City Council - Regular Meeting

you

Check one, two. Check one, two, mic check. Okay, I think we should be good. The stream hasn't launched yet, but if we have any issues, is it okay if I call or text you back?

A quorum being present, I'll call tonight, June 2nd, 2025, regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present.

Councillor Azeem. Present. Present. Vice-Mayor McGovern. Present. Present. Councillor Nolan. Present. Present. Councillor Siddiqui. Present. Present. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Present. Present. Councillor Toner. Present. Present. Councillor Wilson. Present. Present. Councilor Zusy? Present. Present. Mayor Simmons?

Present.

Present. And you have nine members recorded as present.

If you can stand, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance and pause for a moment of silence, remembering Mrs. Coluccio, who was laid to rest this morning. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 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 www.cambridgema.gov backslash public comment. You can also email written comments for the record to the city clerk at cityclerk at cambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation. You can sign up until 6 PM. Please note that the city of Cambridge audio and video records their meetings and makes it available for the public for future viewing. In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recorded copies of this meeting. The next item on our agenda is public comment. Public comment is made in accordance with the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G, and the City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once your name has been called, you should come to the mic or online, give your name, address, and the item you're speaking to. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. Given that we have 28 speakers who have signed up, each speaker will be given two minutes. I will now turn public comment over to Ms. Stephan. Stephan, the floor is yours if you're ready.

Yep. Our first speaker is David Sullivan, followed by Mark Boswell. David, you have two minutes.

Thank you. And my name is David Sullivan. I live at 16 Notre Dame Avenue in North Cambridge. I'm here to support policy order number two to strengthen the city's non-cooperation with ICE. Of all the terrible things happening in our country today, this is one we can take direct action to improve. We all know that ICE is out of control, snatching our neighbors off the street, including right here in Cambridge, usually without proof that they have committed any crime and sometimes deporting them in violation of federal court orders and without due process. To seem tough to their base, Trump and the national thugs who run ICE have now set a quota of 3,000 ICE arrests per day, so the problem is likely to become much worse. Five years ago, Cambridge passed a welcoming community ordinance that tries to prevent city cooperation with ICE. It's a badge of honor that Trump just called us out for that, along with similar communities nationwide. but our ordinance contains a huge loophole wide enough to drive an ICE van through. It allows our police to assist ICE with quote support services, crowd control, and even quote police escort. This puts Cambridge police in the role of backup for ICE agents who confront public resistance to their outrageous tactics. That's what happened in Worcester last month. The only role for Cambridge police should be to protect public safety, not to protect ICE agents from the public. Our state attorney general clarified last week that the law allows us to adopt that position. Policy order number two would take the first step toward clarifying that policy. I hope you will adopt it tonight. Thank you for your consideration and for all you do.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mark Boswell, followed by Alex Papali. Mark, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, councillors. My name is Mark Boswell. I live at 105 Walden Street in Cambridge, neighborhood 9. And I'm speaking about Policy Order 4, Alewife Linear Park and Wesley Ave Access. Firstly, a special thanks to the councillors that introduced this policy order, especially Councillor Nolan. It is well written and states the issue clearly. I strongly support an opening at Wesley Ave to the park. As it is now, there's no access from the path to the neighborhood adjacent to it on the south side. This means that users who would like to walk or cycle down Reed Street, for example, trying to reach Benjamin Banneker School, the Peabody School, or Ringe Ave are unable to do so. They must walk or ride all the way to the end of the path, then make a series of left turns to reach those points. The park and the path are a tremendously valuable amenity to the neighborhood, but this limited access reduces its usability. Everyone should be able to take advantage of it without going all the way to the endpoints. Furthermore, it separates the neighborhood through which it runs. People on the north side cannot easily cross the path and get to point south. An otherwise easy crossing is made frustratingly and unnecessarily difficult. Therefore, I ask you, please vote to install an opening or gate that can allow free movement of people throughout the entire neighborhood. I think there are enough walls and fences being erected in our society. Do we really want another one? Thank you for listening.

Our next speaker is Alex Papali followed by Leslie Garvey. Alex has not joined us. We will go to Leslie Garvey followed by Julia Schlossman. Leslie, if you can turn the mic on.

Your mic's not on. There's a little green button. A button. Right, look at where it says push, right above it. It says sure.

Very good.

You got it? Very good.

Okay, got it. Reset the time, please.

Good evening, Leslie Espinosa, Garvey 203 Lakeview Ave, opposing the reopening of, or the opening of Wesley Avenue to Linear Park bike path. My husband Tim and I own 7 Wesley Ave. It's a small worker's cottage. It was fixed up entirely by Tim. In 1993, we had our first date there. We lived there. We now rent it and we want to protect it for our tenants and neighbors. We love Wesley Ave. Three points. Process, danger, need. Process. Tim and I, along with our neighbors and interested advocacy groups, have been an active part of the process for years about opening Wesley to Linear Park. We attended meetings in East Cambridge, North Cambridge, City Hall, community centers. We met with city managers, city counselors, other advocacy groups, tree groups, bike groups, walker groups. We studied and commented on design plans, amended design plans, and on and on. Now, because of a small group of advocates, this agenda item wants to undo the careful policy balancing work so many of us spent time on. And now this is being done without participation of those most affected, except in this hurried and truncated process. The proposal looks at Wesley Ave. out of context of the whole park. What good is participatory democracy? What good is time-consuming study and comment? Now out of the blue and without change of circumstances, this proposal. Danger. Have you been to Wesley Abb? It's a very small dead end street. There was once a small hole opening in it. It was closed because of all the problems. Can you imagine? You sometimes have to back out of it. It's so small. It was closed because of the problems. There's been no safety design or other planning for the opening of it, and the proposal basically turns Wesley Avenue into part of the bike path without studying or planning. There's no need for this. One block away from Wesley Ave is the carefully planned, accommodating, beautiful entry that the city paid a lot of money to build to make the park accessible. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Julia Schlossman, followed by Marilee Meyer, then Kashif Hoda. Julia?

Good evening. My name is Julia Schlossman, and I live at 41 Walker Street. I'm thrilled to be speaking in support of policy order to beginning the process of amending our welcoming community ordinance. I am so proud of the council for taking bold stands as universities, immigrants, and all that we hold dear are under attack. Tonight, we have the opportunity to amend our welcoming community ordinance to make it the strongest in the Commonwealth by eliminating a loophole allowing Cambridge police to provide support services deemed necessary to ensure officer safety or to prevent a breach of the peace during a federal operation, such as requests to establish traffic perimeters, control traffic, or provide police escort. I expressed concern about this loophole by email to each of you in December after the council voted to reform the 2020 language. In the intervening months, we have seen ICE don masks as standard operating procedure, deport people in violation of court orders, and impose ever-escalating arrest quotas, now 3,000 a day nationwide. And we've all seen the video from Worcester where local police took a minor to the ground in the course of an ICE raid. We can't let that happen here. Cantabrigians should not be deporting Cantabrigians. By closing the loophole in the ordinance, we can send a message to immigrants who live and work in our city that police are here to keep the public safe, not to help ICE. We can send a message, too, to our law enforcement officers that helping ICE is not the policy of our city. Immigrants deserve to feel safe calling the police if they need help or availing themselves of city services, even at this terrifying time. For their part, public safety officers deserve clarity on what sorts of actions are and are not permissible, especially when heated situations can develop quickly. I applaud the council for its courage in initiating this process, and I'm excited to make our collective commitment to immigrants stronger than ever.

Our next speaker is Marilee Meyer, followed by Kashif Hoda, then Darren Buck. Marilee, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi Merrilee Meyer 10 Dana Street. Too bad a legal opinion is needed concerning the effect of multifamily zoning on the Dover Amendment exemption now that it is eliminated. This is the first blatant unintended consequence of the past now fix later process often seen at Council. Conflicts should have been ironed out prior to passage. Can the new residential multifamily zoning be applied to educational and religious entities as of right? That is what is being challenged by a religious organization looking to expand in residential C1 using housing amendments. After being denied at the BZA, the group brought a lawsuit while simultaneously trying to override the public planning process citywide for its own benefit. The Dover Amendment exemption kept Cambridge's abnormal concentration of educational and religious institutions from gobbling up affordable housing in neighborhoods. Gone would be the protection from other public and private institutions demanding the same housing benefits in C1. THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING AMENDMENTS FOCUS ON PROMOTING HOUSING, NOT NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. DOES THE SIX STORIES TOUTED FOR RELIGIOUS USE REFLECT THE RESIDENTIAL FOUR STORIES PLUS TWO STORIES INCLUSIONARY? THIS IS GROSS INSTITUTIONAL ENTITLEMENT. ITS EXPANSION FROM THREE TO SIX STORIES IS IN ANTICIPATION OF SUCCESSFUL TACTICS SEEN IN THE BULLYING OF THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF EXISTING REASONABLE ZONING REGULATIONS. BE PREPARED, COUNCIL, TO HAVE SOME BACKBONE AND SUPPORT PRINCIPLE OVER STRONG ARMING AND MAKE SURE THE LEGAL OPINION IS CLEAR. THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KASHIF HOTA FOLLOWED BY DARREN BUCK, THEN REBECCA LISTFIELD. KASHIF.

Yes, hi. My name is Kashif Udai. I'm a resident of 440 Cambridge Street. I came to this country in 1995 on a green card. I've been a citizen of the US since 2020. So all my time in the US have been legally, right? I've been here. However, I still felt scared and angry at the way Tufts University student Romesha Ozturk was kidnapped from the sidewalks of Somerville. Like most of you have watched the video of masked and armed people handcuffing and putting Ramesh in an unmarked car, there's no other way to describe that incident except that it was a kidnapping. Even though I'm here legally, but I was scared for my life. What recourse do I have if armed and masked men force me in an unmarked car? I was told to know my rights and asked to see the ID of the people, ICE agents, check if they have arrest warrant and if the warrant has been signed by a judge. How are some of the most vulnerable in the community, immigrants, with English maybe their second or third language, who may have faced racism in this country, to stand up for their rights when face to face with armed and masked strong men? We have seen what we have been told are ICE agents hide their entities, lie, break the car windows, force open the doors. How are we supposed to stand against them and demand they follow the law of this land and respond to our rights? So when I'm scared of federal authorities and too weak to protect myself, I look at our local leaders and state leaders to provide us resources and help the residents in protecting their rights. We want local police to come to the scene and check the idea of masked and armed men to verify actually they are ICE agents. How do we know? And not kidnap us. This is the bare minimum. So I support this policy order number two, that the interaction should be documented. Police should come and check that these masked men are actually ICE agents. I support the policy order number two sponsored by Consular G1 Sobrinho-Wheeler, Consular . Thank you.

Please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Darren Buck followed by Rebecca Listfield. Darren, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Darren Buck. I live at 44 Magoon Street. I'm here to speak in favor of Policy Order 82 to open access from the trail to the current Leslie Street cul-de-sac. As a resident living just north of this trail, I need access to Wesley and Reed Street to enable me to safely walk and bike my kids south to Peabody Elementary. Because of the much lower traffic volumes, I'm guessing maybe 10% as many cars or trucks per day and sidewalks separated from the traffic lanes relative to cedar street wesley reed would be the natural safe choice route to walk or bike north and south if only there wasn't a giant fence keeping us out and no no reasonable person should be expected to walk to cedar and then double back paul toner i'm a solo dad trying to get to my federal workplace every day on time and every minute counts As the current organizer of the Peabody Bike Bus, I hope the reconstructed linear park trail is an option for us to consider on our rides to school. But the current trail doesn't connect to Wesley Reed, which again is our only current safe southbound option to Peabody. As a participant in the outreach process, I don't know why city staff concluded to leave the fence. I only know that Paul Toner talked directly to a few residents. He says that he then talked to city staff, city staff. Never did any apparent outreach on how or why they decided to keep my kid and I off of Wesley Street. And that's how I guess decisions get made. As a former transportation planner, I believe in public space of all kinds. And if you're going to exclude people from public space, you have to have a very good reason. Who's being excluded? Why? Who benefits? At what cost? And who's deciding? These are the sorts of questions that you might ask if city staff was to put a fence between you and the public space that you value and use on a daily basis. A huge thank you to Council Member Nolan and the sponsors of this PO for intervening. Everyone else, you might not think very highly of walking and bicycling transportation and advocates, but please consider casting a vote asserting that Cambridge isn't a place where we purposely erect fences to divide people to keep them from accessing public space. We're not a danger, Ms. Garvey. We're your neighbors.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS REBECCA LISTFIELD FOLLOWED BY NICHOLAS FERNANDEZ. REBECCA, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. TWO MINUTES. PLEASE GO AHEAD.

HI, I'M REBECCA LISTFIELD. I LIVE AT 66 HARVEY STREET. I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF POLICY NUMBER FOUR REGARDING A LINEAR PARK CONNECTION TO WESLEY AVENUE. I LIVE ON HARVEY STREET AT THE INTERSECTION WITH WESLEY AVENUE LESS THAN 250 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED CONNECTION POINT. I am in favor of a linear park connection to Wesley Avenue, as this would greatly improve my and my kids' ability to safely and easily access the linear park and the Somerville community path, and it would open up path access to the entire neighborhood in a very positive way. I would welcome the increased foot and bike traffic near my directly adjacent home, and I have no concerns about safety. Thank you very much.

Thank you, our next speaker is Nicholas Fernandez, followed by Andrew Farrar. Nicholas, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Nicholas Fernandez. I live on 18 George Street in North Cambridge, and I'm speaking in support of removing the fence on Wesley Avenue so that people can more easily go north-south on the linear bike trail. I believe it's like order number 82. So we, me and my wife here with two kids, we bike everywhere. We're regular participants on the bike bus and we're regularly using the linear path. So I agree with previous speakers who were kind of pointing out, it makes no sense to make people kind of like walk around for no reason down to the end of the path when there's a clear path and this is a public road and the whole thing is public what's the point of having like a fence there preventing people preventing your neighbors from just like more easily getting around their neighborhood in a you know safe fishing kind of thing um and uh yeah just generally um want to support the you know uh politicians who've been pro-bike and uh and yeah basically that's it thanks yield my time

Our next speaker is Andrew Farrar, followed by Young Kim. Andrew, you have two minutes.

Is this mic on? Thank you. I'm speaking today regarding calendar item number nine, a $7.5 million investment in Ahern Field. Cambridge Youth Soccer and I strongly support the improvements at Ahern, money well spent on our most cherished asset, our children. As we know, sports develops not only the body, but also the mind. I've lived and played and coached soccer in this city for 45 years. I'm past president of CYS, current board member, as well as the director of Kickstart, now in its 18th year. I am best known by the thousands that I've coached and their families by my moniker, Coach Andy. As president of CYS 15 years ago, I actively advocated for increased high quality fields across the city of Cambridge to meet the utilization demand of our organization. Grass fields simply do not endure the stress. We require safe, durable, reliable playing surfaces. A key component of my advocacy was geographical balance. And CYS always looked to include development of an East Cambridge located playing surface. Up until now, East Cambridge has always been dropped. When I began advocating for improved fields starting in 2011, CYS had 1,000 players. Today, we have over 2,000 players and not a single high-quality field in East Cambridge. CYS has been recognized as a national leader in community-based play, and Jason Targoff was recognized for his efforts and community-focused vision and received the 2022 U.S. Youth Soccer National Volunteer of the Year Award. for all of the United States, for focusing on community play. The price tag may be high, but that is because new technology is now available for eco-friendly, less heat-intensive, all-weather surfaces. This kind of field costs more, and we need one in East Cambridge. Thank you.

Our next speaker is speaker number 12, Young Kim, followed by Jason Targoff, then Scott Kilcoyne. Young, you have two minutes.

Young Kim, 17 Norris Street.

Young, you need to turn on the microphone.

Young Kim, 17 Norris Street, speaking up to urge the council not to adopt the fiscal year 26 budget until the city manager submits a clean version that fully incorporates all amendments adopted today, along with necessary clerical edits and corrections. On May 16th, I contacted budget director regarding a $50 million inconsistency in the fiscal 26 appropriation for the Mass Avenue, Waterhouse Street to Parkway project. He acknowledged it was a typographical error and explained that the council vote only under appropriation and loan orders and the rest of the budget book is policies and supporting documentation. This raises concerns about transparency and accountability. If the five-year appropriation plan for major projects such as the Mass Avenue project is considered just a backup, how can the council accurately track whether the city is staying on plan, both in scope and funding? What is to prevent ever-rising incremental funding appropriation? For example, the fiscal year 24 budget included $50 million for appropriation, some of which covered water infrastructure upgrades as described in the CDD memo. Now, an additional $9.5 million is requested in fiscal year 27 to replace the water main. This lack of clarity may explain how the Mass Avenue 4 project, required under the Cycling Safety Ordinance, ended up with an extended scope from Waterhouse Street to A.Y. Brook Parkway, increasing the total cost drastically. clear accurate and traceable documentation is essential for oversight let's ensure we vote on a finalized accurate budget document thank you thank you thank you our next speaker is jason targoff followed by scott kilcoyne then casey zagley jason you have two minutes please go ahead

Hello. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Okay.

Yes. Yes, we can hear you.

Thanks. So I'm going to add to what Andy just spoke about. Um, and I'm going to just say, uh, thanks. Thanks to the city. We've been able to do what we've been able to do with the investments. The city has made in Danny park and Russell field. and some of the national recognition we're getting would not be possible without these beautiful fields that we have at Russell and Danahy. And the 2,000 kids would not be able to play without those fields. So we're very, very appreciative of what the city has done. And I think it's been an investment in the community that really has paid off. If you go to Russell Field any day, I think it was about eight years ago, the turf was put in there at Russell. If you go to there any days, it's planning. And so the Russell field investment eat off dramatically. There used to be a bad grass field there. Now there's a turf field and every day of the week kids are playing, not just soccer. Kids are enjoying the community and the space. And what we don't have is something like that at the Hearn or anywhere in East Cambridge. So I think the price, but it's an investment in the community and it will pay off the way it has paid off at Russell and Danahy. And I hope that you guys can see that. I know many of you have been to Danahy Park on a Saturday. I hope you'll join us there. And you can see any day, any Saturday of the week, come there. You'll see over 1300 kids playing there. one on a Saturday of our total 2,000. Some play at Russell and some play at Earn, but 1,300 at Anahe. I hope you'll join us there, and I hope you'll be able to push through this funding for the space in East Cambridge. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Scott Kilcoyne, followed by Casey Zaglaggy and Nahit Trivedi. Scott, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm here at Scott Kilcoyne. I live on Pemberton Street in North Cambridge. I'm here to speak in strong support of opening up the linear path at Wesley. I think it is critical that we as a city make sure that we can open up the city connections as much as possible. for people walking, people biking. This is a really good connection, as some previous commenters have mentioned, to get some people from North Cambridge, like the farther North Cambridge region, to the PVD school right next to my house. This will be really nice to make it even easier for kids to walk and bike to school. from that section of the community to this school, it opens up nice, calm access. Cedar Street is not that. And it would be really great to make it so that people that don't need to be on the high-traffic roads can safely be somewhere else and not be in those conflicts, not running into all of that, and make some logical access points to public parks. This is not going to cause huge problems. Everywhere is already public access. We're just making these connections that we can make sure that people actually can take advantage of the public parks that we are providing them and the public access points to get from their homes to the schools in the safest ways possible. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Casey Szilagyi, followed by Nahid Tremedy, then Jim Stewart. Casey, two minutes.

Good evening, counselors. My name is Casey Szilagyi, and I'm here to speak in support of the proposed connection from Linear Park to Wesley Avenue. Linear Park is a public space. It should be easy and comfortable for everyone to access. Right now, there's a long stretch with no southern connection, and this forces people to detour onto busier streets just to reach a park that's maybe only a block or two away. Adding a connection at Wesley creates a low-stress, direct route into the park for people who are walking, who are biking. or pushing a stroller, it makes the park more usable and welcoming to a much broader part of the community. And I think in general, it's not right for a handful of objections to outweigh the broader public interest. This connection was requested by a lot of residents during public outreach. And so I'm asking you to please support the policy order and help make Linear Park work better for the whole community. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nahid Trivedi. Nahid, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

Hi there, can you hear me?

Yes. Please go ahead.

Okay, great. Thank you for having me comment here. I live on Magoon Street. So just just directly north of the path of linear Park. I do use linear Park every day as a pedestrian or as a bicyclist and really appreciate all the work the city has done to make it safer and more accessible in the upcoming construction. PB, Jorge Boone. : On this comment on the PO here, I would ask the Council to support the PO and to allow for the opening of Wesley avenue, or at least the removal of that fence. PB, Jorge Boone. : And there's a just a simple reason which is when you're coming off of the bike path on a bike and you're trying to go to point south. Or coming from south to north you're typically going to go on cedar avenue and cedar avenue is just for anyone who's ridden a bike on it, particularly if you have children like me, it is not very safe it's very tight there's nowhere for a car to go around a biker. So it leads to a very unsafe bike experience. And so opening up of Wesley would allow for much more safe passage, easier passage down Reed. And I will say some folks say, well, why couldn't you just turn on Harvey and then turn left on Reed? The reality is that most people just don't do that. It's not a natural flow, either going south or coming north. And for those of us who maybe don't live here or live here but don't use it as often, it won't be as obvious. SO I DO THINK THAT OPENING THIS WILL ACTUALLY LEAD TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED SAFETY AND POTENTIALLY THE REDUCTION OF HARM TO PEOPLE ON THEIR BIKE. SO I WOULD JUST ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THIS P.O. FOR THE OPENING UP OF THIS AVENUE AND CREATING THAT CONNECTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JIM STEWART FOLLOWED BY RICHARD FREIERMAN THEN DAVID BASS. JIM, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. Jim, if you can unmute yourself, you do have the floor.

Am I unmuted? Sorry about that. I wanted to register my support for the city manager's recommendation about a municipal housing benefit. We've had similar things like that that we've participated with the city in and it's worked really well. I hope that the city council will move this forward and allow the city model to be to continue being the one that's part of the continuity of care. As I said before, we've had very good luck with that in terms of getting people who otherwise would probably be waiting a long, long time to get in a stable situation. It's made a big difference in their quality of life. I also wanted to make sure that I registered my support for the the emergency stabilization fund. I think that's a wise thing to do. We're all very disappointed that the transitional wellness center was closed, but if we're going to have to deal with the circumstances that we have now, these two proposals will make a big difference. And I hope the council moves them forward as they've been presented by the city manager. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Richard Fryman followed by David Bass. Richard, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Richard Fryerman. I live at 39 RC Kelly Street. I'd like to speak briefly in support of the policy order to open the connection between Wesley Ave and Linear Park. This park and pathway is a wonderful city resource, and we should do everything we can to expand access, not limit it. The great majority of Cambridge residents live on streets with completely open access, and there seems no reason to make Westleigh Ave an exception. There's a history when stuff like this is going on that people have resistance to connections between their streets and public ways like old railroad tracks. Invariably, as access expands, neighbors and the extended community end up appreciating it and using it even more. If anything, I'm surprised that the residents of Wesley Ave don't want to have this wonderful space open to them more directly and to their neighbors. And since I have another minute as yet another past president of Cambridge Youth Soccer, I just want to lend my support to the budget considerations for the Ahern Field and other renovations. It's a wonderful resource. and the kids in Cambridge just take great advantage of it. We should do everything we can to support that as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is David Bass, followed by Tim Russell. David, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I'm David Bass, 23 Norris Street, and I'm speaking in support of policy order number four regarding access to Linear Park from Westley Avenue. Many have already spoken more eloquently than I can, but let me just add my own experience to the discussion. I live four blocks south of the park and I jog or walk my dog there almost every day. To reach this bucolic path, however, I must walk along Cedar Street or Mass Ave. enduring noise, heavy traffic, and unhealthy car exhaust. I'm not young anymore and that troubles me. I would love to be able to reach the path by walking or jogging down the much more inviting Reed Street and then onto Wesley Avenue instead, but of course I cannot. The fence between Wesley Avenue and Linear Park is a solution to a problem from 30 years ago that no longer exists. Those issues are long gone and would not recur if access were restored as evidenced by the lack of such problems at the many other similar entrances to the park and to the Minuteman Trail and to the Somerville Community Path. So it's time to remove that fence or to put a gate in the fence and improve the quality of life for thousands of North Cambridge residents. It is absurd to think that such a gate would suddenly become a magnet for bad behavior. And even if that very remote possibility came to pass, it would be trivial to then retrofit a solution. We have the technology. Linear Park is a wonderful amenity that has transformed North Cambridge. Please do the greatest good for the greatest number of Cantabrigians and allow access to the park from Wesley Avenue. Thank you.

Thank you, our next speaker. And for those waiting, we were at speaker number 20, Tim Russell, followed by Henry Wardus, then Charles Teague. Tim, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Tim Russell. I live at 69 Harvey Street, just two doors down from Wesley Avenue. I walk my dog through Linear Park nearly every day. And I wanted to speak tonight to say something positive about this project. I wrote to the whole council back in February, and I heard back from Councilor Sabina Wheeler and from Councilor Zusy. Now, Councilor Zusy said she hadn't heard a single positive thing about this project. And I want to say clearly, I support this project. I support adding an access path at Wesley. Many of my neighbors in North Cambridge support this project. I moved to this area in 2018 and bought a home on Harvey and I've been advocating for the removal of this fence since that time. Now when the linear park redesign came up, I spoke to the city staff and they said that they weren't taking public comment on removing this because a member of this body had told them not to. And so I want to say we kept pushing and persisting and We are now at this point, so thank you for this policy order. Please, let's remove this barrier. Right now the park functions as a fence all the way from. all the way from Russell Park to Mass Ave. There's no way to go up and down between that whole area. There's another fence on the north side, another entrance on the north side right across from Restley Street. It would create a direct path. It would save me five minutes when I'm walking my dog to go to Dunkin' Donuts and come back. It's just, to me, it's a no-brainer. I don't think that we should be dividing the community when we have an opportunity as this fence is being replaced, and we can actually connect the community. So I please ask you to vote in favor of this.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Henry Wardis, followed by Charles Teague, then Laura Rotolo. Henry, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

HENRY H. WERDES, 106 BERKSHIRE STREET, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR REVOLUTION IN CAMBRIDGE ABOUT ITEM TWO. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT AND APPRECIATE THE PROPOSAL BY COUNCILORS NOLAN, SADIKI, AND Sobrinho-Wheeler TO UPDATE THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE'S WELCOMING COMMUNITY ORDINANCE SO IT BETTER PROTECTS THE PEOPLE OF OUR CITY from the actions of ICE that are often illegal and unconstitutional. We have seen incidents in Somerville, Newton and Worcester, as well as in other states, in which ICE has disappeared immigrants and even citizens in actions that are typical of authoritarian states, not democracies. Such actions harm those seized, disrupt their families, and create unease and anxiety throughout the community. While we protest and resist these federal actions, we can directly prevent city employees from facilitating them. The proposal before you does that. It will make Cambridge a safer city. It needs your support. and we urge you to vote for it. Thank you.

Thank you. We already heard from Nick Fernandez. We are going to go to Charles Teague. Charles, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

This is Charles Teague, 90 Jackson Street, asking you to not waste our tax dollars degrading the park even more by opening Wesley Ave. I'll tell you a story about adding a different entrance to Linear Park. Fawcett Oil wanted to cut down a 30-inch diameter tree in the park to save money building the path to his new linear apartments. I met the former DPW commissioner on site. He assured me there was no reason to cut down this really big tree. Long story short, really big tree was cut down along with a second very large tree. So the moral of the story is that in construction, there is always unpredictable collateral damage. It's unpredictable. The park at Wesley Ave is super narrow, there's a significant height difference, and there's no room for error. It's time to be super cautious about two things. Trees and wasting money. Spending money to violate the urban forest master plan and kill or damage trees while adding pavement inside the park in the age of climate change makes no sense. Just remember, you're all very proud that Donald Trump is coming for us. You have to be careful with every dollar to save the programs you really care about, like pre-K and housing and all the wonderful things you do to save a few steps. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Laura Rotolo, followed by Damond Hughes, then Stanislav Rivkin. Laura, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much. My name is Laura Rotolo, and I'm here on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and our thousands of members and supporters in the city of Cambridge. I'm speaking in strong support of policy order number two, which proposes language clarifying the role of city employees with regards to federal immigration enforcement operations. I've been so honored to come before this body several times to support the welcoming community ordinance and its predecessors. Many times this council has affirmed and reaffirmed its commitment to supporting immigrants and just to staying out of the business of immigration enforcement. And yet we are in an unprecedented moment. I think it's impossible to overstate the intensification of immigration enforcement in our cities and towns. If you think you're seeing ice everywhere, it's because you are. The federal government has announced a new goal of 3,000 daily immigration arrests, and one of the consequences of that increase is mass confusion about who's who on the ground. ICE agents cover their faces and wear vests with the word police on them. They park outside of local police stations and at times when operations get messy local police are actually called to the scene. This creates a dangerous level of confusion where people in the public think that their local police are helping immigration agents even when they're not. So it's important now more than ever for this body to really just clarify the roles, to create clarity that spells out what the public can expect from Cambridge police and first responders. First of all, to remain true to the Cambridge values of the welcoming city. And second, to ensure that the federal government's actions don't undermine community trust in local government. So I just want to appreciate this body's willingness to take another look, yet another look at the language of the welcoming community ordinance, given the changed circumstances. It's crucial for immigrants and for public safety. Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Damond Hughes. Damond has not joined us. We will go to Stanislav Rivkin, followed by Lee Ferris. Stan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Stanislaw Rifkin, 17 Channing Street, speaking on CMA 3 and 4. I want to thank the city council again for allocating the funds to support the creation of a municipal voucher program. I believe we can do much more, but this is an important step. I hope the city can disperse the vouchers, though, for the 25 unhoused households as soon as possible. to have a better chance at assisting individuals displaced from the Transitional Wellness Center, some of whom might be eligible for these funds, but even if they're not eligible, the displaced TWC residents may still benefit from openings at other locations as a result of those residents receiving vouchers sooner. I also hope you will ask the city to clarify a number of key questions upon which the impact of this program will hinge. What is the timeline for the rollout of the 25 vouchers? What departments will support these prospective applicants and voucher recipients with their housing search? Is there a community process plan? What opportunity will members of the community have to weigh in? What is the current wait list for inclusionary and its composition? Are there plans to immediately allocate vouchers to the 42 affected families on Section 8? Does it jeopardize their safety for us to wait? And I also want to speak to Policy Order 80, fully in support of it. We must support it to ensure that we are doing everything in our power to make Cambridge as inhospitable to ICE as possible to protect our immigrant neighbors. But we must do even more, beginning most obviously with removing ShotSpotter technology from our city. There is no reason to believe, based on the testimony and early action of this administration, the Trump administration, I mean, that it will not eliminate every legal safeguard and employ every tool at its disposal to inflict maximum cruelty and pain upon immigrants and also upon Trump's enemies, which includes the city of Cambridge. Therefore, we cannot possibly expect that ShotSpotter technology, a DHS-funded tool that ceaselessly records audio from around the city under the pretext of listening for gunshots, won't be weaponized against our community in Cambridge and particularly against our immigrant neighbors. We cannot allow the federal government to have unfettered audio surveillance of Cambridge streets, and we must shut down ShotSpotter if we're truly serious about protecting our neighbors.

Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please.

Our next speaker is Lee Ferris, followed by Dan Totten and Heather Hoffman. Lee, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, counselors. Lee Farris, Norfolk Street in the Port, speaking for the Cambridge Residents Alliance about municipal housing vouchers in the city budget. Given the deadline for TWC individuals to get alternate housing, we believe that it's important that the $1 million for city vouchers be allocated as quickly as possible to assist them, either directly through getting vouchers or indirectly through freeing up dry shelter spots in the system. We're hoping that the manager and staff can answer some of these questions. What's the timeline for the rollout of the vouchers for unhoused individuals? Which departments will support people in housing search? What opportunity will we have to weigh in during a community process on the nature of the housing voucher program? And we hope that the city vouchers will be used in inclusionary and other below market housing. So it would be helpful to know what is the current inclusionary wait list broken out by priorities, points, and bedroom sizes. And given the continuing federal threats to mixed immigration status families, we're wondering if it is safe to wait to allocate vouchers to the 42 families who are in federal public housing or have Section 8, or should that proceed immediately? Regarding the $5 million allocated to the federal grant stabilization fund, if those federal cuts do not happen, we'd like the funds allocated to additional city vouchers, and we'd like to see a clear commitment from the city to beginning an ongoing municipal voucher program. I also want to express our strong support for policy order number two to strengthen the welcoming community ordinance. We certainly don't want to see a situation like Worcester happen here, but I'm also concerned about the arrest that took place outside the police station, the arrest by ICE. So I hope counselors will ask more questions about that tonight. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dan Totten, followed by... Heather Hoffman, then James Williamson. Dan, you have two minutes.

Yeah, thank you so much. Dan Totten, 54 Bishop Allen Drive. I want to talk about the vouchers as well. I really, really appreciate that this is happening. There's been a lot of advocacy around this for many years. I want to thank Vice Mayor McGovern. I want to thank Councilor Siddiqui and Councilor Wilson in particular. Over the last year, the three of you have been really, really champions on this and making space and meeting with us and all that. So I think it's great. In terms of the timing that's listed in the memo, it feels like there's a little bit of a lack of urgency. And so I just want to make the case that maybe we should move a little bit faster. if possible. So, you know, on the side of the mixed status families, I think January 2026 is reasonable, but I would like more flexibility because if something goes wrong, and we all know it very well could go wrong, i'd like to be able to serve those families on a faster timeline and so be really great if somebody could address that tonight of like what happens if if the rug gets pulled out before then are we unable to serve them like hopefully that's not the case and then uh for the 25 um other vouchers um you know not being able to serve those people until september is is really painful um I don't understand. I accept that we're not going to just give the vouchers to the people leaving the wellness center, but I don't understand why it has to take so long. There is a system in place and there are 25 people who are next up in that. And, you know, to be honest, telling someone who's trying to stay sober that they can take the, they can take the, the sober bed at the, at the.

Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please.

Please email the remainder of your comment. Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman, followed by James Williamson. Heather, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I'd like to echo some of the speakers before me about the really tenuous nature of every last federal dollar that Cambridge is counting on for this budget. We should really really think about what we want to spend it on. We want to spend it on killing a lot of trees in linear park or do we want to spend it on housing people as so many other people before me have eloquently spoken about. Think about that and also think about this for linear park Cambridge. has no easement to use it. Somerville has an easement for its part, but Cambridge doesn't have one. So where does Cambridge get off doing all of this stuff when you don't even have a legal right to use this? Now, speaking of legal rights, let's talk about the Dover Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. I am just gobsmacked that at this point after the city council was told after city employees knew that this was going to be an issue we're now getting around to asking for a legal opinion long after you've passed the law now If they did this at the federal level, you would be shaking your fingers and saying, how dare you? And don't you know how to do your job? And I could say the same thing to the city council and to city staff. You should be utterly ashamed of how you have behaved. I don't care nearly so much about how you come out on the answer.

Thank you for your testimony. You can email us the balance of your remarks. Next speaker, please.

Our next speaker is James Williamson. James, you have two minutes.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. James Williamson, North Cambridge. And I too have been, walked along Linear Park regularly for years now since I got displaced and relocated to the north side of Mass Ave, next to Cottage Park Drive, where there's an entrance to the park, which I appreciate. My main message here is I am just really, I guess, infuriated that the city council and the city manager and people working in city departments totally ignored what I believe was the overwhelming perspective of the people who live along Linear Park, that it was not a good idea to widen the paved surface and that the result of this, contrary to what they claim, is actually going to make it easier for the bicyclists and other people who ride other vehicles to go as fast as they like, and now they'll be able to go even faster. In fact, There was even a bicyclist who was a member of the committee on public plantings who said if you widen it i'm just going to go faster. The committee on public plantings they were ignored the landscape architects there they were ignored it's not just the couple of people who may have been alert enough to speak about this tonight. It's large numbers of people were ignored and the city council basically did nothing. A couple of people expressed some interest, but you didn't do anything to protect the community. And you're gonna allow $7 million to be spent when you're now talking about 6 million and 1 million to address the needs of people who may be in danger from cutbacks in the Trump budget. So I just resent the fact that you ignored us, but you're listening to a small number of people because it's going to look good.

Thank you for your testimony. Please email us the balance of your thoughts.

Madam Mayor, that is all that we're signed up to speak.

This closes public comment. What is the pleasure of the City Council? Move. A motion by the Vice Mayor to close public comment. Roll call, please.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Absent. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And public comment is now closed on the affirmative vote of nine members. There's no record. There's no submission of the record. We do not have any reconsideration. So we're going to go directly to the city manager's agenda. What is the pleasure of the city council? Vice Mayor. Number two. I'm sorry, please. Two.

Two.

Council Sabina Wheeler. Number one. I'm sorry, please.

Number one.

Is your mic on? Is your mic on?

Yes, it is. Mayor Simmons. Yes. I think once, since many of the items are related to finance, once item two is before us, I will be moving suspension to bring before city manager item three, four, and five, and then also some committee reports in unfinished business.

So I think what that means- I heard three, four, and five. So let me just take it slowly. You're pulling number three? Yes. You're pulling number four? And number five. You're pulling number five. Is there anything else you'd like to remove? Councilor.

No, Mayor Simmons.

Pleasure, City Council. Hearing none.

Excuse me, Madam Mayor, would you mind just repeating the ones that have been pulled, please? Yes, I will. I will.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler pulled number one. The Vice Mayor pulled number two. Councilor Nolan pulled number three, number four, and number five. Six, seven, and eight are still, are not pulled. Is there anything else the council would like to pull before we take a vote on six, seven, and eight?

Councilor Nolan. Since I don't know when this would be appropriate, but for number eight, it says pleasure of the council. I think we should refer it to a council meeting, a committee meeting that is already set up on that. So do you want to pull that, Councilor Nolan? I would pull it in order to do that.

So just say what you want to pull, and you can explain it later. Yes, number eight. Very good. Thank you. All right. Hearing no other items to be taken from the consent agenda, we'll go on number six, roll call on appropriation and place on file number six, and a roll call and appropriation on number seven. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call, please.

On the motion of...

On the motion of number six, transmitting communication on Yangwang City Manager relative to the appropriation of $7,500 to the grant fund for extraordinary expenditures account, the Vice Mayor moves the appropriation.

You want to do both of them?

Vice Mayor, would you do both? Okay, and on the appropriation on number seven, which is a communication from Yan Wang, city manager relative to the appropriation of $25,000 to the general fund public celebration and other ordinary maintenance account. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call please.

Councillor Zinn. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui.

Yes.

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

And city managers agenda number six and seven are appropriated and placed on file on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now. to the non-consent agenda, the first item, which is a communication from Yan Wang relative to the federal update. This was pulled by Council Sobrinho-Wheeler. Council Sobrinho-Wheeler, the floor is yours.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I may have some questions, but we'll first turn it over to the city manager and staff for the update.

City Manager, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Through you, Mayor Simmons. Thank you, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Mayor Rice, Mayor and Councillors, I think we've done this every couple of weeks and so helpful to continue to just be in close conversation and also as a way to keep our community updated on what we're tracking, what we're thinking about. Like each of you, I've had so many conversations trying to keep track of the ever-changing set of federal actions and court cases that are occurring almost every day, every week. Tonight is a big night for us as we're voting on the FY26 City of Cambridge budget, but as we have been discussing, the overall government funding environment is very uncertain. Over the next six months, we're going to see major decisions, and I would highlight the following three major milestones that we're tracking. First is the federal budget reconciliation bill that has at this point passed the House of Representatives and is now being worked on by the Senate. The current version that passed the House makes substantial cuts to social service programs, especially including Medicaid and food assistance, and then also major cuts to clean energy projects as part of the IRA in order to increase spending on tax cuts, immigration enforcement, and the military. These changes could have severe impacts on health insurance to low income and disabled households that are part of Medicaid in our community, as well as substantial impacts in terms of food insecurity. Though it appears there are significant divisions among Republican senators over these trade offs. It's most likely that major changes will be made and we will know more in the coming weeks. So we're going to be tracking that carefully and we'll make sure to keep the council up to date as we see what happens in the Senate. Over the summer, we will also see the state budget finalized and we will be watching for the impact on different programs as the governor and the state legislature seek to balance their budget. The message that we are getting from state leaders is mostly at this point a wait and see. There's a desire on their part to preserve flexibility and a recognition that the state budget will not be able to backfill the entirety of likely federal cuts. To the extent that we are as directly exposed to federal budget cuts, we have about 2% to 3% of our budget. that is coming from the federal government. At the state level, it's more like 30%, so a lot more significant exposure. Finally, this fall, the federal continuing resolution that is currently in place will run out at the end of September, and a new federal budget will need to be passed. The so-called skinny budget is the Trump administration's initial proposal. That often is very different than what ends up passing Congress, but among the many worrisome proposals are significant cuts within HUD especially to Section 8. and across the broad investments in the federal housing portfolio. So those are things that we're very concerned about and we're watching. An additional area to track is just the many current court cases that are based on the executive branch changing spending patterns without congressional approval or essentially impounding these funds. To the extent that Congress approves cuts that have been made, this could greatly influence the many court cases that are working their way through. And ultimately, if federal funding levels are set lower by Congress, that will really take away a lot of the court challenges that are currently being worked through. All this is to say that we'll be continuing to look at how federal and state funding levels affect our community, especially the most vulnerable. And we will continue to search for ways to create more flexibility in our budget to respond, especially as we enter FY26. I'm really grateful to the city council and to the community for the engagement throughout this budget process. And I believe that it does reflect our collective conversations and is the right budget for meeting this moment. And I'm committed to continuing this dialogue as we inevitably will face difficult decisions and likely the need to make adjustments in the coming year. I also wanted to provide some update on what we are seeing in the courts. At this point, despite a mounting list of court losses from the executive branch, Congress continues to abdicate its role as an equal branch of government and has been unwilling to exercise any oversight of executive overreach and constitutional abuse. And so we are mostly left with tracking what's happening within the courts. I had spoken earlier about how the courts have been slow to keep up with executive actions. And over these past weeks, I've been reminded, especially by the lawyers that I speak with, that the justice system has been moving with remarkable speed, rendering temporary and preliminary injunctions often within hours of being asked and processing major decisions in weeks to months. And so we are looking at oftentimes these constitutional questions being resolved fairly quickly in sort of the the two to four month period. My reflection is perhaps that we're seeing both real hope and real harm and it's been difficult even in my conversations with family and friends and people in the community to hold on to both of those. There have been unlawful detentions that were challenged and the government was forced to honor habeas corpus and present their case, and some people have been released, especially a number of the students and researchers, even in our community, that were detained and then ultimately won their freedom. However, folks have spent weeks or months in detention without their freedom. Similarly, Kilmar Obrego-Garcia is still in El Salvador, has not been returned to the United States, and in fact, additional people have been deported out of the country expressly against court orders, and that's been very worrisome to see. But the practice of loading people onto planes is not a regular occurrence. And so we are seeing judicial oversight having an impact. We're seeing a similar situation with our local university. Harvard continues to win injunctions in court, including an injunction over the federal actions on international students that happened last week. And it appears that the legal world views many of these cases favorably or in Harvard's favor, but there's real harm being done regardless of where the courts turn out. And we're seeing the same thing on even the president's signature issue, tariffs, where courts have ultimately ruled, at least initially, that the administration's broad interpretation of constitutional powers for the president to just set whatever tariff rate the president wants are incorrect and not legal. But even though that decision has been put in place, we still see tremendous powers for the president to affect international trade and to create enormous damage within the economy. So I think some of this is more to just process together and say that as we're watching a lot of this unfold, we are trying to put together a sense of the courts are actually exercising some oversight, they're slowing down the actions, and yet we are seeing tremendous harm being done within our community to institutions. And it will continue to be important for us collectively to highlight those harms, to keep it in the conversation. And we are continuing, and I think we've spoken about a couple of the cases that the city has gotten involved in. We're continuing to be open to participating in litigation where we can support either the state attorney general or other institutions to note the harms that are happening within our community and have that be part of the overall litigation that's occurring. So I would say that's sort of the environment. I think we are tracking the budget, we're tracking these court cases, and we are continuing to look for important ways FOR THE CITY AND WE WILL CERTAINLY KEEP THE COUNCIL APPRISED IN TERMS OF WAYS THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN USE THEIR VOICES TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANT POLICY DIFFERENCES, VALUE DIFFERENCES WE HAVE WITH THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.

Thanks. One follow-up question. Cambridge was recently listed on a list of cities and states from the Trump administration as sanctuary jurisdictions. I think immediately after that list came out, there was a lot of reporting about errors on the list, including at least one city, Huntington Beach, that had was a Republican led city that had declared itself a non-sanctuary city that was included on the list. So plenty of errors and mistakes there, but did just wanna ask since Cambridge was included on there, along with other cities and jurisdictions, if there were any consequences immediately tied with that, or if that was just a publication of a list from the federal government of trying to name and shame, or if there were consequences we should be on the lookout for.

Through you, Mayor Simmons. Thank you for the question. Maybe I'll have City Solicitor Bayer come up a bit. Just to quickly summarize, I think the original executive order, as you're noting, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, stated that the federal government would come up with this list first within 30 days. That was the list that was published. As you noted, there were certainly questionable inclusions on that list as of this morning. I believe the list was pulled off the internet. I don't believe it's come up at this point. And so there maybe is a recognition that a list was not put together with a lot of thoughtfulness. In terms of the executive order, it then stated that a formal letter would be sent to the listed jurisdictions. We have not received that letter at this point, and we have not heard of any jurisdiction that has. And then following a formal letter confirming that you are on the list, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General were meant to come up with a series of consequences, whether it was federal funding to be withheld or legal action against the jurisdiction, and those would be subsequently communicated. And so I think that's the process that was laid out in the executive order, and we're somewhat paused between the list having been published, now it's been de-published, and we've not yet had a formal designation.

Solicitor-Mayor?

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. And the only thing I would add to that is when the list was published online last week, the press release that a company that did say that when the notifications would be going out to the jurisdictions that they would be instructed to take action to come into compliance. So we don't know more than that vague directive what the letter will say. And then We are evaluating what it means that Cambridge was included on the list and evaluating potential next steps, but don't have anything further to share at this time.

Council Sabina Wheeler. Great, thank you. I yield back. Council Sabina Wheeler yields the floor. Anyone from this side of the floor? No? Council Nolan?

Thank you. Through you, Mayor Simmons, I appreciate this sobering update, which is quite challenging. One other falsehood, of course, on the published list was that that list of sanctuary cities do not follow federal law. In fact, we are following federal law. We are not doing their job for them, but we are following federal law. And I think it's really shameful that something like that is put out there in the public when it is wrong. Our city stands proud in our welcoming, but also in our adherence to our laws and also to the federal law. I had a question about, given the news today that ICE is also saying they're rounding up and they're proud that in the last month they've had 1,400 plus folks arrested in Massachusetts. Does our city participate in the weekly gatherings of the office for refugees and immigrants that the state holds? I know there's just a weekly gathering. And I'm just wondering if we participate in that so that we can make sure that we're in touch with what's going on at the state. And there's a number of other cities in Massachusetts who, like us, are upholding the right for welcoming all residents. Mr. City Manager?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Nolan, I think I'll check. I'm pretty sure we do. We've been pretty plugged in across a number of different forums, both with the State Attorney General's office, I think, as you're noting, with other folks working on immigration, also with other law departments. And so I can follow up, but I think we're pretty plugged into those initiatives. I would certainly say there have been a lot of internal conversations, and certainly with with counselors as well about a lot of the enforcement actions that we're seeing that are very worrisome. And we're trying to better understand to what extent there are legal pathways. We've mostly seen the legal pathway exist as individuals who are suing the federal government for release under either habeas corpus or other avenues. And that's how a lot of people have been able to win their freedom. I think it's been a little bit harder to figure out like how do we collect those together into a sort of stronger action, more proactive. And that's also where one of the challenges is the levels of government where It's ultimately a congressional committee or a federal inspector general that would typically do an investigation of a federal agency that is going beyond its constitutional norms or doesn't have the right policy and procedure. I think we're starting to see more voice from the governor, from certainly city and state politicians just saying there's a list of questions that we have about the policies and practices that are happening right now in our communities that are sowing significant distrust and that make us doubt that rules are being followed. And I think we're continuing to have conversations about like, what's the most effective way to pursue that?

Council.

Thank you. And I understand and heard your sense through you, Mayor Simmons, about the financial impact, which will be potentially huge on this city from direct federal grants. We've already known there's some to the Cambridge Community Center for Resilience or planning, but also longer term as it hits Harvard, it's going to hit us as well. I DO WANT THROUGH YOU, MAYOR, TO GIVE THE CITY MANAGER A CHANCE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS PRIORITY SETTING WITH THE COUNCIL THAT IT MAY TRANSFORM INTO A CONTENDENCY PLANNING WORKSHOP BECAUSE AS WE LEARN MORE AND MORE ABOUT WHAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS WOULD BE, IT SEEMS THAT WE CAN LAY OUT OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE AND YET SOME OF THOSE PRIORITIES MAY BE HOW IS IT THAT WE WILL BE RESPONDING TO THIS. AS THE CITY MANAGER?

I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM WE DO PARTICIPATE IN THAT WEEKLY CALL.

Council Manoli?

yes and and as we move forward if as we hear about the timing for the financial i think it's really important we are informed and also the community is informed because there's a number of projects that are waiting for that kind of funding and will dramatically impact residents throughout the city so for the council as a whole through you mayors and stay tuned for how it is that we will be discussing this over the next coming weeks because every week there's some new wrinkle that we have to address and it's it's a wrinkle that can be really affecting people's lives thank you i yield

Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Anyone else want to be heard on this item?

Hearing none, I'm placing city manager's agenda item number one on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. And city manager's communication is placed on file. We move now to number two. Excuse me. This is pulled by the vice mayor. It reads as follows. A communication transmitted from Mian Wang, city manager relative, to propose increase in the fiscal 26 budget of $1 million to that would create new municipal vouchers and supportive services for people who are unhoused and a $5 million free cash appropriation for a federal grant stabilization fund. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours.

Excuse me, Madam Mayor. Councilor Nolan wanted to move suspension as the finance chair so things can be brought up together, so I'll yield to her first.

Vice Mayor yields the floor. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours. What's your pleasure?

Thank you and through you to Mayor Simmons, thank you to Vice Mayor McGovern. What I'd like to do now that item city manager two is in front of the body to move suspension of the rules to bring forward city manager item number three, four, and five. And also committee reports one, two, three, and four. And also unfinished business items eight through 17, which are the submitted budget as well as nine loan orders.

On suspension of the rules to bring forward, I'm not gonna, you said it, I'm not gonna repeat it. Those items forward, roll call please.

Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui.

Yes.

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

The rules are suspended on bringing the items just called forward roll call. Councillor Azeem.

Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Wilson.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes.

And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. Thank you. So the items are now three, four, and five are now before us. Committee reports one through four. And items recently named on unfinished business are all in front of us. Councillor Nolan, floor is back to you.

Thank you. I'm happy to all of the items related to the budget, which include the funding stabilization reserve and vouchers and a memo proposing an increase in the FY26 budget of $1 million to create new municipal vouchers, which then increases. And that's why the general fund budget is amended in the numbers before us, as well as the water fund budget and public investment. Once discussion happens on these items, I think we can, I don't know if we want to do them one by one or-

I know, usually we take them one at a time, but if we can take them all at one, I'll sort of lean into the solicitors just to get her advice on that. But in terms of the items that are in front of us, any other remarks before you open the floor?

I'm happy to have the colleagues talk about any of these items. The first one on city manager item number two will end up being the action will be to a roll call vote to place on file.

Vice Mayor? Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. And as you said, there's a lot of things in front of us now, so I'm going to comment on number two, and then I may have other comments later.

And you should say, because there's so much in front of us, please say what you're speaking to, just people that are weighing in. So the Vice Mayor has pulled number two, which is, Proposed increase in the fiscal 26 budget of $1 million that would create new municipal vouchers and supportive services for people who are unhoused. And a $5 million free cash appropriation for a federal grant stabilization fund. Do you want to ask questions or do you want the city manager to speak to it briefly?

I had a couple questions just about the voucher piece, so maybe Assistant Manager Simonoff will need to- Do you want a general overview?

Sure. So to the director of the finance, do you want to give us a general overview? And then we'll hear from Ms. Spinner and then the city manager if he's so inclined. Mr. Jennings, do you want to talk to us about number two or do you want the city manager to take that? Do you matter? May I defer to the city manager? Mr. City Manager, the floor is yours.

Oh, thank you. Through you, Mayor Simmons. Is this just sort of to provide a quick summary? It's an overview. Yeah. So I'd say I think it felt helpful to provide an overview just because there's quite a lot of things that are happening. I think we tried to write this memo mostly to summarize the major things that came out of the budget conversation that we've been having over the last couple of weeks. And so the first is the municipal supportive housing vouchers. And so this would be in response to many of the concerns over the closing of the transition wellness center to work through, in partnership with the Cambridge Housing Authority, a municipal supportive housing voucher program that would provide an opportunity for 25 unhoused individuals to transition into permanent supportive housing with supportive services. In many ways, this would build off of the existing processes that we have to have clear criteria and to prioritize individuals with long durations of homelessness and who have a special need for ongoing supportive services. Currently, we have an inventory of those housing vouchers, most of which are federally funded, and we would be expanding that to add some municipal vouchers. And so this would be about a million dollars and that's getting built into the FY26 operating budget. The second piece is the federal grant stabilization fund, which is tied to a free cash appropriation of $5 million that we would be utilizing over the course of FY26 to respond to potential federal cuts and challenges that we will see in our community. We are already tracking a lot of these different programs that are being threatened. And we are seeing at least $12 million of federal funding that we typically receive across the continuum of care grants, community development block grant, home emergency solution grants, and HOPWA funds. And these are deployed across a variety of programs that we're summarizing. There are challenges both in terms of the potential grant conditions that could be imposed, and we are currently planning to challenge some of those in court, but to also ensure that there isn't a disruption in funding. And so we're shifting and having close conversations with our community partners to move into a month to month funding stream, recognizing that depending on where that litigation lands where conversations with the federal agencies land we may or may not actually see reimbursement for that funding and we're going to have to make decisions as we move into the fall in terms of what the level of risk is on whether that funding is going to get restored and we'll see federal funding come through in which case it won't have a budget impact or whether ultimately we're gonna have to allocate some funding from the city budget in order to cover those expenses. And I think there'll be hard decisions about if we ultimately have to absorb some of that into operating budget or whether some of those programs need to change or need to be trimmed. And I think that's part of the uncertainty that we're going through. So wanted to call out, there's the overall grant programs that are currently supported by federal funding that we're seeing some challenging grant conditions regarding. And then there's additionally potential funding impacts as you look at funds that come to the Cambridge Housing Authority. And particularly, we've been having conversations about mixed status households. We have approximately 42 families that are currently on federally funded vouchers. and there are changes that HUD is working through has not given us a formal determination on, but ultimately where families that have a member that isn't fully documented potentially could be pushed out of the federal housing voucher programs. And so we've been discussing and working with the housing authority to again seek the deployment of a potential municipal voucher program that will pull these families out of federally funded programs. And the additional benefit would be that those federal vouchers could be utilized for other families that are experiencing housing insecurity. um so that's mixed status households i think we wanted to flag the federal emergency housing voucher program that we've been discussing as well this is about four million dollars of annual funding that was meant to be provided past 2030. we've not received any substantive update from from hud currently this program is meant to expire in october of 2026 but we could certainly see you know, news is changing very quickly and so we'll keep in touch in terms of whether that ends up becoming an FY27 budget question that we'll need to process or whether it ends up becoming something that happens sooner. So I think in conclusion there's actually a lot of programs that could be eligible for for this federal funding, federal grant stabilization fund. I think we are committed to ultimately both first appropriate this money, but actually come back to the council and have these collective conversations about where we would deploy this and just recognize that we're going to have to also think through what are the criteria? How are we gonna make decisions? Is this gonna be sort of a first come first serve? If something gets cut, we're gonna fund it. But if we recognize that there's actually significant risk beyond the $5 million, are we going to think about how we want to prioritize that and what kind of programs we ultimately need to backstop versus which programs we're going to have to ultimately recognize we have to trim or change. So I think these are the major sort of budget impacts beyond just the proposed budget that we submitted and happy to answer questions and have discussion.

Vice Mayor?

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. Thank you for that, Mr. Manager. Yeah, I mean the unpredictability of all this is really scary and I'm sure even far more scary for the people whose services and housing are in question. I do wanna ask just a couple questions about just the million dollars for the vouchers and sort of more in general of what we, at least what we know now that we're doing, right? Some of these other things we're not sure what's gonna happen. So just a quick question. On the million dollars for the 25 give or take vouchers that we're talking about, you mentioned in the report permanent housing with supportive services. So I just wanted for you to explain what exactly that means. So for example, you know, we just opened the housing on Norfolk Street, which is housing with supportive services. So are we saying that these vouchers are only going to be for housing like that, which there's not a lot of, or are there other ways to give supportive services? Like if someone can use a voucher to go into inclusionary, right? Almost 50% of the people in inclusionary have vouchers. Are these vouchers, are those gonna be eligible for inclusionary units or are we only talking about housing where there's supportive services onsite like we see on Norfolk Street?

Ms. Seminoff, you want to speak to that, please?

Yeah, through you, Madam Mayor. These vouchers, I think the way to consider them is they're much more like the permanent supported housing programs that we operate with many of our partners, which is ultimately mostly scattered site places. So individuals get a voucher. work with their housing navigator to actually locate a space that they want to use their voucher in. That voucher could be in Cambridge, or if they can't find a space that they want in Cambridge, it could be outside of Cambridge. supportive services, so part of the million dollars is also to go for funding for supportive services. And so that each individual, people aren't required to accept services, but each person who gets one of these vouchers is entitled to a case manager who will continue to support them during the time that they have the voucher. So it doesn't require that they be in a particular building. They have a lot of choice, but it's not that easy to find sites, so they will be assisted by the housing navigators to find a place. Vice Mayor?

Thank you, through you Madam Mayor. So they could be in a building that doesn't have, it's not necessarily a building specifically for folks who are coming out of homelessness or have vouchers. but they will get support, and that support just may not be on site, but they will get support if they want it.

Through you, Madam Mayor, the services may well be on site. It won't be someone who lives on that site, but that case managers visit people in the housing where they are.

But they don't have to be physically located. Because when I first read that, I got a little confused and I was thinking, does this mean that they have to use this voucher in a building that has the on-site services? And you said no, which is great.

Through you, Madam Mayor, that's exactly right. They do not have to use it there.

So there was another question around sort of how these vouchers are going to get distributed and how long that's going to take. And I would just, you know, I know August, September or so is not long in the way in which bureaucracies move, you know, to do this. That's not that far away, but obviously I'm not living in a shelter and I'm sure every day feels like an eternity. So, you know, is there a way to, you know, any number of weeks we can shave off of that to make it faster, that would be great. But could you explain sort of what that process is? How are folks going to apply? How are folks going to be chosen?

Through you, Madam Mayor. Ms. Seminoff. So first, we're meeting with the Housing Authority to talk about what this voucher program looks like. So this was, as you know, the city manager and the City Council worked on this project maybe 10 days ago for us to create this voucher program. The Director of the Housing Authority has agreed that he will work with us to run this program, but we need to do the work to actually work through the process with the Housing Authority. Simultaneously to that, we have a process in place, I think, Many of you know about that. It's called the Coordinated Access Entry Program. And we have staff who are funded right now by our HUD funding, but who are funded through many of our partner agencies. We have staff who are funded through the Multi-Service Center. And people are assessed individuals. We have about 250 people currently on the wait list, who are unhoused, who are on the wait list, and the process of people who are not currently assessed. People are welcome to be assessed and they can be assessed in Many different places at the multi-service center most of the shelters also have the capacity to assess people and the process there is a Coordinated entry working group which is has representatives from many of the agencies that you would recognize. On the Rise, Bay Cove, Elliot, Heading Home, Why Do I, Home Start, First Step, First Church. um those representatives participate in helping to shape this there are a couple of people who are themselves um with lived experience who participate in this we have a number of our city staff from the multi-service center the coordinated access staff there and so this is a process that we have been using for several years it's how people have access both 160 Norfolk Street, it's how people have access to any of the supported or non-supported housing opportunities. The HUD funding that we currently have, which is providing about 200 people with permanent supported housing, most of it, in individual buildings not in buildings like 116 norfolk street people who got that housing were assessed through this same process vice mayor thank you um and through your memory i i can ask you some other questions uh you know offline about about it but i guess lastly um

the for the mixed status and and mister manager you kinda to touch on this a little bit the five million dollars that would go to the mixed status families but you know there may be other priorities that you know you know it's just it's crazy uh... but there was a question of public comment just about how much flexibility we might have with that clue given that god knows right we could wake up tomorrow and and be told that you know we're losing that funding or you know we may be anticipating january 2026 god knows it could be august 2026 it could be 2027 right it's it's it's so unpredictable how much um flexibility or or you know how quickly can we pivot if you know if we were to find out tomorrow that those vouchers are getting cut like how quickly can we access that money and get those vouchers to people so that they don't lose their housing city manager

Through you Mayor Simmons, I think I would separate out there's the emergency housing voucher program and then there's the mixed status family. So I think there's not actually overlap there. I'm asking about the mixed status family. Yes. So I would say we've been anticipating that we would potentially have to move very quickly. And so we've been having very active conversation with the housing authority about how to actually implement this program so that we can be ready in anticipation. I think it's fair to say that our lean would be not to wait for HUD to make a determination on how they're going to treat mixed families. And so we would anticipate coming back to the council before the summer. So within the coming weeks for a appropriation on this initiative, and that would allow us to just execute on it. Great.

All right, thank you, and thank you for this. I know there was a lot. We talked a lot about the transitional wellness center and everything else, and I still wish it was open, but I do appreciate the flexibility and the willingness to compromise and put up this other million dollars for more vouchers for folks. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Vice Mayor Yields, the floor, Council Wilson, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you. Thank you to the City Manager, Assistant City Manager Seminoff, and our finance team on just really thinking about how we actually are allocating the funds, how we are able to have the access to the dollars, and ultimately our ability to respond quicker or sooner than later. I am curious because I know we have talked about this January 26th or something. Can you just speak a little bit more to that date, Mr. City Manager, through you, Madam Mayor, in regards to while we want to be able to set this up sooner and you just spoke to this, I think realistically, if we want to be proactive and be able to move those dollars, move the 42 families into this housing voucher program with the potential of some opportunity for additional families to be able to utilize those dollars, would that take effect? I know you'll come back to us soon with kind of like the overall how we can make this work, but would this all take effect for January or could this be sooner?

Mr. City Manager, Ms. Seminoff, who would like to respond?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, I think the question is what the timing is on the mixed families. We could come back with a more firmed up implementation timeline. I think at this point we're planning to probably come back in the next two or three weeks with both a request for the appropriation from the stabilization fund, presuming that it's established this week. And then we come for the appropriation and we can come also with the implementation plan and timeline.

Council Wilson. Thank you. And then just to follow up on something that Vice Mayor McGovern said or asked and what we've also heard in terms of public comment, while we know that some of the 25 vouchers may or may not actually go to individuals who are currently in the Transitional Wellness Center, the question is how soon, given that the Wellness Center will be closing at the end of this month, how soon With those, how soon could we actually issue vouchers to the other individuals who are on the list? And if some of them are at the wellness center, great. But how can we make sure that there's hopefully no lapse in their ability to have stable housing? I guess what I'm thinking is, are we able to move before January 20th so that if all those individuals are not able to get a voucher, that the people who are getting vouchers, there ends up being a free bed potentially for individuals who are coming out of the Wellness Center.

The voucher program, the Wellness Center is going to close by the middle of June. The voucher program will in no possibility be available to serve them. Bay Cove has assured us that there is a bed at, if there isn't an alternative space, there is a bed at 240 Albany Street for anybody who wants that, who is leaving the Wellness Center. And they will then be in a position along with other people to access these vouchers to the extent that they meet the highest criteria that are necessary. They will have that same opportunity. But the vouchers won't be ready in June, and the Wellness Center will close by the middle of June.

Council Wilson. thank you um through you madam mayor i understand that that's you know the the answer and i think the challenge and i'm happy that we were able to advocate to increase the number of vouchers by 25 to ensure that we're able to support additional folks who are unhoused recognizing the level of urgency given the the timing on the um the wellness center Do you have a timeline as to when those vouchers, or again, it's going through, and I recognize we're talking about several different things, but I think it's important for the community's sake and for us as councils to really understand the scope of timing for when the vouchers will be available, not only the mixed status family housing vouchers, but also for the stabilization, permanent supportive housing vouchers.

Assistant City Manager Semenov. Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, and I might need some help from my colleagues to make sure that I'm giving you the answers that make the most sense. Speaking first about these 25 vouchers that are for people who are currently unhoused, whether they're on the street or in a shelter. We anticipate, as I said, we are just beginning the conversations with the housing authority. But we are hopeful that by the end of the summer, Some of these vouchers will be available to people and that they will be being screened so that they can begin the housing search process. So in addition, we were talking I think about two other sets of vouchers. One of which has to do with the big status family and if I understand correctly what the city manager was saying, He has the expectation that as the staff, and it's really Chris Cotter and Maura Penzac who are doing the work on that, as they work with the housing authority, it is likely that the city manager will be coming back later in June looking for allocation of funding for the mixed status voucher from the $5 million. pool that we were talking about was the emergency housing vouchers, which were meant to last until the mid 2030s. And we have learned from HUD that they are likely to end sometime by perhaps September, October of 2026. And that's about $4 million worth of vouchers. I think at this point, we don't have more information about when that might happen. And I believe what the city manager was saying, if that were to happen, then that would be a piece of the conversation about what funding from the federal funding the city might use.

Council Wilson, from my colleagues, would you like to hear from Ms. Penzac or Mr. Carter, or at least have them at the table?

Since they're here, I mean, if they have anything to add, I would greatly appreciate it. I think it'd be appropriate. Thank you.

Assistant City Manager kept looking back, so I said, we'll spare her the exercise on her neck. Ms. Penzac, would you like to lead us off? And then we'll to you, Mr. Carter. Ms. Penzac.

Through you, Madam Mayor. I don't think there was anything to add. I appreciate the summary that Assistant City Manager Ms. Seminoff just gave. It's really important to keep each of these types of vouchers Each of these types of vouchers separate because we're working through them in various ways. So I do think the mixed status vouchers, we are looking at having those out as soon as possible.

Mr. Carter, anything you'd like to add?

No, I think that covers it.

Councillor? Thank you and thank you for coming to the table to use it, Madam Mayor. I really appreciate the complexity of how we're really working hard to make sure that our most vulnerable are able to have access to stable housing. Understanding, again, the complexities of how we move dollars in and and understanding the systems in which the dollars kind of need to be housed in order for the allocation or appropriations to be handled appropriately. So thank you. Thank you for that update. And I think the other follow-up that I had in regards to this whole process is, especially with the two, like for HUD, You know, nothing is definite yet, correct? And so because of that, I mean, I know we want to be proactive, and in many cases, being proactive for us is kind of like the Cambridge way. And I recognize that, you know... Do we want to, I think something to what you said, Mr. Standing Manager, around we don't want to wait until HUD actually turns around and says, you know, we're pulling these. We want to be proactive and kind of implement. And I guess we'll hear more. Actually, I'll pause on my thoughts until we hear more in a couple of weeks. With that, I'll yield.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a follow-up, either to Ms. Penzac or Mr. Carter. So if you're going to take advantage of the temporary vouchers, And for those of us that may be working with an unhoused person, where do we send them? Do we send them to the multi-service center? Do we send them to the CHA? Do we send them to CDD? It would be helpful, at least from my office, to have a clear sense of where is the portal that that person, where is the entry point? Are there several or is there one? You know, there's an extra chair.

Through you, Madam Mayor.

The seminar.

I would say that it is certainly appropriate to send them to the multi-service center. As we develop the process, because they are not the only people who can receive, we can communicate with the city council. So you are all aware of the best place, but right now, AS THIS DEVELOPS, THE MULTI-SERVICE CENTER IS MOST DEFINITELY A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN BE SENT AND CAN BE GIVEN ACCESS TO SCREENING FOR THE CCAM PROCESS.

THAT'S HELPFUL. COUNCIL SIDDIQI, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

THANK YOU, THROUGH YOU, AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT I THINK IT'S GREAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE STABILIZATION FUND, HAVING THAT FLEXIBLE RESOURCE. I THINK BACK TO COUNCILOR NOLAN'S POINT AND SOMETHING THE CITY MANAGER SAID, I THINK HOW WE what we use the money for. I think there's some idea on that direction. But I think talking about how we actually make those decisions is really important. And so I think however that process may look like, the sooner we talk about it so that we have clarity. And then on the piece around municipal vouchers, I was reflecting on the first meeting we had on just this topic in, I think, October 2024. There was a presentation. Seems like a whole it is a different time right and so I do think There was a lot of thought and thinking and conversations with CHA talking about like different forms of vouchers the tenant preservation subsidy the thinking through How do we help those who aren't eligible for federal funding right? So I think we're here now because it's where we are but the conversation around this municipal voucher piece isn't necessarily new. I think we are pivoting with the times, but I do think I agree with Assistant City Manager. The request was new, but the ideas around and the conversations, I think I want to appreciate Maura and Chris and many others, including the CHA and all the advocates who had been who had very specific ideas, right? And this is not exactly kind of the amount or to the T what had been originally proposed. But I think, as I've said, we have to adapt. And there's more decisions that are going to be made around some of this. So I wanted to just get that out and yield back. Thank you.

Councillor Siddiqui yields the floor. Councillor Susie, did you want, have any inquiries? Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Yeah, really glad we're moving forward with this. Some of the other councillors asked questions that I had had. Just had a couple of clarifying questions. The one is in terms of who will be helping on the municipal vouchers, helping folks do the housing search. We heard it's the housing navigators. In terms of which department will actually be managing the municipal voucher program, who is that going to be? through the human services department thanks just clarifying that and then the um in terms of the prioritizing the vouchers and figuring out who they're going to go to i'm just wondering if there's been any i know it's still early but about how that's going to be managed i'm thinking of the inclusionary program and we have a whole set of uh points and priorities for that. That took a long time to develop. I don't want to, you know, us to have to go through the whole process of that because we want to get these out the door as soon as possible. But just if there is any info on that, would love it can be shared. Is it just going to be folks on the CCAN list? Are there other criteria that folks started to think about? You know, we have limited resources. It's a million dollars, which we're grateful for, but that's not going to be a voucher for every single person. So just trying to figure out how we're going to decide who they go to. Ms.

Seminoff? Yeah, through you, Madam Mayor. We will be using the CCAN prioritization process, which is what we have been using to date. And we have, I think, a very good group of the both folks who are both advocates and service providers who have participated in this so it isn't a decision that's just made by one person sitting in a room and so I think particularly I don't think we have a strong reason not to follow that process and particularly because we are all very anxious to get this in place as quickly as possible using the process that we have used for both the permanent supported housing and for most of the emergency housing vouchers I think is the best process we could use.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Great, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that. As Councilor Siddiqui mentioned, if this is a program we keep continuing, we are able to keep going. We've had conversations with municipal vouchers for a while. Maybe we can have a community process about prioritization and see if there are other categories we should be thinking about. But I agree that getting these out the door as soon as possible is the priority here. And that prioritization process makes sense. So that's all I had. I yield.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler yields the floor. Pleasured City Council. Councilor Nolan.

Mayor Simmons, are we still, all the items are before us, or should we really only be directing?

All the items are before us, but I was going to suggest we maybe just pull our attention on number two, because that just requires us to place on file. So we could stick to that, and then everything else, we can go back to you. So, Councilor Nolan-

Yep, thank you, through you. Luckily, the several questions I had have been answered. I did have an additional one on what we're seeing as we coordinate with the state and our nonprofits across the city about the needs. Are we seeing different needs than we had expected? And if so, whether it's language needs or families versus others that are schooling needs that we're seeing that we need to anticipate to include in some of the planning that we're doing around the vouchers.

And you're asking that of?

anyone who at the table.

Should I just call on a name? You want to start with you Ms. Suminoff and work our way down the table?

Through you, Madam Mayor, Councilor Nolan, I'm not quite, if I can ask you a question back just so that we don't waste time not answering the question you have. Are you talking about the vouchers that are for the unhoused or are you talking about the vouchers for the mixed status families?

I was thinking more of the mixed status families, but if we're not on that part of it, then sorry if I was confusing.

I would just turn it over to my colleagues. Okay. Ms. Penzac? Mr. Carter?

Through you, Madam Mayor, and you, Councilman Nolan, if I could ask for further clarification in terms of the mixed status families. You're asking if there's specific needs that we're seeing?

Yeah, through you. If there are some things that we haven't anticipated before that we then need to move forward with, and often once we start talking to people, we find out things that we had not necessarily anticipated. So I'm just curious as to whether we're seeing that or if we're all set to just move forward as fast as we can using the prioritization. Is that helpful, Ms. Penzac?

And through you, Councilman Millman, I'll take a stab at it and then back to Director Chris Cotter. I don't think that we're seeing much more of a need except for we are unsure if some of these families are going to want to move. So essentially it's just a funding switch. But if some of the families want to move from where they are living, then that will take a little bit more time. But we are absolutely in process, have been talking with CHA and hope to move this. This should be pretty quick because it is not even a separate program or figuring out who. They know who these families are, so we just need the funding. I mean, it's not quite that simple, but.

Mr. Carter, do you want to add?

Yeah, through you, Mayor Simmons. The only thing I'd add is just where we're talking about folks that have existing vouchers from CHA, so there's not the same need to do the prioritization and to select them. We know the folks that CHA will be working with, and as we get into next steps, we'll then be better able to assess from that work with CHA, and we will do with families if there are other needs and or if there are other things that they would like as a... what Mara mentioned, if they would like to move.

Councillor Nolan.

Yep, thank you. I mean, the kinds of things that come up are either language help or legal issue that if you're in this situation, obviously, and I know we provide those really legal services, and yet this makes it clearer that that's the kind of service that often is needed in order to ensure that those families can have their needs taken care of. So I'm set, Mayor Simmons, on this particular issue.

Councillor Nolan yields the floor. Councillor Azeem, any questions? Councillor Turner? Further discussion? This one just requires to be placed on file, so why don't we discharge that? So there's no other discussion on this, on placing this matter on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. It's money, she's right.

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. And the matter is placed on file. Affirmative vote of nine members. We'll go now to number three. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan. It reads as follows. Actually, you don't have to read them. You're going to take them. We can now take the balance of these items as a whole. So what is the pleasure of the City Council? Thumbs up. There you go. We can just have one vote. Ready? There's lots of votes. I know. Council, no.

Was that me, Mayor Simmons? Yes, that's you. Thank you, through you, Mayor Simmons. I'm addressing CMA item number three, which is the amendment to the general fund budget for the increase of a million dollars to create the new municipal vouchers. And the reason I think it's important for us to understand and perhaps through you, Mayor Simmons, to hear from the city staff, what the funding source this is, this is different from later on. We'll be taking a vote to create the federal stabilization fund and allocate $5 million from the free cash into that stabilization fund. This is a different one, which is it's included in our operating budget, which is why we will be voting for an amended operating budget. And this, I believe, comes from our tax levy. And I think it would be helpful for all of us to understand that AS WE KNOW, WE CAN'T JUST ADD ANY DOLLARS TO THE BUDGET WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHERE THAT OPERATING EXPENSE, HOW IT WILL BE COVERED. I BELIEVE IT WILL BE COVERED THROUGH THE TAX LEVY. I BELIEVE WE WILL HEAR FROM ACM SPINNER AND BUDGET DIRECTOR takes us, we expect, right up to the maximum tax levy that we had agreed that we could sustain, which is 8%. We had been slightly below that. This will take us right up to that. However, since tax levies aren't set until the fall when we have assessment and other information that come in, We are very much hoping that we can stay under that. We're pretty sure we won't be much under it, and we really don't know if we should all just prepare ourselves that we may have to go slightly above that because of the uncertainty of the financial time to run. So I thought if the council has questions, but that is the reason that we are being very careful here about this million dollars has to be covered from somewhere, and it's taken mostly from the tax levy. So I don't know if the finance staff wants to add to that or correct or-

what i just said does the finance staff want to give us a general overview of the city manager before we get deeper into the conversation or do you want us just to go press ahead with three four and five

Through you, Madam Mayor, I'll just say I agree with what Councilor Nolan stated. This is covered through taxes. But again, we won't know the final tax levy until the tax classification process this fall. And that's dependent on some things, you know, information coming back from the state regarding their final budget and state aid to municipalities, including Cambridge. So we'll keep the council updated and but Right now, the projected tax levy increase is an 8% increase exactly over the FY25 levy, which is in line with the targets we had communicated throughout this year in preparing for the 26th budget.

Ms. Spinner, anything you want to add? No, thank you, Mayor. Questions from the floor? Back to you, Councilor.

Thank you. On city manager item number three, which is an amendment to the general fund budget, I move that we adopt the recommendation and refer this to unfinished business number eight in the committee report on the general fund budget.

Any discussion?

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.

And the recommendation has been adopted and referred to the committee for report. We move now to the next item. I'll give back the floor back to you, Councilor.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. The next item would be for us to accept committee reports, all of which are from the finance committee meetings that the council held. And they're committee reports number one, two, three, and four. And unless the council has questions, we can place those on file.

Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

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

Back to you, Councillor.

Okay, this is an amazing vote that we are about to take because it is the adoption of the general fund budget as amended. And that as amended is due to the million dollars that we just voted to place into creating new municipal vouchers. It is an amount as amended of $978,578,370. As we noted during our meetings, this alone is close to a billion dollar amount. I certainly appreciate the staff. It's incredible, not just the finance staff, but across the city. Every single department came before us. We had three full days of budget hearings. There were many questions raised. There are certainly issues that were raised, some concerns I had during some of the discussions. I personally did consider a couple of the budgets were ones that I did not. And vote to move forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation and yet I will be voting yes on this general fund budget. I think we're in very, very challenging times as a city. This represents an astonishing breadth of services that we're providing to the city and it has been improved by the many ways that we have worked over the last few months to try to change some things and particularly address the needs of the most vulnerable in the community. So again, it is a huge vote, but the proposal is around the general fund budget of almost a billion dollars.

Item you're on, because I went to number four, and you are where? So we're in the same place.

This would be... Let's see, on my list, it's adoption of the general fund budget.

The deputy clerk and I, we're at four. We want to know where you are so we know the body knows what we're adopting.

I believe it's on the waiting, hold on, on the unfinished business.

Item number?

I am looking it up. Oh, it is item number eight is relative to the submitted budget and appropriation orders for the general fund, the water fund, and the public investment fund.

Does everyone see where she is?

Under unfinished business item number eight.

Number eight.

And now there's three separate votes on that. One will be on the general fund, one will be on the water fund, and one will be under public investment fund. I believe we have to take them separately unless- I just want to make sure I ticked them off appropriately. The budget director nodding. We will be taking each of those. They're all included in unfinished business item number eight, but they will be separate votes for the three items.

Unfinished business number eight, is there any discussion? Councilor Zusy.

Yeah, point of information, I don't know if this is the time to make a general comment about asking to borrow more money.

Well, it's all in front of us, so.

Excuse me?

It's all in front of us, so if you want to make that.

Okay, well maybe I take this opportunity just to say that- And then we'll come back to you, Councilor, but go ahead. Yeah. Through Madam Mayor, I support this budget, but I am concerned about how much we're spending and how much more we're borrowing, especially as it looks like we're going to have quite a bit less money over the next couple of years. And we're already $1.1 billion in debt. So I'm concerned about that. I recognize that a lot of the work that we're committing to needs to happen, but I think it will be really essential going forward that we find ways to do more with less as communities that have not been as graced with such strong commercial revenue have have done I think it will be absolutely essential that we adapt to our new circumstances and I just I just don't want to I realize we need to spend on infrastructure, and of course we need to be spending wisely, but I'm nervous about our spending more, borrowing more. bringing in less from our tax levy, and I'm really concerned about the possible need to backfill 20 to 25 million in federal grants that we may not receive. So again, I trust our financial management. I know we're a AAA bond-rated city, and I trust you, but I'm worried. So with that, I thank you for all of your work, and let's adapt to our circumstances going forward. Thank you.

Council Susan yields the floor. Any further discussion before we go back to Councilman Nolan?

Yes, thank you. I believe, and to clarify to people, the budget as listed, the operating budget in the book is the $992,181,320, and that is comprised of the two votes we're about to take. One is the general fund budget, which I mentioned is $978,578,370. AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE WATER FUND BUDGET, AND THOSE TWO TOGETHER ADD UP TO THE OPERATING BUDGET, AND THEN THERE WILL BE A SEPARATE PUBLIC INVESTMENT FUND BUDGET. AND I TAKE THROUGH YOU, MAYOR SIMMONS, TO COUNCILOR ZUZI'S REMINDER THAT WITHIN OUR OPERATING BUDGET, ABOUT 10%, ABOUT $100 MILLION IS those are rough numbers, don't quote me, but it's around that debt on our existing capital improvement. So it certainly affects us in terms of our operating budget that we think of all the services, 200, the largest departments of schools, 290 million. We have public works, we have CDD, and yet about 10%, more than 100 million is for debt on our existing debt. So the motion would be to adopt the general fund budget as amended of $978,578,370. So is there any more discussion?

Councilor Susi yields the floor. I'm going to go to Councilor Siddiqui. I think she has a question on this item. Councilor Siddiqui, it was yours.

I just wanted to make her comments. I wanted to start by appreciating all the work that went into this year's budget. I attended all the hearings. I felt like I was living here that week, as I'm sure all of you did too. And I always value the opportunity to hear directly from staff across departments before the budget reaches the council. And it's also clear there's an intention that has been there to start this budget process earlier. And I do appreciate those conversations that have been initiated. And I'm hopeful that we'll continue building on that progress so that we can all meaningfully engage throughout and not just at the end when it's too late to weigh in in a substantial way. And so I'll say that I am supportive of a lot of what's in this budget. I'm really proud of the work that the city has done and continues to do. And I do support a lot of the appropriations and amendments in front of us. With that said, I think we're... I am coming to the decision to vote no on the adoption is that I think we're in a hard moment and I don't believe this budget reflects the urgency or the bold action that this time calls for. And what really does it for me is hearing from our most vulnerable low income families in poverty who are really struggling. And I have to tell them that there's not much we can do for them right now in an almost $1 billion budget. So I totally won't repeat a lot of what's been said in this council. I appreciate all the varying points on where we are, but for me personally... I continue to believe that there are moments when we should be staying flexible, leaving ourselves room to act and also rise to the challenges in front of us. So I yield, I just wanted to clarify my vote. Thank you.

Councilor Siddiqui yields the floor. Excuse me, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm happy to vote yes on the water fund and the public investment fund. I voted in support of the general fund last year, but I just want to clarify, I'll also be voting no on the general fund portion this year. I've spent a lot of time working to try to strengthen our budget prioritization process, and there are some great priorities in this budget, but I think it in the situation that we're we find ourselves in now where we are in more challenging financial circumstances than we've been in the past it becomes even more important to you know be really intentional about what we are saying yes to and have an early uh proactive conversation so that we can put those things forward and i think we're just not there yet in terms of figuring out that budget prioritization with the council and the city administration um i uh really think we can can get there and hope we will for next year um but just we'll be voicing voting now uh on this piece this year go back

Council Sabrina, we'll yield the floor for the vice mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. I will be voting in favor of the budget. I think, you know, I've done a number of budgets, school committee and council over the years, and I don't think there's ever been one where I have felt 100% was perfect to everything that I wanted to see done and liked being done. And I think that's what the budget process is for, and I think we went through a robust one. Certainly, many of us advocated very strongly for a long time about a number of things that we wanted to see in. you know, not passing the budget. And again, one person saying, I'm not going to vote for it. I don't begrudge anybody doing what they feel is right. They let's, we each get an individual vote, but if we didn't pass, if we don't pass the budget, particularly at a time when finances and federal funding and everything else is so unstable, we throw the city into a month by month budget process, which is going to be chaotic. And I think probably make an already stressful situation even more stressful for the people who rely more heavily on the services that we provide uh in the budget so as much as i'm not you know there are certainly i wanted to see money for rise i wanted to see the wellness center i certainly a lot of things that i could look at in this budget and say i'd like this rather than that the end of the day we find ourselves here after a long process and i think the responsible thing to do is to pass the budget so we can keep funding the services of the city and you know it sometimes you hold your nose a little bit and do it but to not pass the budget would throw the city into more chaos, and I don't think any of us need any more chaos. So again, there are some things in it that I wish were different, but not passing it would be far worse for the city than passing it. Thank you, in my opinion.

Vice Mayor yields the floor for the discussion. Council Wilson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity to speak as well as to really want to thank everyone who participated in our budget process. I think coming from the school committee, I think where we have a little bit more of a robust community engagement process in how we do our budget, I recognize that there's a lot more that we can actually do here to engage our community more and really meet neighbors where they are to hear more about what are the priorities that matter to them the most. So those are some of the things that I would love to see us do and do better. I recognize that there's no 100% process that's like the best process. There's always just room for growth and room for improvement. And I think each and every year we need to strive to meet that level of excellence. I too will be voting in favor of the budget and I think that that's more in this climate at this time during these unprecedented times that we need to make sure that we are having the allocations and not kind of find ourselves in any financial troubles that would cause us to be maybe in a month-to-month thing as Vice Mayor McGovern just spoke to. So I think it is a bit of a financial responsibility to actually vote in favor. But again, I do believe that there are many missed opportunities that we had here and some that was definitely talked about in great detail throughout this budget process. And really hope that we're able to just do a bit better, like think about what are the goals that we want to reach. How do we actually reach those goals and making sure that especially our most vulnerable communities are really getting a lot of their needs met because they're the ones that if they fall, we're all going to fall. And so that's something and I do appreciate again, while we have dollars that we have invested, we just went through this process right in this last vote of dollars that went for our stabilization Vouchers and in various vouchers that we just talked about so that's a huge win and I just want to name that as such and and conversations about how do we implement a rise of successor plan program and and just so much more so again, this isn't just a horrible budget, it's not the best that we can do. There's a lot more that we can do, and I do look forward to being able to strive to do so, recognizing that we are within an administration that may have us a little more tied, and we want to be really thoughtful and responsible in how we do things. But I think that also leads us to having bigger conversations about other things that we are investing some significant dollars around in our city that are not, if we really wanted to iron out the equity around a lot of the things that we actually invest dollars on, those dollars may not make as much sense as some of the things that have been advocated for in this budget cycle that maybe has not been fully invested in. If we really want to talk about an equitable budget, then let's talk about equity and let's make sure that we are really doing the work for the most vulnerable across our communities. Black, brown, white, indigenous, you know, man, woman, they, other, you know, we want to make sure that everyone has their needs met. And I think the city of Cambridge has a responsibility, excuse me, in doing so in a really thoughtful and meaningful way. And so while this is not 100% of a perfect package, it's the best at this moment that I think that we can offer to the city. And so for that, I will be voting in favor. Thank you.

Council Wilson yields the floor. Council Turner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you, I'm going to be voting for it because I think it's an excellent budget. I think the staff has done a wonderful job of explaining to us line by line, percentage point by percentage point, where the money's going, what it's going for. I think the challenge for us, quite honestly, is as a city, for many, many years, we were able to just let things grow and grow and grow and grow because Kendall Square and our economy grew and grew and grew. And now we have to take a hard look going forward. And just like with contract negotiations, I always said at the teacher's union that the day after you sign that contract, you should start looking at the contract for future changes three years from now and start thinking about it. for everybody who has ideas about what we should do differently in the contract after we take this vote and pass excuse me the budget uh should sit down with their red pen and start scratching out what they think we should be cutting because i don't think we're going to have room to be growing things there are a lot of people in the city who think we are spending too much we spend more on schools than any other city or district we spend more on services and uh housing issues than in any other city so i'm proud that we do that but i do think that you know as a city we should be proud of this budget and sure there are tweaks that we could make but correct me if i'm wrong uh folks but i think 80 85 of what is in the budget is already cooked in terms of salaries and benefits and uh you know DPW, things that must be done, and there's not a whole lot of flexibility on other things. So as you go forward, take the brand new budget book that was just explained to us just a few weeks ago and start thinking about what it is you would prioritize and make changes for in the next budget. But I'll probably be voting for this budget because I think it's a great budget. Thank you, I yield.

Councilor Toney yields the floor. Is there any more discussion? Discussion before we vote, because I did want to say something. So go ahead.

Thank you, I just want to say a couple things before I do the vote. Would you like me to say that now, before you?

And I'd like to say something before we do the vote. Okay, right. Go, and then I'll speak after.

Yeah, I just wanted to explain, I will be voting yes. I do share some of, as I did during the budget hearing, some concerns about some of our budget. And I do hope, as we move forward, that we turn to, once we pass this, as Councillor Toner just said, in the future see how we could save. I've certainly been one of the ones here say whether it's a capital project or the school budget which is to remind us all almost double the state average on a per capita basis without necessarily being the top of the state for performance for all students particularly those students of color and low income. So that's certainly an example where I'd love us to be able to save money. I think on a lot of our capital projects, we've gone over it again and again. And yet, there's also some phenomenal great things in this budget. We provide services that are unparalleled in housing in the schools, but also from our DPW to our streets. There's always ways we could complain, but it is phenomenal level of services. We provide in our youth centers something that we don't even have comps for across the state because no other city does that. So yet there's always ways we could improve. So I hope all of us engage in that once we get past this budget that we start thinking before the fall next year or in the fall next year about how it is that we might have a budget for the future. Because there's no way that it won't be more constrained than this budget that we're seeing this year. And we're already pushing the edge of what it is that we want to see as a tax levy, which is higher than most residents in the city can reasonably afford. Many of our residents are quite constrained, and we have to remember that they fund it. And many of our commercial is also, they're going to be struggling in a way that we have not yet seen in many, many years. So thank you, Mayor Simmons, I yield and have not called the vote.

Councilor Nolan-Niels, just before we go into the vote, I just certainly wanted to acknowledge that several of these items that we're going to be talking about or voting on reflects the city's initial response to what may become a long and painful erosion of federal support for vulnerable residents. And although we have to act swiftly, we also have to act carefully, knowing we cannot replace any dollar that disappears. And we must preserve enough flexibility to meet further challenges. And that's what I worry about, having enough flexibility to meet further challenges. If you just turn the television on from hour to hour, not day to day, but hour to hour, and there's always some major shift in what's happening at the White House. And so for us, the way I think about it, this is really about protecting people today while planning responsibly for tomorrow. We had a conversation just earlier in the mayor's office where just talking about what the federal government is doing And just trying to, how do we brace ourselves for these continue, I can call it nothing else but an assault. So more instability and potentially harsher mandates tied to federal dollars. So our response really has to be prudent, not panicked. And we must be mindful of having something to fall back on. And that's what I think about most, is having something to fall back on should we need more spending down the road. So I will certainly support the budget. I know we worked, our staff worked really hard on it. And I guess I have the benefit of having served in the city in one capacity or the other long enough to know when we did let go of teachers. where we did cut back services, where we did reduce people's hours, and it wasn't a nice time to live through. And we've been on the uptick since, and now because of circumstances clearly not our own, COVID and then crazy, here we are. So, sorry. So let's keep our minds, keep our wits about us as we take this long, careful journey. Councilor Nolan?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, I move that we adopt the general fund budget as amended in the amount of $978,578,370. Roll call.

Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui.

No.

No. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. No. No. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have seven members recorded in the affirmative, with two recorded as negative.

And item number... I have lost what item? Unfinished business number eight. One of the items. Right, one of the three. Unfinished business number eight passes with the affirmative vote of seven members, two voting in the negative. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you. The next item, which also is under unfinished business number, item number eight, is the adoption of the water fund budget in the amount of $13,602,950. Discussion? Discussion.

Hearing none, roll call. Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui.

Yes.

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

And the water fund budget is approved by the affirmative vote of nine members. Councillor Nolan.

Thank you.

Public investment fund budget.

Yes. So the final portion of the unfinished item number eight is the adoption of the public investment fund budget. That was an entire section in the budget book of section Roman numeral six, so V1. The number of pages list out the public investment projects. The total public investment fund budget is $41,204,770. Discussion?

Hearing none, 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. And the public fund budget of $41,200,470 is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. We now have before us loan orders.

Yes.

Which are on the agenda. They are CMA 2025 number 93 through 101 or on the unfinished business items 9 through 17. I believe we vote these separately. I'M LOOKING TO OUR FINANCE STAFF. I WILL SAY SOME OF THESE, JUST TO REMIND US, THESE ARE LOAN ORDERS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S AN APPROPRIATION. IT AUTHORIZES EVENTUALLY THIS PARTICULAR LOAN ORDER FOR THESE PROJECTS. SOME OF THESE ARE MULTI-YEAR had other funding for instance the school building upgrades as other funding in the past the sewer and CSO storage in the future but we're we're what we're doing now is proposing these loan orders which some of them we hope to some of the council particularly the first one Ahern field we all want the field to be done and we all hope that it will cost less and that there will then be money available for other ITEMS, BUT THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE CMA 2025 NUMBER 93, UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 9, WHICH IS A LOAN ORDER FOR A HEARN FIELD IN THE AMOUNT OF $7.5 MILLION.

DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. Council Wilson.

Thank you. Yes, I want to appreciate everyone who spoke in public comment and also recognizing, I think, the expenses. This is quite an expensive amount of money. And again, I've used that field from I was a little girl and really want to see that field be done over and be a useful place for not only our youth soccer, but for the students that will be attending that building, other neighbors across our communities, and just recognize that there is a need for investment in many of our parks. I just want to be very clear on that. To what that dollar amount is, is something that we need to continue to have a conversation around. And just recognizing how could we be more... financially responsible in how we actually go after or go about the renovations to these major beautiful spaces that we have across our parks? And then what is the maintenance to make sure that we are maintaining these spaces on an ongoing basis? I want to see this space be beautiful and be great for the young kids across the city of Cambridge, and I want us to see if we could spend a little less here. So I just want to name that and put that on record, but really look forward to what the future of Ahern Field looks like. So thank you. With that, I yield.

Council Wilson, yield the floor for the discussion. I'm very pleased to see this particular... allocation, having sat through the 320, I think it's 320 Charles Street, the BioMed building and the properties that are adjacent and looking at that area. My kids went to the Kennedy School. We don't know what we're going to do with it in the end, but it'll be important for kids in that end of the city to have a nice, pristine field in order to have recreation, whether it's soccer or baseball. It's a field that's used a great deal. A great deal. So to use a coin, a phrase that my colleague, Council Wilson, uses, needs some love. So hopefully this will give it a little bit of that. If there's no further discussion on CMA 2025, number 93, roll call.

Councillor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Siddiqui?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

And the matter is approved on the affirmative vote of nine members. Councillor Nolan?

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. The next item we'll be voting on is CMA 2025 number 94, unfinished business item number 10, which is a loan order in the amount of $16.5 million for complete streets, which is an appropriation and authorization to borrow money and funds for the reconstruction of various city streets and sidewalks that are delineated in the public investment section of the budget book.

Discussion? Discussion?

Hearing none, roll call. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. 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.

And the loan order is approved on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to number C, Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This is a CMA 2025 number 95, unfinished business item number 11. It's a loan order for the municipal facilities improvement plan funds on the amount of $11.1 million. This will support significant building improvements and deferred maintenance projects across the city for a range of municipal buildings that the city owns. It includes but are not limited to upgrades and public works.

municipal offices use centers branch libraries fire stations and deferred maintenance discussion council wilson thank you i just quickly wanted to just add like there's such a need here to make sure that we are doing the best that we can to um maintain our buildings across the city uh sometimes our buildings are getting into a place where they then need to shut down in order for repairs to happen because they have been neglected for quite some time. 105 Windsor Street is on this list amongst many others. And so I just want to see us as a city really prioritize with urgency the maintenance of our buildings and really look into what can we be spending a little bit sooner versus having to spend a whole lot later in these investments. That also includes several of our other schools. Again, Fletcher Maynard is top of my list in needs for maintenance and repairs in addition to the Longfellow Building, the Cambridge Port Building, etc so i'm happy that we're able to pass these dollars to make sure that we're able to do some work but i'm really thinking about the sustainability of our municipal buildings and making sure that especially our young people are able to go into buildings that they can be proud of and especially when it comes to learning and educators going into spaces where they need to teach, that they are in high quality spaces and that they're not just sprinkled out throughout our city and being neglected in neighborhoods across our city that do matter like the port. So again, we have 105 Windsor, we have Fletcher Maynard, Cambridge Port, and more. We need to do a better job. And I don't believe that this dollar amount is... is all that we should be invested. I think there is so much more that we need to do. But if this is what we have at this moment, I'll approve it or vote in favor of it. But there's a lot more that we need to be doing and we need to not be neglecting the port. Thank you.

Council Wilson yields the floor for the discussion. Hearing none, roll call.

Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the loan order is approved on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to CMA 2025-96. Councillor Nolan.

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. As you noted, it's CMA 2025 number 96, unfinished business item number 12. This is a loan order for school building upgrades in the amount of 19,986,000. Through you to Councilor Wilson's point, this is the one where it's for a number of school building upgrades. And to assure all of us, IN PRIOR YEARS, WE APPROVED AN ADDITIONAL $20 MILLION. THIS COMES ON TOP OF THAT. IT IS EITHER $40 OR $50 MILLION TOTAL. I THINK ALL OF US BELIEVE WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB OF MAINTAINING AND REPAIRING. HAD WE DONE THAT, SOME FOLKS HAVE SAID WE WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED TO TEAR DOWN THREE LARGE SCHOOLS AND REBUILD THEM ENTIRELY. IF WE HAD DONE THE PROPER MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ON THEM, millions and millions of dollars by repairing and expanding those buildings instead of building new ones to a city that is now used to really good buildings. But we may have been able to, had we done the maintenance and repair, been able to save some money. A TOTAL OF $19,986,000 THAT IS ON TOP OF PRIOR BOND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS WHICH ARE ACROSS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERALLY GUIDED BY THE CITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT FACILITIES PERSONNEL.

DISCUSSION? COUNCIL WILSON?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I spoke too soon on the last one, but really just want to reiterate the need and urgency, especially when now when, you know, the last one, again, my comments were supposed to be about the youth centers. So I'll speak to the youth centers just really quickly and just say we need to not neglect our spaces, especially our spaces that are getting used by youth. the best of our young people across our city and our staff that that are in those spaces so we just need to do a great job a better job of making sure that we're maintaining these spaces and providing the appropriate upgrades i remember one of the roofs or whatever for one of our youth centers were on the participatory budget and that wasn't even uh selected right and that should never be that we have individuals in our community wanting to do this REPAIRS TO OUR BUILDINGS THROUGH OUR PARTICIPATORY BUDGET. WE HAVE THE PRIORITY OR WE SHOULD HAVE THAT URGENCY OF MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT MAINTENANCE AND DOING IT IN THE APPROPRIATE WAY THROUGH OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET OR CAPITAL FUND BUDGET. WITH THAT, THANK YOU.

FURTHER DISCUSSION?

HEARING NONE. Roll call, please. Councillor Azeem.

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

And the loan order of school building upgrades is approved on the affirmative vote of nine members. We now go to CMA 2025, number 97, Councillor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This is unfinished business item number 13. It's a loan order related to sewers in Central Square in the amount of $27.5 million.

Discussion?

Hearing none, roll call. Councillor Azeem.

Yes.

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

And the loan order is approved by the affirmative vote of eight members, one recorded as absent. We move now to CMA 2025, number 98, Councillor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This is unfinished business item number 14. It's a loan order for a CSO, which is the Combined Sewer Overflow Program Storage Tank, which allows us, this infrastructure reduces the need for emergency responses to sewer backups and flooding, resulting in a savings eventually in operating. So this is certainly one that helps us in the future, and it's in the amount of $3 million. Discussion?

Discussion?

Hearing none, roll call. Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Absent. Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Zusy?

Yes.

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

The loan order is approved by the eight members, one recorded as absent. We move now to CMA 2025, number 99, Councillor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This is unfinished business item number 15. It's a loan order related to sewer reconstruction projects, which is a total of $7.5 million, which these investments will lead to the improvement of sewer and storm water infrastructure, which again, reduces the need for emergency repairs. And also, it's a continued investment in understanding the city's vulnerabilities to climate change and implementing preparedness because we need to be reducing flooding across the city, and this is part of that. And I think I said it's in the amount total of $7.5 million. Discussion?

Hearing none, roll call. Councillor Zinn. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler is absent. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy.

Yes.

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

Loan order, sir. Reconstruction is approved by the affirmative vote of eight members. One being recorded as absent. We now go to CMA 2025, number 100. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. This is unfinished business item number 16. It's a loan order related to water construction. And the total amount is $15,250,000. Discussion?

Hearing none, roll call. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Absent. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Loan order water construction approved by the affirmative vote of eight members. One being recorded as absent. The last one is CMA 2025 number 101. Councillor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This is our last of the loan orders that we passed to a second reading in prior meetings, which we'll be passing tonight for final. It is unfinished business item number 17. It's a loan order for the Wilder Lee Playground and 359 Broadway. The total amount is $1.6 million. This is a project that had a prior authorization of 500,000 bond appropriation from last year, so the total cost will end up being $2.1 million. IT'S TO REPLACE EQUIPMENT AND REDUCE THE NEED FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE IN FUTURE YEARS AT THIS PLAYGROUND. DISCUSSION?

HEARING NONE, ROLL CALL. COUNSELOR ZIN.

YES.

YES. VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN. YES. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. 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.

And the loan order is approved by the affirmative vote of nine members. We now go back to city manager's item number four. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This is the actual item on the agenda that establishes the Federal Stabilization Fund. We, before approve the memo on the Federal Funding Stabilization Fund, this would be the action is to adopt the actual order of establishing the fund and placing on file this communication. Discussion?

Hearing none, roll call. Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy?

Yes.

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

And the action is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to number five, Councillor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This is city manager item number five, which is a free cash appropriation of $5 million to the federal funding stabilization fund. The prior vote established the fund. This would take a free cash appropriation out of the free cash fund and put it to be used in funding the federal funding stabilization fund in the amount of $5 million. We would need to adopt this order and then place on file the city manager item.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. 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.

I would like to move suspension of the rules in order to move reconsideration on every vote taken related to the budget, loan orders, and federal funding stabilization fund, hoping the same will not prevail.

On suspension of the rules, roll call. Councillor Azeem. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy.

Yes.

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

And the meeting is now under suspension on reconsideration. Hoping the same, excuse me, will not prevail. Roll call.

Councillor Azeem.

Yes.

No, Vice Mayor McGovern? No. No, Councilor Nolan? No. No, Councilor Siddiqui?

No.

No, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? No. No, Councilor Toner?

No.

No, Councilor Wilson? No. No, Councilor Zusy? No. No, Mayor Simmons?

No.

No, and you have nine members recorded in the negative.

The matter is not reconsidered. I think we have one more item, Madam Clerk, on the agenda, same age agenda, number eight. Pulled by Councilor Nolan. It's a communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to awaiting report item number 2518, regarding vacant storefronts. Councilor Nolan, you pull this. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I just want to refer this communication to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee meeting, which is set up for June 23, 2025, since that is the subject of the meeting.

Okay. Matt, Madam Mayor, I'll defer to the chair, but the chair and I actually had discussed this with staff and said we had a long discussion about this in the committee meeting and they should just send the policy order proposal up to us at the council so that we could discuss it here rather than having another subcommittee meeting. But I defer to Council Wilson as chair of the committee if she feels differently.

Council, will you want to speak to this before I go back to Council Nolan? Councilman Nolan has a motion on the floor.

Thank you. I'm not really sure. So again, we're going to have this meeting on the 23rd as Councilman Nolan stated. I think the report before us can kind of stand i mean we could absolutely do it and and then bring it back but i just recognize that we won't have another i think it will be unless we do it as like a late order to actually have oh no there's a june 30th meeting correct yes so far okay So can we pass and refer?

There are three more meetings. You're talking about council meetings? Yes. There are three more.

No, I'm talking about after the 23rd. So with the economic development meeting being June 23rd, there would only then be one additional council meeting before the break. Yes. So I'm fine. I don't. I think we could pass it, and is it like a pass, just process of procedures, Madam Mayor, Clerk, could we pass and refer? Yes, you can. Does that make, I'm just looking to my council colleagues.

Yes, you can.

Thank you.

What the councilor is asking is to refer. After you accept the communication and place it on file, you can refer it as well, which is the motion that Councilor Nolan has placed on the floor.

Can I pass it to our, sorry, to Ms. Pardis. I apologize, I'm not blinking on your status or your title right now. Superwoman. That'll work.

Thank you. I'll let parties chime in with any additional information. But procedurally, our understanding is you can ask the city manager to make this policy tonight and then also refer to committee for additional discussion, assuming that, as written, you're satisfied with the policy direction.

Counselor?

Can I just defer to the other councilor colleagues to just hear?

We'll go to Council Turner and then to Council Siddiqui.

Council Turner. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you, I guess I would just ask Council Nolan what questions or concerns she has about the assuage draft. The reason that I would rather, again, I'm not the chair of the committee, but on the 23rd, that meeting is... Sorry. That entire meeting is scheduled to be able to have conversation.

I can't hear a word you're saying.

So the 23rd meeting is actually, we just sent out letters to about 15 or 20 property owners that have vacant storefronts to ask them to come in and talk about why the storefront's still vacant. So I think the time of that meeting will get eaten up through that conversation. And I'm perfectly satisfied with this policy order the way it's written, but if people have questions, want to make suggestions, we could have that conversation.

So just a point of information, there will be two meetings, the 23rd and the 30th, and the economic development meeting will be before the 23rd council meeting. So just for your edification, I want to go to Councilor Siddiqui. If Councilor Toner is yielding the floor.

I WAS JUST ASKING COUNCILOR MULLEN WHAT SHE WANTS US TO DO IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING WITH THIS POLICY ORDER BEYOND WHAT'S ALREADY WRITTEN.

THE QUESTION IS BEFORE YOU.

I HAD MADE THE MOTION TO PULL THIS BECAUSE ON THE AGENDA IT WAS PLEASURE THAT COUNCIL THERE WAS NO ACTION THAT WAS ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED SO I FELT LIKE WE HAD TO DISCUSS IT. I'M HAPPY TO PASS THE POLICY AND REFER IT. I thought the one thing I thought would be useful was to hear from people, the property owners, about what they thought about it, unless that's already been done. If there was an outreach before this policy was developed, it would just be good to hear from them. I'm happy to pass it and happy to have it be discussed in... in the meeting that was set up. I thought since the meeting was set up, it made sense for us to then hear from people who would be affected by this policy if this makes sense or if it could be even shorter amount of time. Because right now, I think it's after 180 days. Why not 60 days so that it's out there soon? But again, I'm happy to pass a policy, but I think it would be good to hear from property owners about whether this is the appropriate policy and whether it should be shorter or not.

So, counsel, you could adopt the policy and refer if you're so inclined. But what your colleague is saying, we can't beat this horse and it might be already dead. So it's certainly up to you what you want to do. If you're yielding the floor, I'll go to Council Siddiqui.

Yes, I yield and I'm happy to have it be adopted and referred if that's what the council makes sense or the staff does.

That's a vote that you're asking. The action is to adopt the policy. You've just asked to have it heard in committee. So after we've heard from Council Siddiqui and whoever else wants to speak on sending it to committee, then we'll take a vote.

There was no action in our agenda. It wasn't to adopt. It was just pleasure of the council.

Because we don't know what you want to do. So I'm going to go to Council Siddiqui. Council Siddiqui.

Thank you. I will just echo, I think we should adopt the policy that last meeting was, can we do anything like tax property managers? We can't. Newsflash, we've known this for, you know, we wanted to confirm it, but this policy has been talked about for like, probably since 2018, 2019. And so I... And that was 25, right? right and now it's 2025. i've aged i have two gray hairs so i think there was some questions but i i think let's adopt let's have the city manager issue the policy and then have some further discussion if folks have questions

Thank you, Councilor Siddiqui. And I would concur. This is something that's been before us. I would say there's going to be a lot for us to take up over the next several months. And if this has already been something that we've discussed, here it is about just moving the policy forward. I think we should just do that. Does anyone else want to be heard? Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is on the motion. There's two things. to just accept the report, but the other, and to adopt the policy, but councilor is asking in addition is to have a meeting around it. So that's what's before us. Councilor Simpson.

I just had a question about the policy itself. Can I ask a question? Yes, you can. Okay. I thought it looked great, and it reflected what was discussed at the last meeting. But what I was surprised wasn't there is, does the store owner also need to register the vacant store on the city database, or does the city automatically do that?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, no. The property owner would, we basically are registering them in a sense because we are checking every six months or 180 days to see if the storefront is vacant. And that time we will notify the property owner that they must, you know, they must be aware of this policy and follow the city policy and our sanitation codes and guidelines.

Council Susie.

Okay, so the city will add it to the database, seeing that it's vacant. It just seems like it would be so easy if someone knew they had a vacant storefront to register it, but it could happen either way.

Did you want to respond more, or that was the end of it?

Well, was that your thought, that it's just as easy for the city to register it as the property owner?

Through you, Mayor, we've been conducting the vacant storefront database collection since 2018, so the staff have already been doing this, so we're confident we can implement this policy as written.

Sounds great. Thank you.

Council Zusy yields the floor. Any further discussion?

So, Council Zusy, did you have your hand up? Sorry, Madam Mayor. My two cents was that I would love to just vote on it tonight. I think that whether we refer to committee or not doesn't really matter in the sense we can always bring it up in committee, but it might simplify what the topic of that committee is, which is hearing from store owners versus, you know, amending this, which I think is ready to go.

Madam Mayor, Council Wilson. Thank you. Yes, I agree with several of my colleagues that we should just pass this policy order tonight and recognize that we do have the conversation with store owners and hoping that several of them do come tonight. TO US COME TO THE MEETING ON THE 23RD AND ARE ABLE TO SHARE SOME OF THEIR HOPES AND VISIONS AND GOALS FOR THEIR STOREFRONTS. SO, YES, IF WE COULD MOVE FORWARD, IF THAT'S OKAY, THROUGH YOU, MADAM CHAIR, TO COUNCIL NOLAN, IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THE VOTE.

Councilman Nolan, so you put in a request or a motion to refer. Are you going to stand with that and have us vote on it?

I think it's to adopt and we can either refer it or not. Just adopt it and then it can be brought up in committee.

But you asked us to vote on referring. Are you rescinding that? Yes. So it's just on adopting the policy and placing on file. Very good. I think that doesn't take a roll call. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it and the matter is adopted and placed on file. This concludes the city manager's non-consent agenda. There are four policy order and resolutions on the policy order and resolution list. What is the pleasure of the city council?

Madam Mayor. Councilor Toner. Poll number two and four.

Two. Two.

And four.

Pleasure of the City Council.

Mayor Simmons. Councilor Nolan. Number one.

There's only one left. What's the pleasure of the City Council? Anyone want to pull it? Move to adopt. Move to adopt. On adoption, discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, and policy order number three is adopted by the full nine members of the city council. We'll go back to the non-consent agenda. This includes number one, pulled by Councilor Nolan, meets as follows. City council opposition to the expansion of offshore oil and gas drilling. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan. Councilor Nolan is the lead sponsor. The floor is yours.

Thank you, I only pulled this because on your desk there should be under the resolved an addition of two words that were inadvertently we left out. And that those two words are exploration or leasing, or exploration or the resolve reads that the city council go on record formally opposing the inclusion of any new offshore oil and gas. and it should say oil and gas exploration or leasing. Got it. And this I want to thank co-sponsors, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, and Wilson. This is something related to a urgency for the city.

Further discussion? Any discussion on the addition, Councilors? On the amendment, any discussion? Hearing none. On the amendment, on the last result, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. On the policy order as amended, is there any discussion? Hearing none.

Madam Mayor, can I just be recorded as present? I'd like to be recorded as present if you were going to do a- Present?

Yeah. Okay. Any other things from the council? We'll do a roll call because it's a divided vote. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner. Present. Present, Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, that's eight members voting in the affirmative. One recorded as present.

Policy order passes on the affirmative vote of eight members, one voting as present. We move now to number two. This was pulled by Councilor Toner, reads as follows. That the exception language in Chapter 2.129.040, Section J of the Cambridge Municipal Code be revised with language clarifying that Cambridge City employees shall not participate in federal immigration enforcement operations. and that the sole role of the Cambridge City employees during any action by ICE is only to protect public safety and not to assist or facilitate the work of ICE. This is pulled by Councilor Toner. It's been our habit that the person that puts it on the floor can get to speak to it first. I'll let Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler speak to it, and then I'll go to Councilor Toner, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. This ordinance, Councillor Siddiqui, Nolan, and I have worked with city staff on some potential updates to the welcoming city ordinance, which we passed a few years ago to protect the safety of our residents. The impetus for that original ordinance was the recognition that while we can't override the federal government or prohibit federal law enforcement from coming into Cambridge, we can make sure our city employees are focused on protecting public safety rather than doing the work of the federal government that has nothing to do with public safety. So we passed this ordinance at that time, but it was before the actions of the current administration. It was before some of the really troubling developments we've seen recently in Somerville and Worcester with residents being kidnapped off the street by masked agents. folks breaking into cars and ice agents breaking into people's cars and pulling them out, defying court orders, and really troubling actions, which is in the past weeks that we hear more of all the time. And it's in the light of those really troubling recent actions we heard from a lot of Cambridge residents who are worried both about their own safety as well as the safety of their neighbors and wondering about what the city can do to ensure their safety. And we would shout out all of the Work of the Cambridge Immigrant Commission on Know Your Rights trainings, documenting what folks can do in the event of an ICE raid, knowing their own rights, knowing what they can ask for. Those are really important because we don't control the actions of the federal government, but one of the things we do control is our welcoming community ordinance. And so there's two main asks we can make to update that. The one is to clarify that the only role for Cambridge City employees is to protect public safety. I think that's what we would all agree and expect from our folks that their sole goal is protecting the safety of Cambridge residents and folks in Cambridge. And so part of that is removing language in this ordinance that could be interpreted as allowing city employees to help ICE with traffic or crowd control. Even when those federal agencies are doing illegal things, there's language in the ordinance that says our city employees could assist them with traffic control, crowd control, pieces like that. We should be 100% clear that that's not the role of public safety. If they need uh federal ice agents need traffic control they need uh crowd control they should be doing that themselves that should not be the role of our city employees um the second piece we can do in the ordinance is really empowering city employees uh police and others to show up for cambridge residents recognizing that it's not enough just to say you know we don't cooperate when the federal government shows up to kidnap our residents but other than that we're not going to do anything you know we're we're not going to collaborate or corroborate with them, but we're not going to show up. That it's just not enough to say, you know, sorry, we're not going to do anything. If there is an ICE raid in Cambridge and police are called, which is what happens in Worcester, what should police do when they show up on the scene? And that's get the badge number of the folks who are there, confirm that they actually are ICE and not just that they bought a $20 ICE badge off of Etsy and now they're kidnapping residents. Our police should be showing up, confirming who these folks are, getting badge numbers, getting info to protect our residents and document and make sure these folks actually are who they say they are. we can't stop uh you know federal enforcement we can't prohibit them we can't directly intervene to protect that we can make make sure that we have all the information documented and make sure that our residents uh you know can feel secure and knowing that and so really empowering our employees to stand up for our residents in the order so that's you know the two main pieces of what we're asking for here that we've talked about with the city solicitor and the city manager uh you know happy to answer any questions and i believe the city solicitor is here but um i hope we can move forward with this i go back

Council Sabrina, we will use the floor. Council Turner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. At the request of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association, who wants to review and discuss this with the city manager and the police commissioner, I want to exercise my charter right so they can do that this week.

The charter right having been exercised, that closes off debate. We'll move to the next item, which is item number four. Am I right? Yeah. Go. Which reads as follows. That the city managers requested to work with relevant city departments to ensure that there is full open access for all users to Linear Park and Wesley Avenue as an additional community access point. This was pulled by Councilor Toner. Councilor Nolan was the main sponsor. I'll give the floor to Councilor Nolan and then to Councilor Toner. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I am excited about this policy order and grateful to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Azeem, and Vice Mayor McGovern for co-sponsoring. We heard some in public comment. We've gotten lots of emails about this. Just to summarize as the policy order lays out, Wesley Avenue is a public right of way. We are spending time and money redesigning Linear Park. that we believe that should be, means that it should be accessible to the entire neighborhood linear park. It's an incredible asset. Right now, there are four access points, public access points from the north. There's none from the south in between Mass Ave and Russell, Field and it seems in the one public way that we own which is Wesley used to be open and over 25 years ago there were concerns about People whose behavior caused some problems where linear Park and Wesley have intersected and so we built a fence I think the city is really work now three decades have passed since then the city has changed and also we have really tried to be provide equity and access to all of our parks and Taking down fences seems to make sense. It would be Really important for us, I think, to stand up to say this park should be accessible to all who live in the neighborhood. We've heard from dozens of people who really do want in the entire neighborhood, wants it open and wants more accessible points to the park. Neighbors have spoken up about how important the connection is, I certainly agree. It's a simple yet meaningful improvement that will make linear park more usable and welcoming. Just to counter some of it, staff said this will not take away trees. This will not include a 20 foot asphalt highway into the park at the end of Wesley. It really will be an opening where the fence will be down and it could be just another path into the park. Another reason is that the city would then have better access to the water supply cabinet that would be located just off Wesley Ave for maintenance purposes. And for people who say, well, it's just a few blocks away, you know, if the city had decided not to rehab the Yorkshire Road underpass because Sherman Street was just close enough or the Museum Street, Francis Ave pedestrian way, well, there's another one right around the corner. This really is all about making a park accessible to more people. Access points like this are small, but really important connections to be made. There's also some concern that this is reopening something. This was kind of back and forth. The original plan showed Wesley Ave is one of the access points from the south that should be open. And then there were some discussions with some of the abutters to say, well, no, we actually don't want that to happen. So some city staff said, well, then we will be WE ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERING OPENING IT, BUT THERE WAS A VERY CLEAR CITY STATEMENT AT A COUNCIL MEETING IN NOVEMBER OF 2023 IN THIS CHAMBER OF THE NLTP, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING COMMITTEE, WHERE THE CITY STAFF TALKED ABOUT THEIR PLANS AND MADE IT CLEAR basically, quote unquote, that revisions and review of the plans will continue up until construction. So there was not ever a sense that there was any kind of permanent. It would be based on what it is that the city heard from the neighborhood. The two committees of the city, the pedestrian committee and the bike committee, both came after this decision to close it to say we really think Wesley Ave should be open. That was new information that was not present when it was that the decision was made so I really hope that the council fully supports this passes it and And works with the community to make sure this beautiful park will be accessible more accessible and more equitable access by opening up Wesley Ave to the to the to the park Council know you're yielding the floor.

I do yield the floor Council no one yields the floor council Turner.

Thank you. I'm gonna exercise my charter, right?

I

Councilor Turner exercised his charter right. That ceases discussion. We'll then move on to the next items on our agenda, which is the charter right. We're going to the calendar. First item of business on the calendar is charter right. I exercise the charter right. Reads as follows that the city manager is requested to explore the government operations committee whether the functions of the peace committee may be improved and enhanced by bringing them within another city commission or department such as the human rights commission and report back in a timely manner. I have proposed another substitute, an amendment by substitution. I think everyone has it on their desk. And it's coming up on the screen. And I'm bringing in this substitution for a few reasons. One, I think the order may be in the wrong form, although I appreciate the thoughts of my colleagues, Council Sobrinho-Wheeler, Council Siddiqui, Council Nolan, and Council Wilson. I think the way it is written, it might be breaching what our roles and responsibilities are. And I do have a solicitor here, so I'd like to have her come forward to speak to that. And what I would like to offer, as opposed to looking at just a peace commission, I'd like to bring for the substitute that says let's look at all commissions and it might be quite apropos given we may be looking at dire times and if we are we can be this might be a good time for us to assess what the work that our boards and commissions do but I don't think it is wise for us to look at just one commission so solicitor Barrett I'll leave the floor to you and just guide our feet on this in terms of what we can and cannot do, particularly under the main motion as it is written.

Thank you to you, Madam Mayor. The policy order as written does refer specifically to the Peace Commission and the absence of the permanent executive director since October 2024. That is an ongoing personnel matter involving the executive director. And for that reason, I recommend that the council adopt some type of amended language so that the council is not interfering with a personnel matter or it's not rather it's not making any decisions looking at the peace commission overall based on an appointment matter and instead adopt other language if the council wishes to look at the structure of the commission but not on the basis of what's happening with a city staff member.

Thank you, Solicitor Behr. So this is why I brought in this amendment by substitution. I think it is probably important that we look at boards and commissions across the city. And as you can see, it says, we recognize the importance of ensuring that all city boards and commissions operate effectively and transparent. So this speaks to concern without going into a personnel issue. Second, not even the second, go right down to the order. It says that the government operations and rules committee is hereby requested to conduct a thorough review of the roles, operations, effectiveness of all city boards and commissions. I think that we might have a lot to learn if we participated in that exercise. Following the review, the government operations and rules committee is requested to hold hearings. At which city councils will have an opportunity to meet with each board and commission to better understand their contribution. And that we get a report back from the city manager in a timely fashion. So we've heard from the solicitor. I see some hands raised, so I will acknowledge my colleague, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler and then Councilor Toner.

Thanks, Madam Mayor, and thanks to the city solicitor. First, I want to thank you, Madam Mayor, for bringing forward this language and the input on this, and thank the city solicitor for reviewing and clarifying. I would suggest we can strike, in the original policy order, the first two whereases. which is all the whereases in it, which removes any reference to personnel issues. Just to clarify that, I think that's a good suggestion. I do think we should keep the orders from the original policy order, and I'm happy to take the language that the mayor suggested as an addition to those two orders. rather than as a substitute. Happy to do a review of the other boards and commissions. I do think some of the language in the substitute is maybe not totally practicable. I was just looking at the list of the boards and commissions, and there are 51 altogether on the boards and commissions list, including the you know, Avon Hill District, the Climate Protection Action Committee, the Cambridge Health Alliance is all listed as one commission, the Library Board of Trustees, the Election Commission, we could spend three days just on the Election Commission alone, and just the idea that we would meet with every single board and commission, just doesn't seem really practical to me that's that's more boards and commissions and there were you know city departments and we just spent you know three full days on on budget hearings i do think it makes sense to provide some direction on which ones we would like to put some emphasis on and so it makes sense to keep those uh orders from the original ordered about the peace commission and the human rights commission um happy to do a broader review and i think we've been talking about that on the council is how do we you know go back and do a more comprehensive review and boards and commissions and so this all language makes sense to me but just want to make sure we we keep those original two orders to provide some direction rather than just having it be a real broad shot at every board and commission given that there are 51 altogether yield back

Councillor Sabina will use the floor.

Councillor Turner, the floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I actually completely support the substitute. And I said this during the finance discussion when this sort of started popping up. I know nothing about the matter, but it just seemed obvious that it was a personnel matter. And I'm a little concerned that even by leaving that one order in there to just look at that one committee, when there's a personnel issue going on, it looks like we're targeting that committee or person. And secondly, I think every time I've had this conversation with all of my colleagues, everybody said, we really should review all the boards and commissions and think about, you know, do we need them all is there some streamlining that we could do so i i'm definitely willing to put the work into meeting with the various boards and commissions and having that discussion and making recommendations about where they they can be converged or maybe they should be sunsetted etc so it's it's something we've all mentioned and talked about and i i think that this substitute motion uh covers that and so i would rather support uh the new language thank you madam mayor i yield

Councilor Turner yields the floor. And just to you, Councilor Sabina Wheeler, let me tell you my concern about the first order. That the city manager being hereby requested is to explore the government operations with the government operations committee. Whether the functions of the peace commission may be improved or enhanced by bringing them with another city commission or department such as human rights. and I just kind of feel it still leans into personnel stuff, and I just want us to be very careful that we don't. That's number one. Second of all, commissions and boards do impact and help us decide and make very important policy decisions. Maybe we don't do them all, but I think it would be worth the time to look at our boards and commissions through the lens of are there – Duplicate services, some of the boards and commissions have been around for a very long time. And I don't want to name anyone on the floor right now, and I'd be willing to sit with the Vice Mayor who chairs government ops, with you, Counselor, and Sobrinho-Wheeler to see what that looks like. But I think it would be very important that we look at the boards and commission structures. Some we pay, some we don't pay. I mean, it's just such, and yes, you're right, it is time consuming, but I think it's also extraordinarily important work.

Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. To the city solicitor. So Councillor Toner and Mayor Simmons are raising specifically that we shouldn't talk about the Peace Commission because there's a personnel matter right now. And that raises sort of the question that you had raised. If we were to put forward an order saying, let's review the Arts Commission. There's no personnel matter right now. We'd be able to do that. They're saying, because there's a leave of absence, we shouldn't be talking about the Peace Commission at all. That seems to raise the same question for me. If we're saying we're not allowed to talk about it because there's a leave of absence there, would we be potentially running into the same legal question that you'd raised?

I personally think, and Megan, excuse me, solicitor Behr will weigh in on this. I just think because there is a closely aligned personnel issue. I just don't want to see the council open ourselves up, and we might not to, but open us up to litigation. We just don't know. So by taking a broader, sweeping with a, taking a broader brush, And including all commissions, we've given ourselves cover. That's the way I'm looking at it. And I hear that.

And the clarifying point I'd make is I think we should do this regardless of whether there was any personnel issue in the Peace Commission. I think this makes sense to review. It's a department of one employee. We're talking about consolidating. This is a place we should start. And I'm just worried that by saying specifically we're not going to review it because there's a personnel issue we open ourselves up to litigation to say we're not going to talk about this commission because of this particular leave we're not going to make decisions about the city budget at all we're just going to not have any discussion about it because of this leave we could potentially be opening ourselves up to lawsuit by doing that based on the stated rationale and so i had that question i will defer to megan but

I don't see it that way because we're no longer looking just at the Peace Commission. We're looking at all boards and commissions.

Well, I just stated that because you had suggested we shouldn't look at it because of the personnel issues.

So let me repeat. Let me just restate it. We should not look at it in isolation of all others. And that's the way I was looking at this policy. order as amendment by substitution, we're looking at everyone as opposed to just one. But let me hear from our solicitor, she gets paid the big dollars.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. I think if the intent of the council is to look at the Peace Commission for reasons other than personnel issues involving the executive director, I think that's permissible. But just to be careful to not cross over into personnel issues. It may, though, put the council at a disadvantage without having the executive director available while just having an acting executive director to really be able to delve into that commission. I don't know if there would be any interest in waiting until that personnel issue was resolved before the commission, before the council looked at that commission. But in any event, I think it's a matter of intent and then just being clear to not cross over the line into personnel issues. Councillor Sabina Wheeler.

Thank you, that's helpful, and that's why I suggested removing the whereas, the order doesn't make any reference to it. You know, we'd be open to that in waiting if we knew when that was going to be. I think it's been eight going on nine months now, and again, we won't know the answer, but I do think it makes sense to have this discussion. If we knew for sure this was going to get resolved soon, it doesn't sound like, feel free to correct me when I'm wrong, doesn't know when we're going to have that, and so we can't put this discussion off forever. Mm-hmm. SO I DO THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TWO ORDERS AS WELL. I YIELD BACK.

COUNCIL SUBJECT YIELDS THE FLOOR. THEN COUNCIL WILSON, THEN COUNCIL NOLAN.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. AGAIN, MY INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR SUBSTITUTE, WHICH I SUPPORT, WAS THAT IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE PEACE COMMISSION, BUT IT WON'T BE TALKED ABOUT IN ISOLATION. AND I REALLY DO WANT TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT ALL 50-PLUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. I HAVE NO PRE preordained opinions on any of them. In fact, many of them I don't really know what they do. I don't know how often they meet. I don't know a lot of the members. I know a few people around the city who are members of this committee or that committee. So I think it would actually be a healthy exercise for us as a council to learn more about each of the committees and commissions and have some discussions about How can we help them either be more effective or ask them, do you really think we need this commission anymore? And move on from that. So again, I'd like us to move forward with the substitute, and I yield. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Toner yields. I apologize. Council Azeem, you were next, and then Council Wilson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was wondering, this is my first time seeing the substitute, and this is a broader scope of work, and so I was wondering if either the city manager or deputy city manager were willing to opine at all? Sorry, I should have asked.

Through you, Mayor Simmons, I think we're happy to do this work, the sort of broader work. I think ultimately we've been having some of this conversation certainly for a little bit longer in terms of bringing forward a more comprehensive view of all of our boards and commissions. And I think having a broader conversation in terms of, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO BRING FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL. I'M STILL PROCESSING HOW WE WOULD DO THAT, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN ALL OF THE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONS. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD LINE all of them into one government operations committee. But we could think a little bit about how we would represent the work that is happening across all of these different committees, commissions, boards represented to the council. And I think that would also help us certainly to have one picture, not just of the list of boards and commissions, but the roles that they play within the community, the input that they have into a lot of the different work that's happening within each of the departments.

Councilor Azeem.

Thank you Madam Mayor. Just one follow-up question. Since the Peace Commission was brought up in the original policy order, do you think it would, when we have this committee hearings in general, we could prioritize that as perhaps the first of the conversations in the order of board and commissions? I just feel like this has become a little bit of a tense conversation, but I just see this as a yes and policy order, and so we could do both, the Peace Commission first and then the rest?

You're asking that of the city manager or the solicitor. She's the one that keeps us out of court.

Through you, Mayor Simmons, I think happy for any presentation or discussion to include the Peace Commission and we'll think about how we would either fit it into one government operations meeting or I think still a little bit of a question in terms of approach and how we would set up the conversation.

And one thing I might just add, and I've not talked to the Vice Mayor. He chairs government offices. This is something that he feels that he could attempt on some level. But, again, it's important work. And if you balance it or look at it in the context of what stays and what goes, it may be something that we might want to do.

to look at are you yield just my final comments was that I I don't really have a horse in this race one way or the other uh to me I think usually like um amendments by substitutions can be pushing something in the opposite direction at least in the initial case in this way it seems like we can do both and so if the co-sponsors are okay with that and everything I don't think that this is a net negative thank you Councilor Ziem yields the floor Councilor Wilson

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The question that I have, in addition to how we have these conversations or just prioritizing what departments, is just recognizing that there may be a few departments that have an acting person so I'm also thinking about the veterans as well and and I'm curious if there are any others that that you're able to know like offhand that you can maybe speak to so that's kind of like my first question is just like I know we have the Peace Commission with an acting or interim person we have the veterans with an acting are there others out of this 51 madam

I'm happy to add. Right, so through you, Madam Mayor, I can think of a couple others who have an executive director who recently also went out on a rental leave. And then it's sometimes a question of who is the department head versus who is the staff of a board or commission. So it's a little hard to nail down the exact answer to your question, but for what's jumping out are the two that you've mentioned and then the additional staff member who is out on a parental leave right now.

Okay, thank you. And through you, Madam Mayor, I would look at parental leaves as being something that's totally different, that's a little within the scope and timeline. I'm assuming just because I went out on leave before, right, that there's a time that we're due back and expected to be returning back to work. And so it's not like an endless amount of time, but we know when folks are returning. And then the other question that I had is just recognizing that government operations is not like a committee of the whole, and I'm curious if there may be a possibility to maybe appoint a special committee that could be the committee of the whole, because I just think that there would be, And while I know members can attend, it's a little more fruitful when it is the committee as a whole. I agree that there's a lot of value and benefit to hearing from all the departments, from all the commissions, and really getting a sense of, one, the level and body of work that they do, as well as kind of... just a small summary and maybe this could be shared in advance, right? So we're not spending endless amount of time of just knowing the history of when commissions, why commissions were appointed, so on and so forth. And then we can understand, like, is that still relevant to today's conversation? If a commission was created several decades ago and to really tackle a specific issue, is that still kind of where we are today? Or have we now moved certain bodies of work into departments? And if that is the case, should we be operating more under a department versus the commission? Or how do we work in partnership together so that there is this alignment? I just want to see us doing really... working a little bit smarter today and really recognizing this isn't about like dissolving necessarily. This isn't about dissolving unless there are commissions or departments or whatever that maybe are just not relevant to the work of the city of Cambridge today. So I think the only way that we're going to learn that information is by talking to those individual departments or commissions and really recognizing and understanding the body of work that they do. I'm also of a practical mind and wondering kind of just where we are today time-wise to, say, the end of the calendar year. How might we, in good thought, thinking, and reason to actually plan what all that would look like? So, again, one, I believe that there should be a committee of the whole, a special committee of the whole. And two, really thinking about timing of what that would look like. And I would assume that this would go into the fall and be the entirety of the rest of the remaining of the year. And that could be a lot of work. Okay. Ready to do the work, because I think it's important for us to be more informed to really understand the work of these departments, commissions. And I recognize that that's going to be a lot of work, and I want us to really prioritize those that have acting members in those roles right now. Thank you, I yield.

Councilor Wilson yields the floor, Councilor Nolan, then Councilor Siddiqui. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Mayor Simmons, I appreciate the attention behind this substitute and the responses from the city solicitor and city manager. This conversation is one that's been going on for many, many years. I think it's one of the first conversations I had after the city manager started to say, when are we going to get to looking at all of our boards and commissions and understanding their role and understanding how it is that they fit in? I can certainly support some version of that. I do believe that, and I sent a subset, I don't know how to, what the appropriate way to propose this is, but I did send it to the clerk, that taking out the first two whereases, and I think... BOUNDING THIS PROJECT SOMEWHAT THAT THE ORDERED WOULD READ THAT THE CITY MANAGER BEING REQUESTED TO EXPLORE WITH THE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE WHETHER THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL STARTING WITH THE PEACE COMMISSION ARE APPROPRIATE AND IN LINE WITH CURRENT CITY NEEDS. Because I think the first ones we should start with are there are a number of commissions that are established by ordinance. There's others that are established by a range of other issues. And so we, this body, are the ones who established, I know, the Peace Commission, the Women's Commission, and some others. And as noted, Mayor Simmons, some of them have staff associated with it. And it is just good management. Maybe I should yell.

But don't.

I know that voice. Growing up with five sisters, I can do it.

Go ahead, council.

I thought we got rid of gas powered whatever it is in the city wide. So I think the first ones we should start with are the ones that this city, the city council, maybe we established all the boards and commissions, but I don't think so. I think there's a number, particular commissions that is that we'd establish all the boards and commissions or But I think if we start with the ones established by ordinance, by the city council, starting with the Peace Commission, unrelated to whatever stuff it is. I think a lot of us have asked questions over the years about are various commissions still appropriate and in line with current city needs. I think that's really the fundamental question that we need to address. And I think a broad based and then we can perhaps in a government operations and rules committee establish what are the next commissions to look at. And I'd be happy to have that discussion. But I think particularly the city manager should be looking to us for prioritization of those 51 boards and commissions. I think, again, I've heard let's start with one. We can prioritize that without getting into any personnel issues. So I would hope that we would do that and then establish a process for looking at all the boards and commissions city wide.

So I'm listening to everyone's ideas. I'm going to give the floor to Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Zusy, and then the Vice Mayor, and then I have an idea that I think can move us forward. So Councilor Siddiqui.

Thank you. There's a lot that's been said, and I'm trying to hone in. Councilor Nolan, did you have language, or you were just speaking? You did send language, right?

Mm-hm.

Okay. Well, what I would like to propose, rather than wordsmith this on the floor, I was going to take all the ideas and sit down with maybe Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, because he's the lead, the vice mayor, because he's the chair, and see if we can work out something that makes some sense. That's what I was going to propose. I wanted to hear from all my colleagues, rather than making spaghetti. Back to you, Councilor.

I'm fine with that suggestion if we can figure out how to work together. Thank you.

You're very welcome.

Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, this reminds me of Councilor Toner saying it would be a really great idea to study all our ordinances. And then it turned out like we have like, didn't you say we have like three books this thick? of the ordinances I I do think we would learn an awful lot by learning about all our boards and commissions but I'm just aware I I thought I think it's a good idea um Mayor Simmons to uh pick this conversation up later outside of the city council meeting I think Councilor Nolan is has a great I think she's on to something with how to define uh the focus because i'm just worried we we have a lot of work to do as a council and of course this would be very interesting um but i i just wonder counselor mcgovern we could be having like seven meetings of government operations and and then i just i think of um our city manager's strategic staff and isn't this what they're there for maybe they could you know one of those um wonderful staff members could do summaries of what some of the commissions do. That would be helpful too and inform a broader conversation. Absolutely. But I agree. I agree we don't want to go be too focused we don't get it want to get involved in personnel issues and we don't want to go so broad that this becomes our work for the next year because there really are a lot of other things to be thinking about too so I applaud the idea of continuing this conversation offline and figuring out a way that we can focus the discussion in a way that it is appropriate for the council and won't take up the rest of our lives.

Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor?

Thank you. Not that I wouldn't be thrilled to hold 51 community government operations meetings.

I was thinking of you because I know what you like to do.

A couple things. I kind of like the idea of a committee of the whole. I could be more than happy to chair them. Madam Mayor, I'm not trying to get out of it. Maybe under some model similar to how we do the budget meetings. They get broken down and people can pick which ones they want to talk about. We don't have to pick them all. And come up with some guidelines about what it is we want to know. The thing I'm sort of curious about is... I'd like to know what the ultimate goal of this is. If the goal is just to hear from the committee so that we learn more about them, which I think is a good thing. We only hear from these committees at budget time and half the time we pull them because we want to hear what they do and it has nothing to do with the budget, right? So having another mechanism to hear what these committees do and ask them questions I think is great. In the original policy order, though, and where it gets a little sticky, and I just think we can talk about this offline and clarify it, is if we're talking about should these committees be cut, should they be merged with another committee, that's a different conversation, and I'm not sure it's one that we are necessarily equipped to have. Maybe it is, but it's a different conversation, right? And so it's just to inform us and maybe we do get a bunch of, we ask you a series of five questions and every commission fills it out and we go through it. But if we're really gonna talk about should this be merged, should this be cut, I think that's a, It's a slightly different conversation. So I just want to make sure that we understand what the goals of what it is we're trying to do so that we get to where we want to be. But I do think, Madam Mayor, I think we should probably just... We have to do something with it now. I think we should probably just lay it on the table. We can meet and we can bring something back. I can also schedule a government ops meeting and we can discuss this in government ops if people want to do that rather than... you know, just a couple of us meeting. Happy to do whichever, but I would think a committee, you know, a special meeting with all of us would be good and some way to kind of, again, I just want to figure out which ones we want to talk about and then be really clear about what it is we're looking for.

So why don't we lean into that? Why don't... We take both the amendment by substitution, and you already have the main motion. Let's move. I won't make a motion from the chair, but you make a motion that we lay the two on the table. Then you, my counsel, Sobrinho-Wheeler, as the yield, can sit down and talk about how we want to go forward.

It might be something all the way different. So just a question for the clerk, because, again, procedurally, if you have a substitution motion, Aren't we obligated to vote that substitution, and if that substitution passes, it kills the original. How do we place both of these on the table when the substitution hasn't been voted on?

Well, I've moved to bring it forward to us.

You've moved to bring it forward, but we haven't voted.

Could we just place the original on the table and withdraw the substitutes?

Well, let's see what the clerk says, or Megan.

To you, Madam Mayor, I do believe you need to either withdraw the substitution or vote the substitution before you have something to leave on the table.

Well, I don't want to risk losing the substitution, so I'll withdraw it for now, lay your policy order counselor on the table, and bring all of that to a smaller meeting with the three of us. So I'm going to withdraw my substitute and make a motion. Well, I should make a motion from the chair. On a motion by Councilor Toner to land the table. All those in favor? There's a vote in process. You need to do what? To vote?

No, I had sent a substitute, and I mentioned it on the floor. Where is that in the record?

When I talked, I said that I had sent this as an amendment, so I don't know where that... Madam Mayor, through you, I would just respectfully ask that any substitutions just be withdrawn, put the original on the table, and we can discuss all of those possibilities in the meeting, but...

So Councilor Nolan and Mayor Simmons withdraw their proposals. Yeah, I'll do that. We lay this one on the table.

Roll call. Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the matter is laid on the table by the affirmative vote of nine members.

I think that takes us through... Madam Mayor, I have to pull... Unfinished business, calendar items six and seven.

It takes us through the early part of unfinished business, and now I'll give it over to you, Mr. Vice Mayor.

Mayor Simmons? Isn't there another charter right?

Yes. Number two. I withdraw it. I'm not, so I brought it forward, I moved my charter right, and I request unanimous consent to withdraw it. Do you need a vote for that, Madam Clerk? You can do a voice vote if you'd like. So I'm withdrawing the second charter right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, and the matter's withdrawn.

Madam Mayor, through you, unfinished business number six. This is the amendments to the affordable housing, to the multi-family housing ordinance regarding the affordable housing overlay and the heights. This passed out of the ordinance committee eight to one. It's ready to be ordained, so I would just like to move adoption.

Discussion? Discussion? Do you want to do six? Mayor Simmons? Hold on. Back to the Vice Mayor. Six and seven, you're just doing six now and then seven?

We can do them both together if you want, but I don't know if people have questions. We should do them separately.

We have to do them separately. So let's do the first one. So on item number six, is it discussion?

I just wanted to know which is the distinction between six and seven.

Seven is the floodplain zoning.

And we're just doing the AHO right now?

We're doing just number six right now, which is... The AHO clarifications number seven will be next.

Further discussion on number six? Hearing none, roll call.

Councillor Zinn? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. And the matter is voted and adopted by the affirmative vote of six members.

Vice Chair?

Yes.

Madam Mayor, number seven is about the floodplain zoning. If there's no, I don't know if people have questions or discussion. If there's none, I'll move adoption.

Discussion? Ordination. It's ordination, yeah. It's on ordination. Discussion? On ordination, roll call.

Councillor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The matter is adjourned by the affirmative vote of nine members. Applications and petitions, we do not have any. Communications to 225. Pleasure of the City Council. on a motion by Council Wilson to place the 225 communications on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, and the 225 communications have been placed on file. We move now to resolutions. What is the pleasure of the City Council? There are seven. On a motion by Councilor Nolan.

One.

You want to withdraw your motion because people want to vote. Pleasure of the City Council.

Number one.

Pleasure of the City Council.

Madam Mayor.

Council Wilson.

Number five, please.

Pleasure of the City Council. Hearing no further discussion on a motion by Councilor Nolan to adopt the orders and make them manifest.

I want to be added. Number seven.

Yes.

Okay.

Same here, understanding that all of our names are actually going there, right? Right, just changes the order. Yes, I would like to be added. I would too.

We're not there yet.

Who was the third one?

Councilor Nolan?

I don't even know.

Councilor Nolan, was that you?

I think the vice mayor wanted to be added. Then it was Councilor Wilson. And Councilor Nolan. And then Councilor Nolan. And because they're made unanimous on adoption, all it does is change the order. Mm-hmm. So, but... I'm here to police. So on two, three, four, and six, on a motion by Councilor Nolan to adopt the resolutions, making them unanimous upon adoption. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. and two, three, four, and six are adopted and made unanimous upon adoption. We'll go back now to number one. This is pulled by Councilor Zusy. It reads as follows. Happy 80th birthday wishes to Henrietta Davis. Councilor Zusy, the floor is yours.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor. I thought your policy order about Henrietta was spectacular. I think it was one of the best ones you've ever written, and I think Henrietta is a remarkable person who has accomplished so much. Like you, she committed her adult life to public service and advanced many things for the city. So I appreciate Henrietta, I appreciate your policy order, and I'd love to be a co-sponsor.

Discussion on the amendment? On amending policy order number one to add Council Zusy. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it and the policy resolution is amended on the resolution as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it and policy order, resolution, excuse me, number one is adopted as amended. We move now to number five. This is pulled by Council Wilson. Congratulations to Jacob Werner on his recent marriage to Haley Minchu Forbes. Discussion? Council Wilson, the floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to- Vice Mayor. I'm sorry? I just want the Vice Mayor's attention. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just pulled this because Jacob is my legislative aide, and I just wanted to say congratulations to him and his now wife, Haley Minchu Forbes, on their beautiful nuptials that was on May 25th at the PBD Essex Museum in Salem. It was a beautiful venue and a beautiful celebratory event for them, so just really wanted to congratulate them and... and wish them a lifelong marriage of happiness joy and just so many other blessings so just really wanted to pull that to say that and look forward to adopting and making it unanimous upon adoption thank you perfect congratulations jake anybody else congratulations all right on adoption making unanimous upon adoption all those in favor say aye

The ayes have it. We now move on to number seven. I think since we're all gonna be listed, anybody? We can just, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Ayes have it. An aye from somewhere in the building. We now move on to committee reports. We've done them all. Communications and reports from other city officers. Moved on a motion by Councilor Nolan to place on file. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Do we have any late resolutions? Yes, one. We have one late resolution.

Should we suspend the rules?

On suspension, all those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. And the resolution is congratulations to Marijek van Dam on her 10th anniversary with History Cambridge, sponsored by Councilor Nolan.

Any comments, Councilor Nolan?

Yeah, I won't read the whole resolution, but the reason this is coming forward, and I apologize for the late order, I didn't get it in, but there is a honoring of Marika Van Dam on her 10th anniversary with the organization that happens this Friday, so it would be great if we pass it tonight, and we could have that be delivered to her at the event on Friday.

Okay, thank you. And we have a couple of orders, right?

We have one late policy order. On suspension.

All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We're in suspension. Late policy orders. Madam Clerk.

That the city council go on record reaffirming the Cambridge-Yarravan sister city relationship sponsored by Mayor Simmons and Councilor Toner.

And I don't see either one of them to comment, but any pleasure of the committee, of the council on adoption? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

If there's nay, the ayes have it.

Vice Mayor, did we actually vote to adopt my resolution? I wasn't sure.

Yes. Okay, great. We're moving, Councillor Nolan, we're moving. All right. Any announcements? Councillor Wilson. You didn't even have to raise your hand. It's just automatic.

Thank you. I just want to say congratulations to the class of 2025 from across our city, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and universities and colleges and institutions. So yes, it's a celebratory time. And as well as to those from the We will have the CSI graduations. Congratulations to the recipients of the scholarships this evening, this afternoon that happened, and just so much more. This is the celebratory time of year. So congratulations to all.

Thank you. Councilor Zussman.

We also have the Community Learning Center is having, is it a graduation? I guess that's Thursday at 6 p.m. at EF headquarters.

That's their fundraiser. Their graduation is later in the month.

Oh, okay. Thank you for the clarification. The Community Art Center is having their film festival, so it's at the Harvard Art Museums on Friday, and then it's at the Open Space at MIT on Saturday. Dance for World Community is Saturday at Harvard Square. And Pride Cambridge is happening at City Hall on Sunday. And the Dragon Boat Festival will be happening at Magazine Beach along the Charles River. And I know how sweet it is, our mayor's exhibit. about the candy industry will open on Sunday the 8th at the Kendall Pub Lobby between 2 and 4. So many great things happening. Thank you.

Any other announcements? Hearing none. One more. Almost.

I'll tell you this next week. I'm sorry, I'm a week ahead. Preservation Awards are next Thursday the 12th at City Hall right here.

All right. On a motion to adjourn.

Announcements. I ran in here for this purpose.

Mayor Simmons. Just this Sunday. Mayor Simmons, can you turn on your microphone? You have three minutes. Let me talk slower. Please state your name and address for the record. Oh, listen.

I am Nancy Black. Anyway, we're going to be doing Pride this Sunday here at City Hall. It's going to be a block party. It is. And I'm screaming into it. So it's time to get a new one. So I just want to turn your attention to, and please join us. Also, same day at 2 o'clock, we're going to be doing How Sweet It Is, The History of Candy Making in Cambridge at the Kendall Public Library, lobby, excuse me, from 2 to 4 o'clock. And just remember, we're going to be celebrating, I think it's the Army. I don't have it in front of me, but that's coming up. I'll put something in there for you. Thank you. June 14th. And we'll put something in everyone's mailbox so that you'll know about it so you can come and attend. That should be an interesting and nice event being sponsored by the Veterans Commission. And they're also doing a special showing on 6888. So please mark your calendars now. Put that in your box as well. Thank you, Mr. Feistman.

All right. On a motion by Councillor Wilson to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned.