and the Council, made it pretty clear to the city that we can't keep having 8%, 9% tax increases and they, through their due diligence in this process, Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. saying, I love my small business, don't raise their taxes. We're not raising the small business taxes. We're having to make a decision about raising taxes on properties across the city, residential and commercial, and then how that gets divvied up between the different types of properties and who's paying, whether it's the tenants or the property owner wants to absorb it completely themselves, that's all outside of the city's purview. But to the residents, and believe me, I'm empathetic to all the businesses as well. I want to see them survive and thrive here.

But every resident who writes to us and says, don't raise the property taxes on commercial, well, okay. because you're the very same people who say don't raise my residential property tax, which leaves us in the bind where I hear what Ms. Spinner says. Yes, I guess legally we could go back and try to undo some of our decisions in the budget, but that's going to mean layoffs. Cutting programs, real hurt to people within this budget cycle, which I don't think any of us want to do. And I know some people think I'm this Scrooge when we have the budget conversations. I'm not. I've been saying it all along, I don't think we should be taking on new programs. We have enough on our plate just to be able to tread water with the programs that we do, and we do a lot in Cambridge. Things that nobody else does. I mean, most places do recycling pickup once every two weeks. They don't take large items with you. We don't have UPK in other cities and towns.

There's a lot of things we do in the city of Cambridge. Lots of social services we provide and lots of non-profits we support and fund. Those are all things that Before you set a budget next year, I just want to remember the heat you're taking right now from people saying, don't raise my commercial property tax, don't raise my residential property tax, because the only way that's not going to happen And it is going to happen, unless you come to a screeching halt and make some cuts at the same time. It is going to happen. But as the council, whoever the future council is next year, makes those decisions, I hope you remember this conversation tonight. I am going to, I'm not going to say it yet, I just want to say one other thing is that

I think because of the way it came out and again I'm not blaming the staff this is how it always happens that you know some people are surprised some people got emails saying this is an emergency meeting or crisis meeting that we're doing this You know, with no notice to anybody. That's not true. This, again, is the way things happen. And I personally believe the staff for a whole year has been forecasting that this is generally what's going to happen. But with that, I would like to have another two weeks for us to be able to let people settle down, absorb the information, I don't know, maybe the staff has a Zoom call with the business associations to answer their questions, et cetera, so they can answer the questions of their membership. But I also know from Ms. Spinner that we can't wait more than two weeks because after that, the money runs out.

So we're going to have to make a decision by October 20th, and I doubt we're going to sit here and talk about making budget cuts or... increasing residential property taxes. But I'll let the city manager, looks like he wants to say something or are you just twiddling your fingers? I don't know. With that, I'd like to exercise my charter right to give us two weeks to think about it. Thank you.

I got all my Post-its here, all my comments, but I guess I'll save them. With that, Councilor Toner exercises his charter right, so that ends discussion. And so now on a motion by Councilor Toner to adjourn this hearing, roll call.

Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

All right, we now are back. I don't have to reopen it. We're going to do another roll call on reopening the regular city council meeting. Madam Clerk. Azeem,

Is it present? Yes.

Yes.

Say present. Present. Present. Vice Mayor McGovern? Present. Present. Councilor Nolan? Present. Present. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Present. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Present. Present. Councilor Toner? Present. Wilson, Mayor Simmons is absent. You have one member recorded as absent and eight recorded as present.

Thank you. And I will... Mayor Simmons, I did not mention this at the beginning, but she's at a special school committee meeting about the superintendent. Hopefully she'll be joining us after that. So now we go back to the city manager's agenda items. WILSON. THE FIRST ITEM, NUMBER ONE, IS A COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTED FROM YAN WONG, CITY MANAGER, RELATIVE TO AWAITING REPORT ITEM NUMBER 25-55, RELATIVE TO GUIDANCE DURING ICE ENCOUNTERS PULLED BY COUNCILOR WILSON. COUNCILOR WILSON, BEFORE Do you want to move suspension to bring forward communication and reports from other city officers, number two?

Yes, that's exactly what I was going to do. Thank you, Vice Mayor.

On suspension to bring forward communication and reports from other city officers, number two, which... A communication was received from Commissioner Elo, Cambridge Police Department, transmitting a memorandum regarding compliance with the Welcoming City Ordinance, Section 2.129.060. which mandates that a statistical breakdown of ICE interactions with the Cambridge police. On suspension.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice-Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

On bringing forward communication and reports from other city officers, number two. Roll call.

Azeem, Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Thank you. Both matters are now before us. Councilor Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I want to appreciate the memo but also the conversation forward and would like to turn it over to the city manager and Commissioner Elo or anyone else at the table to kind of share in just kind of the updates of what we have before us and any additional information that you may have. Thank you.

Sure, I think I can maybe provide a quick summary through you.

Mr. Manager, before you do that, the mayor is on Zoom. Mayor Simmons.

Mayor Simmons,

Okay, we'll come back then.

Mr. Manager. Through you, Vice Mayor, I think I'd provide just a quick summary to, I think, We're continuing to hear and experience in our region just a tremendous amount of increased enforcement. And so when I talk to city leaders in Lynn or Chelsea or some of our other gateway cities, There is a lot of activity happening. We are not seeing the same amount of direct activity in the city of Cambridge, but I do appreciate the policy order and the need for us to get More organized and I hope this response appreciate the work that city staff have done just to go line by line and talk through how we're engaging and supporting folks in the community. Wilson, and I'm happy to have more discussion and answer questions about this. Councilor Wilson.

Thank you. Just wanted to turn it off. So, to Commissioner Elo, if you have anything to add.

Commissioner, you.

Sure. Thank you. Other than the update that we provided everybody, I think the only additional thing that I will say is that there were two additional interactions that we had in September where we had ICE agents that we saw on a city street in Cambridge that we engaged with. It was just brief. They didn't ask us for anything. We didn't do anything, but we did see them in our city. and then also there was an ICE interaction where they came in and used our bathroom on September 12th and then said hi to the clerk, do you have any information? They said we do not cooperate with ICE. So those are the only two additional interactions that we've had since our last report. Councilor Wilson.

Thank you. And thank you for that update and for this memo. I just want to add, I mean, obviously we are seeing such an uptick across the Commonwealth across the regions and you know just today I think in the globe they had the article in terms of Chelsea specifically and even just the decline in the school system the school enrollment over the last several months from the end of last year to the start of this school year due to people's fears. Now, I know we don't have our superintendent kind of available, but just curious about where are we Are we hearing anything about just the fears and worries on the ground? Anyone from our Department of Human Services or anything that are just kind of seeing a decline in any of our numbers, whether it's in our schools, after school programs, anything of that sort?

Is that for me?

Through you, Vice Mayor, I think we can follow up with the schools and maybe get a broader sense. My anecdotal sense is yes, but I don't have data behind that, but certainly When I speak with families or community members, I hear a lot of people having a lot of concerns, trying to figure out when to leave their homes and how to be careful. And I think some of the Some of the update that we're providing and some of the work that we're doing is to ensure that as we're interacting with people and providing information that we're helping people prepare and also know where the resources are. We do have Carolina Almonte, who is our executive director for the Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship online as well. So do you want to jump in at all on that?

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to this policy order. It's nice to see you all. I'm just now returning back from maternity leave as of a week ago. So I really appreciate everyone that came together to help me keep this work moving along while I was away. And just to kind of I could piggyback on what Ian said that we're hearing a lot of concerns from our community members who are scared Our goal with CERC is to remain a hub of information. So we do continuously update our website with resources. We are in the process of specifically creating resources for after hours. assistance, including some of the organizations that have listed in this memo. We wanted to also

Just to remind folks that we do have a 24-7 interpretation hotline for staff to use through our Language Justice Division, and that covers over 100 languages. and we found that this hotline has been very effective meeting community needs and that's specifically for staff. Then we have a separate public-facing hotline for community members and that right now really we're continuing with the Know Your Rights trainings with meeting with our community partners. and we understand that the city is really looking for both legal services, so we're always in close connection with De Novo, with our legal clinic, as well as other organizations that provide additional supports. So really, I would encourage the public and others to continue reaching out to CERC for direct help and guidance as we continue this important work.

Wilson.

Thank you. And through you, Vice Mayor, thank you and congratulations on your bundle of joy. I really want to appreciate you just lifting up the continuation of the Know Your Rights trainings and just making sure that members of our community are aware that they can be and should be participating in that in addition to our staff, right? And just other community members can join these spaces. I know earlier in the fall, In the fall, sorry, earlier in the winter, I guess, we were having conversations where they were a little more separated, right? And so I'm curious, are they still separated or are these, like, when's the next session and is it open to everyone?

Chair, thank you for the question and through you, Vice Mayor. So as of now, we do have recorded Know Your Rights trainings on our website. We are definitely interested in creating some more and thinking about which other community members we should Make sure to have this information. I also wanted to share that we have been in contact with the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants at the state level. and they will be providing bystander intervention trainings both for city staff and residents and those trainings will take place in a few weeks. So those are the next set of trainings we will do. and then our plan is to then reassess and see what other training options we should offer.

Great. Thank you so much. As of now, I have no further questions. I just want to thank you all for the update and for the work on the ground. It's a lot of hard work and obviously this This worry and fear that's coming throughout all of our communities, it's really terrifying and obviously we want to see families stay together and be safe and not feel like they're in fear. either going out for a walk, going to school, going to get groceries, those kinds of things, like doing their daily life. So thank you all for the work that you're doing and providing to the community. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you. Before I go to Councilor Siddiqui, Madam Clerk.

Mayor Simmons. Present. Present. Councilor Siddiqui.

Thank you. Through you echo Councilor Wilson's remarks and I'll just further say that I appreciated the overview of All the things that we're already doing and other organizations are doing and how we can best support them. And I know that we added some additional funding in this year's budget to expand our partnership with De Novo. Beyond the monthly legal clinics and helping DeNova with having a part-time legal staff member to take on more cases and I know maybe a few meetings ago I'd asked if we could get some input on how that's been going with De Novo. I don't need any specifics tonight, but maybe I can... Follow up with you directly and just see because I'd be curious if they need more than a part-time.

I just wanted to get a sense of that. But I think it's important that we did that. And that's one thing we were able to enhance given what's happening and really what's to come. So just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Pleasure to counsel.

Mr. Vice Mayor?

Mayor Simmons.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Just quickly, in the Cambridge Public Schools right now, we're not seeing a lot of attrition. but we're also not seeing a lot of newcomers either. So there's nothing. So I know there's the feeling that our students not coming to school anymore. That is not the case. but we did see a slowing of newcomers coming into our schools. In terms of trainings and things of that nature, and City Manager may have already spoken about this, given the circumstance we had just recently, and I want to just thank Carolina and her office and many, many others that kind of came together to help this one family. We learned a few things. One of the things is that there's certain things that we don't know and certain things that we have to do better. I know that there was some conversation about having a bystander training. I think that's still going forward.

But in addition, there are things that we could do to assist our families that we weren't necessarily doing. So we're beginning to talk about that. Not only for the schools, but what I call frontline folks, people that sit at the front desk of any organization that get confronted with the presence of ICE, what they should do. So we are very vigilant. We're paying attention and we're trying to do as much as we can as fast as we can in the event that we do have a rush of ICE presence in our community. Sayulaflor.

Thank you very much. Councilor Nolan.

Quickly, thank you everyone who worked on this and brought this forward. I want to express thanks for The fact that we are coordinating services with others that in order to do this more quickly, we're coordinating as the memo states that Luce already has this 24-hour and Bijan have a family hotline. I'm really glad that we are collaborating with existing organizations because that allowed us to do it much more quickly and that if they can use our Language Justice Hotline, it just seems like that's A really good model for us as we build on what others are already doing successfully and moving forward to protect our most vulnerable, these residents who are being ripped off the streets. I do have a question on the statistical breakdown, the ICE interactions. I understand that none of these detainer requests or administrative warrants We would not get notice of someone just walking down the street or ice performing on the street.

We had some reports that they were going into H Mart or others. We would not get that right. So that would not be captured by this, or am I wrong on that?

Madam Commissioner. Through you, Vice Mayor, we have asked and I think we put it out publicly that if there are interactions, you can call our emergency or non-emergency line and we will respond. Check, make sure that they're there, who are the people there, document the interaction. So that is happening.

So that means if we ever get reports of something happening on the streets, which we have gotten, instead of... I think, should we check with you to make sure? Because what I don't want to do is instill and have the fear spread through the community, but I've certainly heard various reports that this is happening and it's important for us. We know it could happen anywhere. We know it's happening in Chelsea. We know for sure it's happened in Somerville. However, I think it is also important that we're dealing with correct information. So what would be the best way for us to verify that before we amplify it or refute it?

Through you, Vice Mayor, what we're saying is that we're asking people to call 911 or a non-emergency line if you see ICE and the police will respond.

Thank you, I yield.

Thank you. And I was going to ask sort of a similar thing. I mean, I see a lot of A lot of reports online that ICE is in the city and is at a particular location and then I call you or try to verify it and it turns out it's not. and so I just I do want to implore folks in the community that you know we it we can't every time you see an SUV or you see something you can't assume it's ICE and you don't want to get in a situation where It's sort of, you know, what's the kid's story? Colin Wolfe and, you know, whatever. Because when you go online and you say, ICE is at this location, People get rightfully really concerned and really scared. And if that's not true, it continues to give the impression. I mean, so far... Right, there's been an uptick from last year. We see that in the numbers, not a huge one. But, you know, knock on wood, so far we have been

I don't want to give people a false sense of security either, because this could all change. Two minutes from now, right? Especially with this administration. And so, you know, I don't want to sort of pretend that, oh, don't worry about it. It's not going to happen here. It's probably going to happen here at some point in much bigger numbers. The flip side of that is I also don't want people being afraid of things that aren't actually happening. So if it's Luce that they call or it's the police that they call, confirm, have someone confirm it before you go out and say ICE is in a particular location. Last question for me, and if you said this in your opening, I'm sorry. The person who was were all abducted by ICE for the shoplifting coming out of the police department.

That's not, was that after August or? After this, what this report covers?

That was our first, the first one that actually came, the first, only person they took from custody that was in, you know, that, yeah, that they took. After they got bailed out, they picked up. So there was one person they picked up from...

I just couldn't remember the date. I just have a brain lapse on the date, so...

To you, Mr. Vice Mayor, just to clarify that the report in front of you is because the welcoming community ordinance asks for every six months reporting on detainers. Dixon, but we're not seeing ICE serve the police department with detainers because they know that the police department doesn't honour detainers. So the example where the person That was after they had left the police report. It wasn't the police report turning them over to ICE. So that's why they're not captured on this report.

So maybe, especially during this particular time where everything is heightened, maybe I know this report meets the criteria that we asked for, but maybe there's an opportunity to further explain things in this report. that maybe gives a fuller picture to everyone, even if it's not required in the report, to put some information in there so that I know a number of people sort of asked, oh, wait a minute, we heard that this happened, but that's... That's an explanation that maybe didn't come to my head right away. It probably didn't come to a lot of other people. So in six months when we do this, maybe we can provide more information than what is just statutorily required. Councilor Wilson?

Thank you. Through you, Vice Mayor, I just had an add-on question to this point about that individual who was picked up after being released after making bail. Ice did call to inquire that this person was in our custody. So we knew that there was an inquiry.

Madam Commissioner.

Yes, through you, Vice Mayor, ICE did call our shift commander and asked if this person was in custody. and we said that we are not allowed to provide that information. They came out in front of our station, waited for the person to get bailed, which they did, and they picked him up then.

Okay, there's a lot going on in my head right now. And just in terms of if there is an inquiry, we have somebody in our custody, how can we give heads up? I don't know what responsibilities could we have in regards to there was an inquiry like that we know possibly they're outside ready to pick you up I mean could I don't know. Don't make bail right now. I don't know. Is there anything that we could perhaps say? And I don't know if this is even the right forum to be having that deep... And I don't think it is, right? Because I think that's going to put us in a different... So happy to sidebar it, but just I want us to be thinking about that, right? Like if it's possible for us to be mindful in that respect, please let's think about what that looks like. Thank you. Mr. Manager?

Through you, Vice Mayor, I think what you're expressing, Councilor Wilson, is what a lot of us feel. And how do we respond when we deeply disagree with the policy of the administration? and yet I think these are ultimately lawful actions. I wonder if City Solicitor Baer could maybe shed a little bit of light but I think we do want to be careful because There are really significant consequences to obstructing or helping someone essentially evade

Absolutely. And through you, Vice Mayor, I would not want to put us in that. So, Solicitor-Mayor, I'm okay with not going there. I yield. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, if there's nothing further, the question comes on placing both city manager agenda item number one and communication from other city officers number two on file on a motion by Councilor Wilson.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Tan, Toner, Wilson, Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We now move on to city manager agenda item number two, a communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to the appointment of Marnie Gale, and C. Dale Gatson, and the reappointment of Louie Bocci III, all for five-year terms to the Cambridge Housing Authority Board. This was pulled by Councilor Wilson. You have the floor.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you. I really pulled this because I had concerns based on the public comment that was shared, and through you, City Manager, if you have anything in terms of a response to what was said in public comment.

Mr. Manager. Sure, through you, Vice Mayor. Apologies that I think we didn't get the full process into the memo, but Ms. Gadsden's appointment to the tenant seat, was supported by the Alliance for Cambridge Tenants. The Alliance for Cambridge Tenants worked closely with the Housing Authority to publicize and ended up bringing forward seven candidates. Those seven candidates were interviewed. We had two finalists, one of which was Miss Dale Gadson, who is selected and that we're putting forward. So I believe we've actually followed the appropriate process in terms of filling the tenant seat on the board. This hasn't actually happened for a little while since we haven't had A tenant organization, but really appreciate ACT for collaborating. I know Bill Cunningham was here a little bit earlier, but I appreciate Wilson, then bringing forward these candidates, and I was excited to bring forward Ms. Gadson as an appointment.

No? Councilor Wilson?

Okay, I mean, yeah, I appreciate it. I just, there was definitely a need to pull with the concern that was raised in public comment. And so just, I think, yeah, I'll yield for now just to see if any of my other colleagues have any other thoughts here, but just, you know, I think it sounded like there was maybe some discrepancy with the process. but I want to appreciate obviously the support of the tenant council and you know sharing individuals but it just sounds like maybe there was a little bit of a discrepancy there so I just wanted to name that and try to discuss it if we could. Thank you, I yield.

Thank you. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. I just note that the action on here is vote to approve and place this CMA on file, and the memo itself says that these recommendations should be forwarded to the Housing Committee for public hearing as outlined in City Council Rule 32C and in accordance with MGL Chapter 121B. So is that what we're doing?

It could go committee and then back.

I just want to understand what we're voting on. I know the memo said that it would go to the housing committee.

Mr. Manager. Through you, Vice Mayor, I believe that the process as stipulated by the ordinance is that we, for the recommendations to the Housing Committee, and then it comes back. I do know that there was a request from Alanda Rosa, the chair of the Housing Authority who couldn't be here today and also Mike Johnson the Executive Director to, I believe we did this with the Cambridge Video Development Authority, but to suspend the rules to accept the appointments just because they are seeking to meet quorum requirements. As you can see, we've got two vacancies that we're filling at this point. And then certainly if there's a housing committee that would like to discuss this, that could also be scheduled. Thompson, and all.

Okay, the last sentence says, in accordance with MGL. So will we still be in compliance with MGL? I'm seeing the city solicitor say nod yes.

Madam Solicitor, you should probably just sit up here for the rest of the night. Just saying. Unless you're trying to get your steps in going back.

We're going to put a name tag on the seat.

I do appreciate the will to have a more diverse, particularly socioeconomically diverse group here and that these are before us and that there is a quorum. If it would be the recommendation and the will of this body, I could support a motion to do this quickly and then still have the housing committee review it. But I just, again, I did want to make sure Since it mentions both MGL and City Council rule number, we need to make sure we do this in appropriate fashion.

Madam Solicitor, any comments?

Through you Mr. Vice Mayor, I believe it is just our rules that require it to be referred to committee so if we suspend our rules we can go ahead and do that.

On a motion by Councilor Wilson to suspend rule number 32C.

Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Councilor Toner, Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

So what would you like to do, Councilor Nolan?

I'm now that the rules are suspended I'm happy to suggest that this recommendation be put in place pending without the need for any and and also afforded asking me for an eventual mean it what's the legal language that we would doing Let these recommendations be approved.

Approved and placed on file. And then we can refer it as well.

Then we can refer it, right. Because the original action was to approve and place on file. Right. So on approving and placing this matter on file and referring to the housing committee for a future hearing, roll call.

Azeem, Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Councilor Toner, Yes, Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We now move on to city manager agenda item number four, transmitting communication from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to the appropriation of $71,600 to the Grant Fund Water Department Other Ordinary Maintenance Account, 70,960 of that. and to the grant fund water department travel and training account, $640, funds will be used to convene a technical advisory group, TAG, which will consist of representatives from watershed communities Lexington, Lincoln, Weston, and Waltham, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, MassDOT, Larger commercial property owners, Cambridge Water Department staff, and other interested parties. This was pulled by Councilor Zusy. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair McGovern. Again, I'm so glad we got this grant, and I'm glad you're working on this with our neighbors in Lexington, Lincoln, Weston, and Waltham, because It is concerning how much salt is in our water and how it corrodes our pipes and we certainly don't want to be replacing more pipes than we have to, right? And I was just sort of shocked at how much salt was in the water in comparison to the MWRA water supply. I wanted to ask whether MassDOT is part of the study group. I was looking at the map, and I hadn't realized that the Hobb-Brooks Reservoir is so close to 95 and Costco in Route 2, so it's really close to a lot of big roads. So is MassDOT part of it? And then I just wanted to hear more about brine.

Is brine working as part of the goal to encourage all these communities to use brine instead of salt when there are icy roads? Through you, Chairman Covern.

Yes, through you, Vice Mayor. So to answer your question, yes, we have letters of support from all of the surrounding towns in the watershed. also MassDOT, whom we've been working with for, you know, At least two decades on salt reduction in because of, you know, in the 20s and 30s, they built the highway right, literally cuts our Stony Brook Reservoir right in half. Initially, the DOT's response when we asked for salt reduction was, when icy roads happen, we have an acute problem where people Crash can be injured or even cause death. So they were reluctant at first, but we've worked with them. New technologies have come out as you had just mentioned.

The brine, our superintendent of streets here for the city of Cambridge, we've implemented, he and his staff have implemented a Brian program, as most cities and towns have started to do. But yes, that's one of the areas we're going to look at with this technical advisory group at encouraging using Brian and things like that. So the DOT is doing the best they can. We've also, on their highway construction, have started to build drainage basins that collect the salt. and collect contaminants off the roadway and prevent them from getting into our reservoirs, which helps. You know, as you stated about Costco, you know, like Cambridge, that area on Long One, 2895, in our watershed has seen tremendous growth. over the past decade or so.

And a lot of those, because it was open space, were large commercial properties with large impervious surfaces that had been put in. Typically, in the wintertime, because they want to make it safe for people to walk and drive into their property, they, of course, load it up with salt. Part of the goal of this grant is to develop that technical advisory group. MassDOT, Charles River Watershed Association, Boston Properties, DCR, and some other businesses out that way. that have given us letter support and have at least initially agreed to be part of the process. So that's part of what this grant is for, is for us to do that and then develop a program

A mitigation plan, so study where the concentrations of salts are coming from, if we can, and then to help develop mitigation strategies and plans that we can then present in a report to the Mass DEP. with the hopes of eventually, you know, this is for the study, the 604B grants are for the study, and hopefully we can find Places that we can take some action or at least do some work and eventually we hope to apply for their Section 319 grant which would actually Give us funding to take some action on salt mitigation.

Through you, Chairman McGovern, sounds great and very important. So thank you for being on this. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you.

I wouldn't have talked about this except someone else pulled it, but I'm very excited about it, as we all know. Doesn't mean you have to talk about it, Councilor. Because there is an important part of this, which is this body has often talked about the fact that MWI water, the chlorides in our system, it's not that it's not safe and meet the standards. but it is something we hear about consistently particularly from cafes and other folks with equipment that it is because of the high chloride content that there is often less useful life for many appliances and for Coffee Baristas, it's been a real problem and folks have come here to talk about it. So this sounds like it's going to be one of the steps in addressing that which is Really important for us to move forward on. Is this something that we have any sense that other

Cities across the snow belt have actually managed to address and to decrease significantly the number of chlorides because as they come into our water supply, it's something that is going to be very challenging for us to address if we don't have other solutions.

Through you, Vice Mayor. Yes, as I was stating earlier, most cities and towns locally have started to adapt the brine solution, the pretreatment of the roads, which Cuts down on the buildup of the snow and ice on the road, which allows for then reducing the amount of deicing salts that are needed to be put down during the storms themselves. It is definitely becoming more popular and most cities and towns are adopting that. Councilor Nolan.

Because if we do that, then you won't get cranky me every once in a while or other people saying, hey, let's just switch to NWI water all the time, which is certainly something we have talked about as we move forward. Also, is there any correlation with the fact that we are seeing an increasing number of droughts? The concentration of the water means that the chloride will likely continue to go up. So is that factored into our discussions for the technical advisory group, if that makes sense? We know, I'm not sure where Hobsbrook is today, but we've seen increasing number of droughts, even as we see increasing extreme weather events.

Yes, through you, Vice Mayor. Yes, absolutely. And in fact, that's in the description. One of the things we will absolutely be talking about is how Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. A lot of the salt is actually coming through groundwater when we have groundwater intrusion as well so it's coming from the surrounding areas which obviously becomes more concentrated Thank you very much.

We're getting off track. This is about appropriating the money. So if we can get back. on track on that. Anything further? No questions about appropriating the money. So on a motion by Councilor Zusy on the appropriation and placing the matter on file, roll call.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Councilor Toner, yes, Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

All right, we now move on to city manager agenda item number six, transmitting communication from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to the appropriation of $993,123 to the Grant Fund Office of Sustainability Extraordinary Expenditures Account to support the creation of a resilience hub at the Cambridge Community Center. The funding provided through this grant will allow for the procurement and installation of the necessary infrastructure and equipment. Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Chair McGovern. I'm just absolutely thrilled about this. I think the Cambridge Community Center had each of us meet with them and spoke with us. Yeah, I think the community center had each of us meet with them and speak to us about the importance of this project and it does seem as though it's great that the city worked with the community center to maybe acquire this grant. So I understand, so they got a million dollars through sort of Ayanna Pressley, I think, and $150,000 from the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. With this money, will they have the money to completely implement their plans and create their resiliency hub? And that's through you, Chair McGovern, to the city manager or deputy city manager. I'm just wondering, will they be able to complete the job?

Deputy City Manager.

Through you, Vice Mayor, I think Julie is online. Julie Wormser? I am. Thank you so much. Through you, Vice Mayor, the short answer is this is the funding that the community center needs to put in Solar, and Battery Storage. There is more that the center will need to do in terms of HVAC, electric kitchen, more weatherization, But we are continuing to work with them on fundraising and support from the Cambridge River Development Authority. So it is a team effort. It's modular, so they now have the funds to complete this part of the project. But the overall project's more like $4.5 million for a total overhaul of the building. which will make it resilient and energy efficient and net zero.

Thank you so much for that update. I just think since we are relying on the community center to be our resilience hub, Anyway, I'm just really happy to hear how closely you're working with them to achieve this goal because it will be significant for the overall city. Thank you so much.

Pleasure to counsel. Wilson. Seeing none. Oh, Councilor

Sorry, thank you. I want to appreciate that this was able to be worked out and through you, Mr. Vice Mayor. You know, this is something that we have been talking about for quite some time, so I appreciate Mrs. Warmster I love you. I'm sorry about that. For just sharing, again, the additional concerns that are needed to be done in order to fulfill The goals here for the community center to be up and running and also the partnership in terms of helping and supporting you know identifying additional grants funding and things in order for that to happen so I just appreciate just the naming and also just seeing this be here tonight because it was definitely a surprise when I read the agenda last week So that's all I have to say. Thank you, IU.

Thank you. Anything further? No. So the question comes on the appropriation and placing the matter on file. I want to motion by Councilor Zusy. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We now move on to city manager agenda item number seven, a communication transmitted from Mian Wang, city manager, relative to a waiting report item 25-20 regarding incentive zoning nexus study. This was pulled by Councilor Toner. Councilor Toner. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just a couple of basic questions. When I read over this report, first, I've always had difficulty completely understanding the nexus between building big labs and big office buildings and then what that means for affordable housing because generally, at least my assumption is, A lot of the people that came and worked in those buildings are the types that are making 100, 120, 150,000. might not actually qualify for affordable housing. And so what exactly is the nexus between building High-end office and lab space or commercial space and the need for more affordable housing. Who wants it? Mr. Cotter.

through you, Vice Mayor McGovern. So the study, we assume that the study will follow the same methodology that we've used the last two studies. In the 2019 study, looked at projected new development in the city over the course of five to ten years and looked at the types of jobs that we would expect to find in that development. and you're right a lot of the development that was projected included labs and offices with jobs that were expected to be higher income jobs but there are also a good number of jobs that are What we call lower middle skill jobs for which job training could be helpful for helping folks access the jobs and for Income ranges where workers would qualify for affordable housing. So the report looked at that and projected out the number of jobs

expected to be in that development modeling and after development that we had seen, looked at the number of employees, the types of jobs, the income there, and then determined the number of housing units of different types at different income levels that would be needed to house folks that would be in need of affordable housing in those new buildings and then quantify that up to work it back to a rate that would be the contribution rate that would be necessary to fund the local portion of the cost of building that affordable housing.

Thank you. Just to follow up on that. So you use who's going to be working in the building to figure out the possible need or number of affordable housing units. But it doesn't mean people working in those buildings would necessarily get those affordable housing units and be open to everybody on the market for an affordable housing unit.

That's correct, through you, Vice Mayor McGovern. Incentive provisions allow for monetary contributions to be made to the Affordable Housing Trust to be used to promote or fund affordable housing in the city, and those funds could be used for any variety of things so long as they're consistent with the purpose of the NEXA study and promoting the need of affordable housing. So certainly 52 New Street could be an example where Justice Starks just received more than 2,000 applications for housing. portion of the funding there came from the Affordable Housing Trust. So certainly in that group of applicants could be applicants that are working in some of the new buildings that have made incentive contributions over the last several years.

Thanks. The other question I had was, in here it talks about doing employee surveys, and I wasn't sure when you talked about the employee surveys, are those the Employees that work in the companies that have built the new buildings, or is this just an employee survey of all the employees of Cambridge, no matter where they work?

Mr. Carter. Through you, Vice Mayor McGovern. Good question, and the survey would be of existing employees to understand how employees that are accepting jobs in Cambridge are thinking about housing. How many folks accept a job in Cambridge then desire to move to Cambridge to get a sense as to what the proportion of workers that are working in Cambridge would be looking for housing and potentially could be in need of affordable housing to understand what that proportion would be. The 2019 study did not include that survey. The survey was last done in 2015 and we noted it because it's an important component to do now given changes that we've seen in employment and patterns over the last several years.

And I'm sorry, just to clarify, because I wasn't sure if I understood. So are they employees in the bio-meds and bio-gens and the... Is it that sector of the world or is it also employees that are working in our local hotels and restaurants and other businesses?

It's a good question. I don't know that I can get into that level of detail, but I think that the survey would be looking at folks across a variety of sectors in buildings that would approximate the type of development that we would project to see in the next several years.

Thank you. And one last question, Mr. Chair, through you is just this, I don't know, the way it's written, it kind of just assumes we will have linkage fee or linkage fee may stay the same or go up. And I'm just curious, Does our current economic situation and the vacancy rates and everything, does that factor into this future study in terms of should we not get rid of linkage fee, Maybe to encourage people to build something, we go back down to $20 or something. Will that be part of the discussion?

Yes, so the study will look at the anticipated development over several years and will certainly take into consideration what we're seeing now in the market and project that out and obviously if things are I know the discussion earlier about the commercial development and new growth in the study, and I expect that we would look at this again. One of the considerations for the recommendations that come from the consultant team would be looking at competitiveness and looking at the regional context for these types of exactions. So we would expect that the consultant would model development based upon the current climate or the climate in place in 26 when we expect the study to be underway. And then that would come back with information that could be different than what we see. Thank you I yield.

Thank you, Chair McGovern. I'm just thrilled that you'll be hiring this out, that this study will be in process soon and out in the fall of 26. So I wondered, as part of the study, will there be some analysis done of existing job programs and what sort of money we might need for our job programs? And my other question is, will it also analyze current housing demand for low-, middle-, and high-income units? Through you, Chair McGovern.

Mr. Cotter? Thank you. Through you, Vice Mayor McGovern. To your questions, Councilor Zusy, the report itself won't necessarily look at the full universe of job training. programs, but certainly city staff would be able to provide that and can be referenced in the discussion because it is relevant. The report would be looking to the established the basis for creating a jobs training linkage requirement and what the funds would be kind of in the same way that the housing contribution would be derived. So literally looking at more of the The need for job training based upon employment targets in those new buildings with jobs that are in that low to middle skill. And then looking at the demand, I think you were asking about the existing demand of housing compared to the demand from new developments. So the study will be looking at the demand

for affordable housing generated from new development because that's where we're looking to make the link to establish the nexus to be able to have that contribution required of new development. Looking at demand for housing more broadly gets a little bit more difficult to establish the clear basis and link between new development and the broader implications in the housing market.

Yeah, understood. And then one other question is, so you, on page... It's also 32. You provide a conceptual example of how the linkage fees might vary depending upon the size of projects and I just wondered Do you think that could incentivize smaller projects? Are you worried about that at all? Through you, Chair McGovern.

Mr. Cotter. Through you, Vice Mayor Govern. So I think it's hard to say at this point what the potential impact of a number of the potential changes that we would ask a consultant to model might be. I think what we wanted to do is just note some of the things that we recall from the discussion the last time The council considered the incentive provisions and note affirmatively that we would expect the study to look at some of those and to give some examples of those just so that you're aware of the approach that we plan to take the study. The example you noted on page four is really just kind of a simple example to show how a marginal fee might look. This is not intended to be suggestive of what we expect the outcome to be or how that approach would be, but more just to say, If there were such a marginal fee that would change based upon the size of the project, this is one way that it could look, just to be clear about what we mean when we're describing a marginal fee approach.

Councilor Zusy.

Thank you so much. Again, just a final comment. Anyway, I think it's great this study is going to happen. I am worried about our high linkage fee. I think like Councilor Toner said, may have suggested some concern. It is $36.36 per square foot now. When in Somerville, it's $22.46. In Boston, It's $30.78 for lab and $23.09 for other. And in Watertown, it's $11.50. So we really don't want to... Thank you. Thank you.

I would like there to be a better evaluation of existing programs and how we can What's working, what isn't working, and how we can work more effectively before we add more money to our current linkage fee. Thank you so much.

I have Councilor Azeem and then Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. I guess from last time in this conversation, you can guess what my comments will be. But I just wanted to say, I think that besides what the exact number is, what's most important to me is that we have like a continuous function or a marginal rate, right? I think that this is the same way that income taxes work, where if someone is building 99,999 square feet at $20 a square feet, they're going to pay $2 million-ish. and if they add like five extra square feet they're going to pay two and a half million so no there's going to be a dead zone in every situation where you have that jump unless that jump is just for the additional square feet And so just to say that more than what the specific number is, it would really be nice to not incentivize dead zones in development. And I think that that's something that's fairly simple to do if that's what the design of the study. And I think that that's really important.

Besides that, I don't have many other comments except to say that I struggle a little bit with nexus studies sometimes because They're based on what we would like to get out, but not on what we miss out. I think that Nexus linkage fees are fairly low, that they don't actually inhibit commercial development, in my opinion. So I'm not really worried about it, but it does make me... It does leave us in a tough place where we always do is like what do we want out of development but not like what do we miss if it doesn't happen in terms of taxes or other sorts of stuff. So I just wanted to say that but I think that you know Linkage for all, you know, is fairly low cost in terms of all the development, especially for commercials. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but did want to mention that. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. I appreciate the timeline. I'm really just following, and I appreciate the work that we throw on you to come up with all these memos, which are extensive and comprehensive. Following up on the marginal rate structure, can you explain how it would be even possible to do that if a nexus study is meant to be straight up the impact on a city of the need for affordable housing. If my building of 100,000 square feet versus 300,000 square feet, why would there be any difference in terms of the need for affordable housing if it's straight up based on the number of Low to moderate income workers who need housing.

Mr. Carter. Thank you, through you, Vice Mayor Govern. So the NEXUS study, I think the way to think of it is establishing We'll do that to determine that. And then some of the The discussion that we would expect with the study would likely be around some of the policy tradeoffs that would come within setting policy, setting rates within that upper limit. So you think of the existing provisions which allow for exemptions for projects that are under 60,000 square feet. It's not to say that they don't have an impact, but the council made a choice to exempt A certain amount of flora for those developments.

And so within the upper limit that is established by the NEXA study, there are some policy trade-offs or considerations that the council could discuss. And I think what we want to do in the study is just Build them in so that they're clear so that we're giving some ability for the council to have that discussion at that point in time to understand if there are policy trade-offs that the council would like to consider to as was noted with the marginal rate to not have a dead zone where there's a difference in payment or to not have certain types of development that are more difficult to expect to see given what the approach is. The other ones that we included in here, again, just to look at, not to say that this is what we expect We want the recommendation to be, but we want the study to think about, again, looking at variation of rates by location. We did that in the 2019 study. We talked about that.

make that that choice but we think it's important it came up on the discussion and then also to look at variations in rate but potentially by use that would be probably more difficult and that might be more of a policy choice the council would have to make because if we look at the Impact on the need for affordable housing and the funding that would be needed to create that affordable housing. Some of the uses are lower value uses, retail or restaurant compared to say office or lab. So if we establish the rate, the idea would be then we could look at ways in which the council could then have the discussion in setting the rate or setting the policy based upon that information from the study.

Thanks. I think I still have to understand it more because I would think if I'm having a restaurant, I'm going to have a way higher percentage of folks who are in the low to moderate income than if I have a lab. It seems to me that's what the rates should be based on and I understand that what you're saying is we would set, the study would come back with here's the most you can charge and then we can vary it within that based on size. That seems to me to go against some of what I've heard from our solicitor about the requirement to treat all properties exactly the same. So that's why I'm just struggling. I don't know if we have an answer tonight, but those are the kinds of things presumably we'll discuss, but I think it's really important for At least I didn't understand all that.

So just to clarify and to be clear, what we do with the study, we'll be doing it in coordination with the study solicitor's office and make sure that everything we're doing is I'm happy to be corrected, but I think that that is the approach that we're hoping to do with this to create more of a A situation where we can talk about some of these things that have been built into the study.

I have a couple questions if nobody else, other councilors know. So just, you know, I just want to point out that, you know, we just had a budget hearing and we talked a lot about how Kendall Square is struggling and how that impacts what we can do and what we can't do and residential tax rates and everything else. We do have to be mindful when we add more and more fees to construction, the impact that that has. And I don't know if this would be relevant to this particular report, But, I mean, I have mentioned this before and I think maybe it was a year or so ago that we did get a report from CDD about all the different things that we require for development and the costs of those, right? We tend to look at these things in isolation, and we say, okay, we want to raise the linkage fee because we want as much money as possible going to the Affordable Housing Trust, and I'm on board with all of that.

But then you look at, okay, how does that fit with these 12 other things, all good things themselves? adding more and more and more cost. And I think, clearly these developers have, these folks who build these buildings and own these buildings have a whole lot more money and all of us in this room combined times 100, but their margins on some of these projects aren't actually as large as people think. People think they're making an 80% profit margin. That's not how it actually works out. Everything that we do and every additional expense that we put on just sort of chips away. at that and whether or not they're going to move forward or they're going to go to Watertown at 11 bucks, right? And Watertown is seeing quite a bit of lab development there.

you know it is just it is always something we have to balance and keep in mind especially during these financial times and then I would just say on the The types of workers, I think when we think of someone who works in a lab, we're thinking of someone who's making $200,000 a year or someone who works at Google or whatever. There's a lot of other jobs in those buildings and in those companies that aren't making that money. So a lab technician They might earn $60,000 to $70,000 a year. That is someone who's going to qualify for inclusionary. A security guard, somebody working on the custodial staff. So I think sometimes when we talk about When we try to make the connection between housing and Kendall Square and these jobs, people think, oh, look at all these people working in these buildings are all making a ton of money and they're ruining the city and they're doing this. It's a lot of people who work in those jobs that aren't Thank you.

Thank you. on a motion by Councilor Toner to place the matter on file. Roll call.

Azeem, Vice-Mayor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Toner, Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We now move on to City Manager Agenda Item Number 8, a communication transmitted from Yan Wang, City Manager, relative to the Zero Emissions Transportation Plan Report I'll just also note while we get into this discussion, we will have to do six roll calls. So keep that in mind. Councilor Nolan, you got the floor.

Thank you. I'd like to, before we discuss this, suspend the rules to bring forth, take off the table. There's a memo I had put on directly related to this report, and then we held off discussing it in order to Allow this report to come before us. It is on the table, item number six under the calendar.

Okay, so the first thing we need to do is suspension of the rules. And then we have to take a vote on taking it off the table. So on suspension.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Tan, Toner, Wilson, Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

On taking unfinished business number six, a communication was received from Councilor Nolan Transmitting a report on the Cambridge Zero Emission Transportation Plan. This was placed on the table September 15, 2025. I'm taking that matter off of the table and bringing it forward. Roll call.

Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Yes, Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Both matters are now before us for discussion. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, Chairman McGovern. I'm happy to talk about my memo and how it interfaces with this, or I'm not sure if the city staff wants to give us an introduction to it. It's really up to...

I'm seeing head shaking, so take it away.

Just wanted to make sure, because this is a really exciting plan. I really want to thank, I think, many people in addition to the ones at the table here before us. Both, and Traffic Planner, right? Is that your title now, Stephanie?

Assistant Commissioner for Transportation Planning.

The plan before us, the Cambridge Zero Emissions Transportation Plan, is a first ever for the city. and it represents a tremendous amount of work over I think the course of a year and a half or so of a task force that was set up specifically. It started out as the Net Zero Transportation Plan with the idea that we had a Net Zero Action Plan and that was really focused on buildings and we needed one for transportation. Even though it only represents 8% of our citywide emission pollution, it's a really critical part of so many of our goals for health and safety. The reason I'm excited to have this move forward is that we've, again, talked about it for a number of years. In the memo that I wrote, which I did in conjunction with the staff and know about this, The Zero Emission Transportation Plan is the culmination of work of a task force of a broad range of people. What we did when we had the hearing on this plan, the draft plan on the health and environment, Committee earlier this year in February, we reviewed an early draft of the plan.

And as part of the meeting, what we did was talk about ways that we might think that it should be updated since this will basically become the policy document for the city. We want one place where everything is there for people to look at instead of looking at three different or many different items. What we did since that February 24th meeting was the staff work to incorporate SMART goals in a number of areas because we know that if you have specific measurable I really appreciate the staff A number of smart goals, which we can go over if we want, but I think they're pretty important. They track travel mode, improvements to access to public transportation, blue bikes, metrics for car travel, EV adoption, and the targets will really allow for better oversight.

What I wanted to point out and what I hope that the Council will approve, which is in the memo that we all have had on the agenda since September 15th, is that in addition to the goals and initiatives already in the document, The city council itself has discussed some of this over the past year since the task force finished its work. So in order to have a complete and comprehensive plan, it makes sense, I think, to include a couple of the council goals, which include The Citywide Shuttle and Transit Gap Study and to include all of our work that we've been doing as a council on expanding fare free programs or really have that be part of the plan and the hope for in this document. And then there's a second one on improving safety and access for micromobility modes has also been an important transportation initiative of this council. The staff has worked with the state commission on this.

The idea would be, and I would love to know, I don't know if it's the solicitor or the staff, I would love to pass the plan tonight, except to say it's with the proviso of incorporating those elements that the council has. In a future document, I'm not sure if it has to come back to the council. I would trust the staff to incorporate those. And if there's any other initiatives that this council wants to include, now's the time. But I think those are two of the ones that are really important for this council for us to make sure that are in the final policy document.

Thank you. And before we go to the city, Maybe I'm getting a little cross-eyed the way my notes are written out. We don't have six votes on this particular one. It's one vote. But the way my agenda read it, I read it wrong, so I just put the fear into our clerk scrambling, what six votes are you talking about? Sorry.

We have to vote on every word.

Yes. My apology. Anyone from the city? Response? Comment? Councilor Nolan's points.

Zusy, through you, Vice Mayor, we are happy to incorporate the points that you made in the communication and they make a very good addition to the plan.

Councilor Zusy.

Yeah, thank you through you, Chair McGovern. I just wanted to echo what Councilor Nolan said. I think it's an extraordinary plan and very, very comprehensive. So I thank you for all of your work. I had a few comments. One is I felt like your discussion of community engagement was really great. You've engaged a very diverse group. but it seems like to me as though it would make sense to engage neighbors that are impacted by congestion as well. Like I'm thinking about on Putnam Avenue, Granite Street, North Mass Ave. It seems like they should be part of planning for the transportation plan as well because We hear from them all the time, and I'm sure you do too. So it seems like engaging residents from around the community that are impacted by congestion and curb congestion would be a good idea.

Anyway, I thought you had so many good ideas. I'm hoping that the city's Safe Routes to School program is in all of our schools. I don't know if it is or not, but I thought you had great ideas for reducing car ownership, and I wish we could encourage universities to discourage students from bringing cars. I know we can't tell them not to bring cars but it seems like we could encourage them and say that this is a pretty much car-free city or we're trying to become a car-free city. I wish we could reduce parking permits to one per person or two per household and I wish we could encourage more car shares and rentals and neighborhoods for weekend getaways because that would really reduce the need for cars.

And as I've been meeting with neighbors, I was meeting with neighbors LBJ Apartments. They were really concerned with a lot of people are buying micro mobility devices, which is great, but other neighbors are really freaked out by having the devices with lithium batteries in their buildings because they feel like they're a fire So maybe there would be some way that we can extend the plan also or augment the plan to consider creating or incentivizing apartment buildings to create safe storage facilities outside for those micro mobility devices Anyway, I think it's great all that you're doing to make Cambridge greater for cycling. And I was just looking at, again, numbers in Montreal, a place I hope to get this summer, but I never got there.

But in Montreal, apparently 50% of the population cycles at some point, and over 13% are regularly using the bike for transport needs, and it's a lot colder in Montreal than it is here. So I realize that that's where you're hoping that we're going to go, that over time as we make cycling even safer and easier to do, that more and more people will be cycling. Someone had mentioned to me that we need to make our buses cleaner and to feel more safe because they were saying when they'd ridden the bus recently there were Thank you for joining us today. Cambridge Access and Mobility Plan, that coming soon.

Anyway, I just want you to remember cars. One of the things I learned from your report on page 46 was that there actually, I thought there were 42 things. Azeem, Cohen, Wilson, Zern, Zusy, Cambridge, Councilor We really need to figure out how to accommodate them at least until I was at the mobility lecture at MIT on Friday, and they're saying autonomous vehicles, shared autonomous vehicles are the future. And when they come to inhabit Cambridge, there'll be much less congestion on our roads and on our curbs.

So I don't know if that's the real future or not, but I hope so, if it'll help ease congestion both places. Anyway, I thank you so much for your work, and I think this is a great plan for the future. I thank you.

Nolan.

Just to remind us all, we did the same thing with the Net Zero Action Plan that the Council did, adjusted a little bit, and then you might want to make a note in the intro that the Council then added the SMART goals and added a few things because That's fine. I think the motion then would be to... Oh, does someone else want to talk?

I think the motion is just to place on file. They heard the...

Well, to place on file and direct the staff to incorporate the changes per the memo.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Wilson.

Are we moving to a vote? I would like to say a few things.

So the clerk is suggesting we just place the matter on file. They will add it, because otherwise we'll have to amend and do all that. So I'm placing the matter on file on a motion by Councilor Nolan. Roll call. Two items. Right. No, she was going to just call the question.

Oh, you want to talk?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were wanting to call the question. My fault. Councilor Wilson.

Thank you. Thank you. And apologies for any confusion. I know it's getting a little late, but thank you. I want to also appreciate the very in-depth Plan here and really just be mindful of the changes from the last time we looked at this work. Obviously, prior to my tenure and just really thinking about kind of how we are moving as a city and just what does mobility actually look like for our neighbors, for our city staff, for our visitors and everything. and so I think there is a lot that's being captured here but one thing that I'm not actually seeing is if there is any financial Needs, in terms of what the next several years or even decades may look like, what financial implications might we be anticipating as we move towards this Cambridge Zero Emissions Transportation Plan?

Who wants it? Don't all jump at once.

I guess I ask because I can't imagine that we would be going into this with no thoughts around just financial implications, right? There will be costs. to implementing these things across the board. And so what are the costs that we're projecting and seeing over these next several years and decades?

So through you.

And if you don't, maybe if they don't have the numbers now, because we're just placing this on file, maybe if they don't have the numbers now, they can come back to us with that.

I mean, yes, that would be sure. That would be ideal. I guess, for me, it's always important that if we do have something like this and we're considering plans that those plans do come with numbers, right? Because I think it's really hard to adopt a plan without being considerate of what the numbers are to those plans because oftentimes we talk about, Well, in that Envision Zero plan, you know, we want to do X, Y, and Z, but never thought about what the cost was to actually implement the plan. So I just feel like it's a little bit backwards to adopt a plan without being mindful I just really want to name that and think about that as we move forward because, again, these costs for everything that we do, especially as we just had earlier in this conversation, a big talk about what we cannot do. and how we need to be mindful financially. And again, these are great ideas, but these ideas will come to dollars. And so...

I'm happy to pause that, but I just want us to be really mindful of it.

Maybe you do have the answer judging by the fact that nobody jumped at the mic, I'm assuming.

and through you Mr. Chair. So as you'll see further into the report I think Concretely on page 49, you'll see there's some specific short-term actions that are described and the time horizon for those is one to two years. These are things that are already in sort of the planning framework and things that the Department of Transportation in particular is working on. So we can try to pull those out in terms of their costs, but these are things that are sort of in the... We're certainly happy to bring back some more thoughts about what it might look like over the longer term.

Thank you. Through you, Vice Mayor, I think that it's just important, right? We have to be able to have that transparency, like everybody talks about how we have transparency at the table, and to adopt a plan without actual numbers is not being transparent in my opinion. And I think it gives me a little bit of reservation because again, I think there are a lot of things that we are able to do really great. But then what does that mean when we can't, I don't know, keep a shelter open or give families $500 a month, but yet we want to identify what... you know zero emissions transportation plan looks like and making sure that we fund that but not knowing what the dollar is to fund it so I just want us to be very Intentional with how we move forward in our planning.

And I think as we come up with SMART goals and all the steps and levels of SMART goals, when we're trying to be specific, Specifically, it's also thinking about dollar-wise. What does it mean to get to that place? So I appreciate what has been shared here. I also appreciate the folks who are on the board, the advisory board. A lot of these names I know and a lot of people who I trust. West, and the community to really be a representative of even me, my voice, my thoughts, and members of the community who we all represent, but who I think I really personally represent. So I appreciate seeing their voices here. And I really do look forward to how we continue to have these conversations across the board. Yeah, so I feel like I had to name that and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. One additional thing that I have in terms of a conversation is, and I think this goes back to the community engagement piece, is

Specifically, how are you all using the voices of the people who are at the table, but in the greater sense of the community? So what does that look like on the ground for your community engagement?

Wilson, are you asking what does that look like in this plan or in the future?

Have we done any of the community engagement specifically to this plan that we have thus far? Any just preliminary first steps of engaging the greater community?

Through you, Vice Mayor. I'm sorry, do you mean the Cambridge Access and Mobility Plan or this plan?

This plan here.

Okay. We did... We did engagement in many different ways that we haven't done before. reached out in 50 different focus groups, community meetings, individual interviews, visiting the... I'm sorry, the committees. As you saw, we have an advisory group that We guided every step of the plan. So before we even got to the goals of the plan, we came to them with the initial idea that we need to eliminate transportation emissions and through conversations with them and relationship building. We added three other goals to the plan to make sure that it really represented what people need in their lives. Excuse me.

And we... What else did we do? We had large community meetings at the Senior Center and online. We made sure that we worked with the community engagement team from the very start to make sure that we were engaging communities that are often underheard and underrepresented and historically excluded. We worked with the... with the Office of Language Justice to make sure that we had good Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And also for anybody that's looking at the plan, that is on page 20 and 21. So I just want to thank you for reiterating. Yeah, I think, again, this is a good plan and it's important for us to be thoughtful of what plans look like across our city as we remain and work towards becoming even more of a walkable. A walkable city recognizing that there are people who do drive cars and need to drive cars as well as there are 2,000 plus employees that are coming into our city or You know, just moving around our city and just being mindful of how they need to move around and what they need and how can they do that in the most efficient way possible. while we are still trying to work towards the goals that we have set forth. So thank you, IU. Thank you.

Anything further? Seeing none, the question comes on placing on file city manager agenda item number eight and calendar item number six on a motion by Councilor Nolan, roll call.

Azeem, Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Councilor Toner, Yes, Councilor Wilson, Yes, Yes, Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. We now move on to policy orders. Pleasure of the council. Mr.

Chair, number one.

Nolan.

Yeah, I think number five.

Four and six, please.

So that leaves two and three. Okay. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

So two and three have not been pulled. On items two and three, roll call.

Councilor Azeem? Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. We now move to policy order number one, that the city manager is requested to work with the Department of Public Works, the Department of Public Health, and any relevant environmental consultants to provide a comprehensive report on Gold Star Mothers Memorial Park. This was filed by Mayor Simmons, myself, and Councilor Toner. Councilor Toner pulled the item. Mayor Simmons, you are the lead sponsor. Would you like to speak to this first?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I offered this policy order, and I thank my colleagues, you and Councilor Toner, for supporting me in this. I had a conversation with some families that are in the affected area where they brought up their concerns about the safety of the park, but also their concerns about what we were doing around decontamination. And so this is just, the council saying to the city manager this is an important issue to families please look at it come back with a plan of action but also let parents know families know what we're doing so I don't want to make this a long discussion it's very Simple, the policy order is self-explanatory by asking the city to do their due diligence in making sure that our park is safe and our parks are safe.

I did talk to the city manager and the deputy city manager and they said they have already done some work on this so we'll probably hear about Gold Star Mothers Park first and then they will follow up with looking at other parks in the city. I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am very supportive of the policy order, but I do have a substitute With some amendments based on some feedback we got from deputy city manager Watkins and the city manager just for some clarity to address some of the concerns they have with the original So I know copies have been handed out and if Ms. Stefan has it for the screen.

Can we get that on the screen, please?

I don't think this loses what Mayor Simmons had just said. It's going to bring us the information, update us on the work that's going on at Gold Star, and also talk to us and report back to us about How the city goes about looking into other open spaces, what triggers environmental testing, and when was the most recent environmental testing done in some of these other parks. So I hope people will be supportive of this substitute motion.

Councilor Zuzi?

Thank you, Chairman McGovern. I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor, please.

And I would think, I won't speak for the mayor, but given that I was part of the original policy order, I'd also like to be on the substitute to that pass. Mayor Simmons, would you like to be on the... Any comments on the substitute or...

I'm fine. We did talk about this. Thank you, Councilor Toner, for bringing it forward. I do believe it still keeps with the spirit and the intent of the order.

And would you like to be added, Madam Mayor?

Yes.

Any concerto?

I did not mean to interrupt the order of, so the mayor should be listed at the top on the final document, so.

I'll just add you so he's going to keep his hands down. Okay, he's going to keep the same sponsors. Yeah. So, any other discussion? Councilor Wilson.

Okay.

Are we going to have the entire City Council?

Yeah, if we can do that, Mr. Chair. I think that at the end of the day, our parks are spaces where our young people play, where our seniors, where everybody goes. You're either walking dogs or you're just hanging out and having a good time so we want to ensure that our spaces are safe and that we are doing the necessary testing and cleaning and just making sure that these are Definitely spaces where if there are any notifications around contaminations that we act really fast and urgently in order to shut down a park and remedy any of those spaces that we need to. Again, as a mother of a young child, I frequent a lot of parks throughout our city, and it's

A lot of this stuff often gives me a lot of pause and reservation about where I go and what does that look like and mean, because I want to make sure that we're in safe spaces, but I don't think you don't know what you don't know until you learn, and that could possibly be too late. So I just want to make sure that we're acting where urgency, and I do believe that this speaks to that. So not only for Gold Star Mothers Park, but just other parks across our city.

Thank you. Mayor Simmons, your hand is up on screen. Is that from before?

No, this is a new one. I just wanted to add, Councilor Siddiqui, if she was so inclined, I know that she did have an opportunity to talk to these parents at one point. So I don't know if we're making it... Everybody or whoever?

I think we're doing everybody.

Should ask if it's added. So I just wanted to say that. I yield the floor.

Okay. So we have to accept the substitution. Then we have to amend the substitution to add everyone, and then we have to adopt the substitution as amended. Okay, so on accepting the substitution, roll call.

Azeem, Vice-Mayor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Toner, Councilor Wilson, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Simmons, Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

On amending the order to include all nine city councillors, roll call. Councillor Azeem.

Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

On the policy order as amended. By substitution. By substitution.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Councilor Toner, yes, Councilor Wilson, yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Okay. We now move on to policy order number four, that the city manager is requested to work with relevant staff... to ensure that the zoning code relating to institutional use regulation is in compliance with state law. This was filed by Councilor Zusy, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Toner, and Councilor Wilson. Councilor Zusy, you pulled the order and you're the lead. You have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman McGovern. So we had a neighborhood and long-term planning meeting about this, and this is the way forward, alignment. Aligning our city law with state law is the first step, but just the first step. The next step will be to meet with institutional partners and neighborhood leaders to craft new protections for our residential neighborhoods. We do want universities to be able to build housing for their students while not encroaching on neighborhoods and in displacing residents. But fences make good neighbors. So anyway, it's great to proceed with the first thing, which is to Align ourselves with state law and then to proceed with conversations with our institutional colleagues and neighborhoods.

to figure out how we can best regulate institutional use to protect neighborhoods while encouraging universities to produce housing going forward. Thank you. I yield.

Pleasure to counsel. Councilor Azeem.

Totally in support of this policy order. I just had one small comment, which is just that as we just remind ourselves, like institutional use, yes, includes MIT and Harvard, because they're the big nonprofit uses, but it includes all nonprofit educational uses are treated the same, including daycares. and, you know, the same regulations that we put MIT and Harvard to are the same regulations we hold our daycares accountable for. So I just wanted to say that. But I think this policy order itself on the merits is good.

Thank you. Pleasure to counsel. No, nothing else on adopting the order. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. We now move on to policy order number five, that the city manager is requested to work with relevant departments, state agencies, and the property owner, IQHQ. to provide an update on efforts to maintain cleanliness and safety in the area on Owlwife Paths near Russell Field. This was filed by Councilor Nolan, Councilor Wilson, and Councilor Toner. It was pulled by Councilor Nolan. You have the floor.

Thank you. Just quickly, Vice Mayor, I wanted to pull this to thank the folks in that community who have been working on this and struggling with this for a long time. We've heard from a number of people. I also want to thank the city staff has been out there. I know many of us have been out there as well. and to clarify that the city manager would have to work with a range of property owners because we don't own much of the land in there and yet this is a coordinated effort. I know the staff has seen this and is willing to do what they can. and the report back while it will be to the city council and hear someone from the community ask, wait, aren't they gonna talk to the community? It's just that that's the way the city manager reports back just to clarify to the community that obviously that report will also be in conjunction with all the folks in the community. I wanted to clarify that so people can know. Thanks. That's all. Thank you.

Councilor Toner.

I just want to repeat what Councilor Nolan said, but also I really want to thank IQHQ. I was just very impressed in taking a walk back there with folks from the LF study group. and them commenting on how many things IQ HQ has tried to do as well as the city and dealing with some of the issues so they've really been a great partner and if I mean, I grew up there, up on the fence behind WR Grace and going through the parking lot. And I just have to say, when I walk down there now and it's all wide open, Even though it's still a parking lot, it's got solar and there's actually a lot of new trees and greenery planted and it just looks like a whole different neighborhood now back at the end of Linear Park. So I think it's, you know, I know The park's going to be under construction for a year and a half, but I just think that one aspect of it really has brought a change to the neighborhood.

So I want to thank them, thank the neighbors, and hopefully we as a city can You know, help provide supports and do what we can to address the needs of the unhoused in that area and try to, you know, end the Wilson, and Councilor Susie.

Thank you, and I want to appreciate my colleagues for bringing forward this motion, policy order, excuse me, and also, again, just give my thanks to the neighbors of that community and who have been working on this and working in partnership with all the entities, but specifically IQHQ. also our city staff and specifically deputy city manager Watkins and her new title and role was like immediately out there with like several folks I was kind of jealous I was like How come I didn't get an invitation? Next time, right? Okay, thank you. So, you know, I think there's a lot of work to do, and especially when we're talking about a space that is like a shared space in terms of who owns what part. of the space. We really need to be working diligently with all the partners and all the stakeholders

You know, especially during the closure of Linnian Park to make sure that we add more lighting to the walkway that is really considered like the scary walkway right now. to make it less scary and to make sure that folks can feel safe and be okay. Also to identifying more social services. that we can be offering to individuals who are unhoused, who need additional supports, and obviously services that are just not 9 to 5 or 7 to 7. and also carry on to the weekend. There's just such a great need and I feel like that's probably where the city can be doing a little bit more work. Maybe that's an additional policy order to come through. But I appreciate kind of where we are in the work and recognize that

We're not alone in trying to accomplish the various things, but just really wanted to lift up that IQHQ is really a strong partner in anything that the city can do to help with You know, navigating, like I said, the lighting to additional social services and supports to whatever else we could actually do would be great to the neighbors, to visitors in that neighborhood. To the young people who go to the parks, the fields. It's football season, it's play season, it's baseball season. We have a number of different people that are coming in and throughout Russell Field and in the various parks around there, as well as a bunch of visitors that come in and out of our city. Whatever we can do and whatever we can do proactively, I would love to see that. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Chair McGovern. I also really support this policy order. I also made a site visit and was concerned about what I heard and saw there. and I hope we can also move the textile bins as part of this because I feel like there I know we want to have textile bins Close by, it's a good place because lots of people are attending events with their children, but it seems like the location of the textile bins is highly problematic there, so I think they need to be in a different location so there isn't clothing strewn across the path, that heavily used path all the time. So I hope that will be considered to us part of this, and I would like to be added to this policy order. Thank you.

Just a quick note, because I did speak to John Nardone today about the bins. They're out, DPW is out there every morning to clean up. So, you know, if people are out walking their dog at six in the morning and there's leftover stuff by the bins, then it's going to be there because DPW is not going out there at five in the morning to clean it up. but they are going out every day to try and address that so I just I don't want I know there's a lot of concern that DPW is not paying attention there but they are but it's an ongoing It's an ongoing battle. But I don't want people to think that DPW is ignoring that. They're out there every morning cleaning up. It's just when you happen to be there, did you come before or after they got there? That's the question. Nolan.

I just want to confirm what you said. It's a very heavily used bin and there's a lot of material that is collected there. I also spoke with Nardone, Acting Commissioner Nardone. So I think it's really important we figure out how to address the issue as opposed to take that very important resource for the community away.

Okay, so the first question comes in on an amendment to add councilor Zusy, roll call.

Simmons, Sieniewicz, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Tan, Toner, Wilson, Zusy, Cambridge, Councilor Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

All right. On the order as amended.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sieniewicz, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Tan, Toner, Wilson, Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We now move on to policy order number six, that the city manager is requested to work with the relevant departments to consider a plan to better utilize the Russell Youth and Community Center. This was filed by Councilor Nolan and Councilor Toner, pulled by Councilor Zusy. I will go to the sponsors first. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. Yes, this came up. I know that there's been a number of people who have asked about the Russell Youth and Community Center. It's one of the few in the city that's actually specifically named Community and Youth Center. Some of the others are just youth centers. And there's been a lot of discussion in the community about, given the geographic location also, that there's a number of people who live in the area who while they could come to the senior center here and others in the spirit of geographic equity to see if there's a way that we could work with the city to provide some It's an incredibly beautiful space that we paid for and that is empty most of the day except for in the summer. It's just used full time in the summer by youth programs and in the afternoons and evenings but during the day it's very little used. are some challenges. I know the city staff is aware of this, and we've talked to it, and now is the time to say, okay, the full council is behind this, hopefully.

Councilor Turner? Councilor Susie?

I'm in full support of this policy order and I'd like to be added to it too. The goal of my policy order to do an inventory of meeting spaces indoor and outdoors was like the first step. All these municipal buildings that already exist and we want to make sure that they get broad usage. So I think it's a good idea. I know there are some neighbors that really want access to this Youth Center, and I think we really have to work harder to make them available to our public.

Thank you.

All right, since we're adding people, I, too, would like to be added. But I would also just want to name, as I did work at this youth center for about a year as a teen program director. Yes, it's a beautiful space and one that we definitely, it is underutilized for sure. And when I was there during that time, whether it's with our teen program or you know really thinking a little more outside the box of like what more can we be adding to the space from cooking classes to other youth serving things, but definitely senior programs and recognizing there's a senior center here. There's also one in North Cambridge, but I think those who are living in West Cambridge do have a disadvantage. Not only for public transportation, but even if you're driving across the city, could be really challenging.

I also want to name that our Cambridge program that houses our special that provides services and opportunities for our Excuse me, adults who have special learning needs do offer a lot of services and programs and meet there every single Saturday. While there are a lot of things that are happening out of the sensor, I recognize that there's a little bit of an inequity and if we can fill it and find other ways to be More productive in service of others in our community that we should. So with that, I again want to be added and I yield. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no other hands on amending the policy order to add Councilor Zusy and Councilor Wilson, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayerson. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

On the order as amended, roll call.

Azeem, Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Councilor Toner, Yes, Councilor Wilson, Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. We now move on to the calendar. There are two Charter Right items. The first is Resolution 2025, number 209. Condolences to the family of Red T. Mitchell. This was filed last week by the mayor. I exercised my charter because the mayor was at another meeting, and Madam Mayor, I just figured you'd want to talk about it.

Thank you, Madam. Excuse me, Madam. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. As many of you know, and let me first say, thank you so much because Red T. Mitchell Jr. felt very cared for by the entire city council. Last Wednesday, we laid him to rest with a Very beautiful Masonic funeral, which took about a little over an hour. And then of course, a Christian burial. His family came here. to participate in his being laid to rest. As many of you know, or maybe not know, that Mr. Mitchell was a pretty incredible man. He spoke German and Polish, served in World War II as a medic, went to Duquesne, came to Harvard not to go to school but to play against Harvard because he went to Duquesne.

and that's just a little bit of what he did he worked for the largest one of the largest insurance companies that was totally black owned and operated as the vice president. There's so many things that this man had accomplished and then he decided to settle in Cambridge and his remaining years loved the city like it was owned and I remember him saying to me, You know, Cambridge is my home and I want to be buried here. made his wishes come true and respectfully led him to rest last Wednesday. He thought very highly of the entire city council. And I have to especially thank two individuals. One is Sean Hope. who brought him home when he was out there talking about Prince Hall. And if he didn't tell you about Prince Hall, then... I don't know, he was not special enough, I guess. And to you, Vice Mayor, who interrupted him trying to buy something

Some guy in the corner of the street. But you said, hey, Mr. Mitchell's out here and he's getting ready to take this purchase. And you put him in your car and you brought him over to where I was. I don't think... Thank you for watching. One of the things that he was most proud of is the Prince Hall Memorial that sits on the Common. And so I just want to say thank you to my colleagues who participated in taking care of him and making him part of our City Council family. His family is very grateful. I would hope that, I'm not gonna hope, I know that you'll support this policy resolution that's gonna go to his family. and to the Prince Hall Lodge, marking not his death, but his living.

And so thank you so, so very much as we lift up a prominent and important man. I yield the floor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I could not have said it better. I always loved seeing him, that smile. I did hear the Prince Hall story. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I know you've known him for such a long time and is a member of really your extended family and but you know you also really made sure that he was he was well cared for in the city so thank you to you as well any comments from council let me just briefly say

Had he lived until she had a birthday, he would have been 98. He died at 97.

Wow.

Councilor Siddiqui?

Yeah, I just wanted to add and give my condolences to his family and to Mayor Simmons at the It was so clear how much he meant to you. He was such a great example. If there's something that You're trying to just convince someone or tell someone about. He knew Prince Hall like every single time. And it was... you know it was he was just so always just so nice and uh just really i enjoyed getting to know him over the years um when He was with you and at various events in the city. But yeah, he's probably up there talking about Prince Hall. So yeah. Wilson.

Like you said, at 97, he was going to every veterans event, every observance. He had better attendance at these events than some people in this chamber. Councilor Wilson.

Thank you. And through you too, Madam Mayor, I too want to share my condolences. I did send you a message, but also, Like you said, if you didn't get to talk to Brother Red, as I would call him because he was a member of my church, Union Baptist Church, And then, I don't know, maybe it wasn't that special enough to enjoy and be indulged with. his knowledge and just his care and sensitivity to the topic, but also his urgency around wanting to make sure that folks were educated. and just always sharing a small packet and saying, next time I see you, I'm going to quiz you. And that was just always a thing, and that was something that we had. which I truly appreciate and just again he will be so so missed because of just his warmth and just his

I don't know, he just always had a coolness to him, just a very chill, cool type of guy, and would just always remember a face. So that's something that I'll miss, just going to church on Sunday and having him be there. it's just always been a treat and even for my son to see him and meet him and all that so thank you thank you madam mayor for even sharing him with us in the community as well and Again, my deepest condolences to him, his family, to you, and to our community. Thank you.

So on the resolution making unanimous upon adoption, roll call.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We now move on to Charter Right Number 2, that the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department to draft zoning language based on the proposed recommendations review the feasibility of the proposed recommendations with developers and consider the possibility of having AHO construction be exempt from the proposed zoning. This was Councilor Azeem exercised his charter right on September 29th, 2025. Councilor Azeem, I will go to you first.

I would love to give the floor to Councilor Zusy.

Councilor Zusy.

I would like to withdraw my amendment or my amendment by substitution though I do think it is I always think it's good to have data to inform zoning policy and any city policy. So what I had hoped with my amendment was to ask for more specifics because I was concerned that the ex, that the consultant was basing his or her recommendations around relating to The height of the average solar installation, I was concerned that it was the wrong X, but I think I've been convinced by colleagues that maybe it would be best to

Thank you very much. The X, a better X might be later that we can, but I think it's very important that our policy is always based on data. and I think it is important that we protect our solar installations, especially because the city was encouraging the solar installations. Remember there was sunny Cambridge and we were all encouraged to add solar installations, which was in part what inspired us to add solar panels to our house. So I feel as though the city has some responsibility to help to protect these installations.

And also they do provide, I was told they may provide as much as 10, Thank you for joining us. So it's not like they're not contributing nothing to our net zero action plan. They're actually contributing to our goals to reduce carbon emissions for the city. So for that reason I think it's really important that we proceed with CDD's recommendations to look into drafting language. I know CDD will also be talking with more developers who we heard from some of them tonight, but I think we need to have a broader view. and then Chair McGovern, I know you were concerned.

You wanted AHL construction to be exempt from the proposed zoning. So I think that should be considered too. But I think we've got to protect our, Our solar installations, especially since we, the city of Cambridge, encourage people to invest in them. Thank you. I yield.

I have Councilor Nolan.

Thanks. Yeah, I'm always in favor of data, but I did feel like that might slow this down, and the staff did a really good job of extensive analysis with 45 and 40 and 30, and I felt like we could probably extrapolate fairly quickly to 25. Just to remind us all of the context of this, since I didn't get to say it last week, the policy order came out of the Health and Environment Committee meeting and it was based on a report by CDD on something that this council had discussed I think starting last November when it first came up and then there was a city solicitor memo about If you do want to protect solar, you have to file a new petition. So we decided not to incorporate a thanks. We didn't want to slow the multifamily zoning down. And then again in February and March, the Council as a whole said, yes, we do want to follow this up. First, we want to pass the zoning. But to remind us all that the reason the staff spent months and months

We asked them to because we thought these twin goals are really important. We don't want to slow down housing production, but we do want to see if there's a way to protect solar. and I want to say first an important point and I've checked with and ACM Peters can confirm this. The intent was to have any change apply only to parcels wholly in C1. I know someone called me and said, well, what about a big development of 12 stories on a quarter? If it's not on a C-1 fully enclosed parcel, then I think the intent of this, and it can be confirmed, was that this would not apply then if there was a change. So at that meeting in September, this motion was voted unanimously by all five members and supported by two counselors, Vice Member McGovern and Counselor Zuzi, who weren't on the committee. The reason only Councilor Azeem and my name is on it is because we can't have all five members on a policy order.

So specifically also to address some questions, ask the staff, work with developers before finalizing any zoning language. The intent would be that before drafting formal language, any findings would be incorporated into recommendations. It may be we need to specify that or make that clear in this policy order. It's a will of the body to do that. And it may also be that working with developers, there could be other options that are possible. There may be some urban design principles that The staff or the analysis didn't think of. And those recommendations that were outlined by CDD were some step backs above a certain height, only on the north side of residential buildings. Again, this would also only apply to one-third of the parcels in the city because they have to be over 5,000 square feet. And I would expect CDD to meet with developers to confirm the feasibility and any impact findings. and as well to include an exemption for any 100% affordable housing projects.

The analysis did suggest that square footage be reduced only by 3 to 6% in a project to protect a large share, not all of solar projection. If it turns out on further analysis it's far above that threshold, it would compromise 15 to 20% of the total project, I understand that might not be a trade-off we'd be willing to make, but it seems that Making that sweet spot of a balance of a small reduction in the net square footage in exchange for protecting a large percentage of solar access. strikes me as a good compromise. And to remind us, the recommendations were developed through an analysis of solar radiation of taller buildings on lower heights on other buildings. This approach is one the staff has been working on for a month, so I hope we can at least move it forward to the next step to say, meet with developers, see if it's actually feasible, and if so, let's move forward with zoning. So that's what I hope we do tonight. I'm not sure if ACM Peters wants to add anything to that.

or correct anything I said.

Not at this time. I have Councilor Azeem and Councilor Toner.

I'll let Councilor Toner speak first and then I can go.

Councilor Toner.

Thank you. So look, I want to help people with solar panels, but I wasn't on the environmental committee meeting. I did read the report. I guess my question, and I'm just going to be Perfectly direct and blank on this one. Is there any way that you can provide relief for Solar on the fifth and sixth floor without reducing the amount of units and housing that would become available in a project. And that's through you to Assistant Manager Peters.

Thank you, through you, Vice Mayors. I believe the question is, is there a way to protect solar without impacting housing production? And no, there is an inherent trade-off, and we had calculated it. Nolan had stated as three to six percent loss in gross floor area for housing production on the new lots.

Thank you. The testimony we heard tonight from several folks is that it's more than 3% to 6%. And I'm concerned about that. And again, I would love to figure out a solution. I also don't want to send CDD and Assistant City Manager Peters off for another month or so to bang their head against the wall to try to figure out a solution that ultimately At least the vast majority of this council voted for the multifamily housing because they wanted more housing to simply make them do this work and then vote against it later. I would rather we make a decision tonight whether we want to pursue this or not. because we're creating a lot of uncertainty out there in the community, both for the people who have solar, but also people who are trying to move forward with projects. And I basically get the sense

I may be wrong, but a month from now, after people do a lot of work and a lot of research, people are going to end up voting not to make changes to begin with. I yield.

Councilor Azeem?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Open to the will of the council, the feeling that I've gotten from my colleagues is that, and also I had a chance to talk to Melissa earlier in the day is that maybe we would want to jumble this in with the other zoning considerations we're changing. And since we have a few different options before us, maybe the motion would be to send this to committee and then we can discuss this with all the other details. and then have whatever we decide on come back to us in terms of zoning language from there.

Further discussion?

Councilor Nolan?

What other details?

Well, I think we have a difference between the height, the setbacks. I think that there's also options of like doing a buyback program or like compensation, right? And I think that in general, we have a couple of other zoning changes we were making, and there was a suggestion of just bundling them into one zoning change.

Right, I didn't know what the other zoning changes were that we were talking about.

There have been, I don't want to speak.

I was going to say, maybe to.

Assistant Manager Peterson. I know that we've talked about you are going to come back to us at some point with maybe some tweaks in the multifamily housing.

Yes, so they're one that came out of a committee meeting to discuss maximum unit sizes, which could be put together as one zoning package if the timing lined up. Azeem, but also I think what Councillor Azeem is referring to is just other ideas people have had in the community about other changes that if we were to Thank you. Thank you. maybe not trying to solve one problem without creating other, but really looking more holistically at the full range. And that could be a strategy that could get consensus and help with the workload for staff.

Azeem.

Just before I yield, I was just going to say I think one way or another we're going to get to the same outcome because I don't think that this is likely to come back to us this term just because of the deadline with zoning passages and everything. And then whatever comes back to us, we'll probably have a committee hearing before. So I think they're functionally the same. I was just trying to make it explicit and would make a motion to send this to housing committee. Or whatever committee, but housing. Housing?

Yeah. So there is a motion by Councilor Azeem to send this to the housing committee discussion. Nolan.

It's hard for me. I just want to really move this forward and I worry that sending it to housing committee and particularly if it's not to health and environment committee and housing that it's going to slow it down enough not to move forward. I got to say this is going to be hard for me because I really want I just want to vote this now and have the staff take the next steps but through you if I can ask to A.C.M. Peters if by sending it to that would that functionally be able to do what the intent of the policy order was to begin with, which is to say meet with developers, talk about feasibility, find other ideas for if the step back is feasible, and if not, if there's some other ideas. Will that still happen if this is sent to committee?

Assistant Manager Peters?

Yes, certainly. And we can, I think the first step, again, before we draft zoning, we want to make sure that there's feasibility in the development community and then also buy-in from councilors. and majority of councillors. So absolutely, we would do that as a next step regardless of what committee gets sent to.

Councilor Nolan.

Yeah, I think it should be to health and environment and housing then, just because I think this came out of health and environment to begin with, so I would hate not only because I'm on that committee and I'm not even on housing, I would like to be involved in that discussion.

Is that okay with you, Councilor Azeem?

I was going to say, I think that's a friendly amendment.

Okay. I have, no? Okay. Yeah, I think that's, I would agree with this. I mean, I, you know, I mean, we did hear a number of concerns. You know, I've said all along that I support solar, my votes prove that, my record proves that. But I am concerned about, there's a difference between protecting Folks who have solar already, right, and you invest all this money and then, you know, maybe something gets built next to you and it causes a problem. versus sort of indefinitely where someone could put solar on their house and then get a six-story building there, right? And that could be a potential problem. And I do worry about the inclusion area. Pretty much the majority of us have all said publicly that we have reservations about lowering inclusionary to 10%.

but we could take a step tonight that might lower it to zero percent if people don't build six-story buildings because the step backs and we have to say step backs not setbacks we use those interchangeably which is so you know the step backs make it Financially, you know, Not possible to do. So there definitely needs to be more conversation. And I know some people, I mentioned at one of the last meetings about sitting down with developers, and I got a few emails from folks saying, why would you want to talk to developers? Developers build stuff. Right? And so CDD, they run the numbers. They look at, you know, when the sun is coming this way on this part, you get this kind of shadow. CDD is not building things. They're not going through the performance. They're not looking at the cost. They're not the ones who can actually sit there and say, geez, this is what the cost of

you know construction project you know products are now and if you do this so we have to sit down and talk to talk to builders and because they're the ones doing that work it's you know it makes sense so if there's no further

Thank you, Chairman McGovern. I just wanted to say, I think we have to have a balanced view. You know, so we do want to build housing. I think we're actually we're all in agreement there. I think some of us want most of the housing or a lot of the housing to be in the areas Envision Cambridge recommended. So along the corridors, in the squares, and in transition districts. But we also want to, we have sustainability goals for the city, so the protection of solar is part of that. and then you know we've got an active tree ordinance and we want to protect our trees and I know just in the last weeks I've been receiving emails I think we all have about There's a big oak tree at 48 Garden Street that is about to be decimated. And then there are all these other mature trees. And again, we love our trees, right?

That's why we have this tree ordinance at 9 Wyman Street, where we're about to lose a bunch of trees. We really want to have, it's really important to consider balance and we don't want to give up sort of what makes Cambridge so special. I mean, there are many, many things that make Cambridge so special. But again, there are ways that we can be adding housing. without cutting down all our big, beautiful, mature trees or shading solar installations that are producing Green Energy, and reducing our fossil emissions. So I think all of these things are important, and I think we can figure out how we can Move Forward Housing, Protect Our Trees, and Protect Our Existing Solar. Thank you. I yield.

I don't want to get too far off track, but this is always the rub, right? When you can do everything that makes everybody happy, then everybody's happy. But if you have to make a choice between the number of units versus solar, the number of units versus trees, Then it becomes more complicated, and that's the hard part. And then you see what are the priorities that different people have and how they put those priorities in front of other things. That's the hard part. So, but that's, I'm not getting off on that tangent. An amendment in front of us to send this to Housing and Environment. Health and Environment. Health and Environment. If there's no further conversation on that, on the amendment.

Azeem, yes, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, yes, Councilor Toner, no, no, Councilor Yes. Councilor Zusy? Reluctantly, yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded in the negative.

On the order as amended. Nolan.

I just want to say I will try to schedule a meeting as soon as possible. I do think we need to resolve this. It is a balance. I'm really clear that we should be protecting as much solar as we can. It is a part of our official city policy. It is in our net zero action plan that we are creating solar. and it is something that mitigates the peak effect of any kind of electrical need in summers with addressing We've already voted it, so the discussion's over.

We don't have to vote it as amendment. In scheduling that, make sure that you're checking with CDD so they have enough time to do what they need to do. So that's finished. I don't think there's anything else on the table. We took care of number six. Communications we took care of. Resolutions we took care of. We have a committee report. An ordinance has been received from the interim city clerk, Paula Crane, relative to the dangerous dog ordinance. We just need to place on file, yeah? Committee report number one. Accept the report and place on file. I don't think we need to discuss it. Roll call. Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Absent. Toner, yes, yes, Councilor Wilson, yes, Councilor Zusy, yes, yes, Mayor Simmons, yes, yes, and you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay, so we need to, on the one committee report, it has a, with one ordinance in it, so we also have to pass this to a second reading. So on that, roll call.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sieniewicz, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Tan, Toner, Wilson, Yes, Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay, I believe we have two late resolutions. So on suspension of the rules to take up late resolutions, roll call.

Azeem, Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Absent, Councilor Toner, Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes, and you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

All right, relief resolutions are in front of us. Madam Clerk.

You have two late resolutions. The first is condolences on the death of John Joseph Quinn, sponsored by Councilor Toner. The second is resolution on the death of Kathleen Cummings, sponsored by Mayor Simmons.

Any, Madam Mayor, any comments?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. So Kathleen Cummings, many of you may not know this, worked for the city of Cambridge as a part of the Department of Human Services for a few decades, member of the Pentecostal Tabernacle Church. Long time a former Cambridge resident, Ajoy lived a very long and active life. Sorry to see her passing. I hope my colleagues will see fit to support this resolution to give her the acknowledgement that she truly deserves. I yield the floor.

Thank you. On the resolutions making unanimous upon adoption, roll call.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Councilor Toner, yes, Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Smith? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

There are no late policy orders, announcements. Zusy.

Octoberfest at Harvard Square is this Sunday. Yeah, Sunday the 12th.

Okay. Any other announcements? Councilor Wilson?