City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. A quorum being present, I call tonight's October 20th meeting to order. The first order of business is the roll call. The member's present. Deputy Clerk.

Councillor Azeem. Present. Present. Vice Mayor McGovern. Present. Present. Councillor Nolan. Present. Present. Councillor Siddiqui. Present. Present. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Present. Present. Councillor Toner. Absent. Councilor Wilson? Present. Present. Councilor Zusy? Present. Present. Mayor Simmons? Present. Present. You have eight members recorded as present and one recorded as absent.

Thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Stand if you can and pause for a moment of silence.

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 our meetings via the city's open meeting portal or on the city 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 and you can sign up until 6 p.m. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records our meetings and makes it available to the public for future viewing. In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recording our meetings. We now turn to public comment. Public comment is being made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G, and City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once your name is called, please come to the podium and or start speaking. Please give your name and address and the item that you're speaking to for the record. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. The number of speakers signed up are?

42.

Whereas we have 42 people signed up for public comment as per our rules, the amount of time, the wide amount of time for each person to speak is two minutes. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Stephane. Ms. Stephane, would you please start public comment?

Our first speaker is Marjorie Davies, followed by Evan McKay, then Nick Burke. Marjorie, you have two minutes. Please turn on the mic by pressing the button, and you'll see a green light.

Yep. My name is Marjorie Davies. I live at 35 William Street, and I'm speaking on behalf of the leadership team of the Cambridge chapter of Mothers Out Front. Cambridge has been working hard to move away from reliance on fossil fuels with the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Thank you, Naomi. We've invested in net zero schools, community solar, electric municipal vehicles, and adopted a fossil fuel free building code and ambitious targets for decarbonizing large commercial buildings. We applaud this important work. At the same time, however, we are burdened with aging gas infrastructure and spiraling costs for gas heat in our homes. A major portion of those rising costs comes from GSEP, the Gas System Enhancement Program, which guarantees a high rate of return for gas companies when they replace gas pipelines. We are especially concerned that GSEP locks us into decades more of fossil fuel dependence, placing an unfair burden especially on the most vulnerable among us. We hope you will vote for council resolution number 149 this evening, which supports two bills before the legislature that give municipalities more voice in gas company plans. If these bills are adopted, city officials would have the right to review and comment in advance on the 54 proposed Eversource pipe replacement projects that extend into nearly every Cambridge neighborhood and will require digging up 10 plus miles of city streets over the next four years. We also hope you will support council resolution number 150 this evening, which calls on the legislature to add municipal solar cap relief to Governor Healey's energy affordability bill. thereby exempting municipal solar from the outdated regional limits and lifting the municipal cap. We would like to thank Cambridge's Chief Climate Officer, Julie Wormser, and Energy and Sustainability Project Manager, Irina Sudarenko, for testifying to this effect at the State House on October 9th. Thank you, Marjorie.

Your time has expired. Please email the remainder. Ms.

Stefan, before we go to the next speaker, I just want to make an announcement. At 6.30, we have a hearing on the tax rate. If we have not completed public comment at that time, we will pause public comment, do the tax rate, and we'll come back to public comment. So I make people to be aware of that. So please go ahead.

Our next speaker is Evan McKay, followed by Nick Burke. Evan, two minutes.

Thank you. Hello, Evan McKay, Porter Square. Happy to be here in support of three pro-labor resolutions. I'm the former president of the Harvard Grad Students Union. I'm on the exec board of the Greater Boston Labor Council. The first has to do with union busting from Harvard University, which has a long track record of trying to dismantle worker protections and a really shameful history of treatment of workers and unions on campus. So they are trying to see how much union busting can they get away with. And it's a tricky position because there are actions of the Harvard administration that we support, like suing the Trump administration and to the extent and if and when they are supporting academic freedom or the funding for science research and all of the attacks on grants. To that extent, we are there with them, but to the union busting, we are not. And there are so many actions from Harvard University that are completely out of line with our values. Last week, we had to do a coordinated union action in support of workers' ability to speak that Black Lives Matter on the job, which Harvard University is going backwards on. Harvard University is dismantling the Women's Center. And so we need to be really clear on what actions do we support and what actions do we not support when it comes to the university. And so that's what this resolution is doing tonight. Additionally, because what Harvard is trying to do is take protections away from scientists under extreme precarity amidst the Trump administration, we're also going to hear about the importance of funding for higher education for the Massachusetts Teachers Association. Again, this matters so much to people within Cambridge, within Massachusetts, that we are funding research, that we are funding education and basic knowledge and dissemination of information. And then thirdly, we have the State House Employees Union. These are brave workers fighting for a workplace that is free from harassment and discrimination. And that values democracy and recognizes that people from any financial background should be able to be part of the State House legislative workers. And so that's what that resolution is doing. It's in line with the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, the city of Boston, the city of Somerville. And so that's what we can do tonight is to join these workers and join these other entities. So solidarity forever.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, our next speaker is Nick Burke, followed by Laura Chen, then Lydia Tedes. Nick, you have two minutes.

All right, hello, my name is Nick Burke. I live on Norfolk Street in Cambridge. I'm speaking on item eight. I'm a biostatistics PhD student at Harvard, and I've been affected by some of the recent carve-outs of union membership by Harvard. Due to financial changes at the school, I, along with other members of my program, were assigned to research assistant positions at other institutions to cover part of our funding. And while our full paychecks still come through Harvard, the school no longer claims that we are union eligible, instead claiming that these roles are externships. It is confusing and frustrating as other students in similar positions with research assistant roles remain in the union, so the distinction feels arbitrary and yet has real consequences. So for one personal example, my partner does not receive dental or health insurance through his job, and the benefit funds that union membership allows us to access help us to recover some of the costs for enrolling in health and dental insurance. which would potentially save us hundreds of dollars but because of the current uncertainty and harvard no longer acknowledging that i am eligible or a member in the union and because of the high one-time payments at the beginning of the year and the cost of living we found it difficult to cover the cost this year and so my partner was temporarily uninsured while moving to mass health and still lacks dental insurance so i just wanted to share this is one personal example of how this change has has these impacts to us as workers, how it affects the well-being of the workers at Harvard. And I hope you will join us in taking a stand and send a message to Harvard for making this move that impacts its grad student workers in a negative way. Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Laura Chen, followed by Lydia Tedest and Ruchita B. Laura, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Sure. My name's Laura Chen. I'm a fourth-year doctoral student and a steward of the union at the Harvard School of Public Health, and I live at 9 Austin Park in Cambridge, and I'm here today to support the resolution against Harvard's carve-out of student workers from the HGSU bargaining unit. On July 1st, I heard from multiple of my fellow student workers that they discovered their union dues hadn't been automatically deducted from their paychecks as usual, and they received no advance warning. It wasn't until the next day on July 2nd that Harvard informed us that they had unilaterally decided that stipended researchers would no longer be classified as employees, despite the fact, of course, that nothing had changed about the nature of their actual work between June 30th and July 1st. The only thing that had changed was that our contract had expired and Harvard saw an opportunity. I'd also like to note that the end of June also marked the end of Harvard's 2025 fiscal year. And a financial report released just last week showed the university earned almost 12% returns on its $50-some billion endowment. And it's clear that the university has the resources, but lacks the respect to support its workers. It's deeply frustrating to me that Harvard stripped hundreds of my colleagues of union protections overnight without notice or consultation. And these are researchers conducting groundbreaking work, teaching students and contributing to the university's mission every single day. I want to reiterate once more that nothing about their labor changed. And so while Harvard publicly positions itself as a champion of democracy that's bravely standing up against the Trump administration, it's clear that when it comes to the democracy of its own workers and our right to bargain collectively, it seems to draw the line. At a moment when federal pressures are being felt really most acutely by student workers, many of whom are facing visa uncertainties and funding cuts, Harvard has chosen to weaken the one institution that we have to protect ourselves, which is our union. So I hope you as a council will support us by urging the university to engage with us in good faith, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lydia Tedes. Lydia, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Lydia Tedessa and I am a second year PhD student in population health sciences at Harvard University. I live at Peabody Terrace. I'm here to read a testimony on behalf of Reed Dresser, who is a sixth year PhD student in physics who couldn't be here today in support of policy issue eight. To treat an RA appointment as not labor is absurd. The physics department simply would not exist if there weren't graduate students doing research and being paid as RAs. Without graduate researchers, professors would not have papers published and thus would struggle to get funding. That funding keeps the light on in the building and ultimately supports 90% of the departmental or operational costs in the physics department. Taking students out of the union creates a sense of uncertainty and fear that hard-won raises and workplace protections could be stripped away. This also impacts our ability to apply for benefit funds to cover out of pocket medical expenses. I have a lot of health conditions and I typically spend close to $4,000 per year on out of pocket medical expenses. Being able to apply to the benefit pool made it possible for me to have access to weekly therapy. If I have to cover the copay on my own, I can't afford to continue in weekly therapy. The cost of living is high in Boston and I've only just gotten to a place of being somewhat financially stable because of the union fund raises and things like the benefit pool. I would also lose access to the bike benefit. Given that I have to bike to campus every day for my research and the cost of bike maintenance can be quite high, having that benefit is really helpful. The vast majority of people in my physics department are paid through RA appointments, so this has a widespread impact. I also think it feels quite dishonest that they have done so and not sent any official correspondence. It seems many people in my physics department, faculty, and admin still don't understand what is going on or why this has happened. My specific research is within physics education research. I work closely with instructors and professors helping them to improve their teaching in undergraduate physics classes. Given Harvard's commitment to high quality education for their undergraduate population, my research is closely aligned with the goals of the institution. To consider this important work as not labor is nonsensical. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Rashita Balasubramanian, followed by Marissa Freed, then Simon Warchall. Rashita, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is and I live on Auburn Street in Cambridge. I'm a PhD student in infectious disease epidemiology at Harvard University. And I'm hoping to speak about policy order 8 to oppose Harvard's carve out and union busting tactics. I decided to pursue a PhD in population health sciences at Harvard to get the best possible training as an epidemiologist in order to advance public health. Since the beginning of the Trump administration, me and my colleagues have been subject to a public undermining of our work, threats to my friend and colleague's legal status to remain in the United States, and funding cuts that have had massive implications for our financial stability. In light of all of this, we turn to our union for financial support and stability. But recent attempts to challenge the composition of our graduate student union further threaten our collective ability to focus on our training and research, which is why we all decided to come to Harvard in the first place. IT'S DEEPLY SADDENING TO SEE A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT IN A TIME LIKE THIS THAT RESULTS IN MORE UNCERTAINTY AND ANXIETY. I AM A CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT AND WOULD LIKE TO USE MY PLATFORM TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUES URGING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ENDORSE THE UNION'S OPPOSITION TO THESE CARVEOUTS AND TO STAND WITH US IN PROTECTING OUR RIGHT TO LEARN AND PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MADAM CLERK, I'M JUST GOING TO LET YOU FIX THE SCREEN. Our next speaker, thanks for waiting, is Marissa Freed, followed by Simon Warchold and Cynthia Hibbert. Marissa, two minutes, please go ahead.

Good evening, my name is Marissa Freed, she, hers. I live at 50 Prospect Street in Somerville, speaking on issue one, and I am a proud public educator, a fourth grade paraprofessional and student teacher in the Cambridge Public School District. I'm also a Masters of Elementary Education 1-6 graduate student in Cambridge Core at Lesley University, as well as a Master of Labor Studies graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I recognize and will be forever grateful for the privilege I have with the Cambridge Public School District paying the balance of tuition for the former program, as well as my state union, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, providing the opportunity to apply for an annual scholarship to cover the cost of the latter program. however not everyone is as fortunate as me so i'm here to lift up the importance of ensuring that access to free and affordable higher education is prioritized for all members of our community at the same time we must raise up the working and living conditions of my colleagues in higher education because without them higher education students such as myself would not have access to the resources necessary to ensure that our studies lead us on a pathway to a lifetime of success Since the Commonwealth of Massachusetts created free access to community colleges and additional financial assistance programs, enrollment is up in all sectors of public higher education. About 78% of graduates stay in Massachusetts to the benefit of communities across the state. However, the Trump administration is sowing chaos in our state's public higher ed system by freezing and canceling federal funding used to support research and other academic programs. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. We can lead the way and make Massachusetts the first state in the nation to address the Trump administration's politically motivated tax on higher ed by supporting Governor Maura Healey's proposed DRIVE Act. DRIVE is a $400 million investment with $200 million from fair share amendment funds, specifically earmarked to backfill federal cuts made to public colleges and universities. Voting in favor of our higher education resolution will support continued and expanded access to higher education for all. By lifting up others, together we rise. Thank you.

Speaker is Simon Warchall, followed by Cynthia Hibbard, then Lindsay Adams. Simon, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Simon Warshall, and I live at 2 Greeno Avenue in mid-Cambridge. I'm here to speak on item number eight. I'm a PhD candidate in computer science at Harvard University, and my research seeks to build systems and algorithms to help pathologists and cell biologists investigate cancer tissue. And Harvard recently decided that workers in my program are quote unquote carved out if they're in the first year of our program, and argued that that labor, in fact, should never have been considered labor. And to give some context as to what labor I was doing during my first year, I was the co-author, along with a post-doctoral fellow in my lab, of an NIH grant that has, in the three years since, has awarded $1.4 million to Harvard University, and Harvard takes a little less than 70% indirect cost on that money. And so the notion that This work was not labor is really preposterous. And these carve outs impact hundreds of workers who perform similar labor across campuses. And it's really disappointing to see that Harvard spent so much energy posturing that they're fighting against the Trump administration while simultaneously punching down at the workers that make this institution what it is. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Cynthia Hibbert, followed by Lindsey Adams, then Chet Agni. Cynthia, two minutes.

good evening my name is cynthia hibbert i live at twenty three ellsworth avenue and i'm speaking today for the cambridge somerville node of three fifty mass we strongly back policy order number six support of the state gas infrastructure planning bill and policy order number seven support of the state bill lifting caps on municipal solar we are very grateful for the city's accomplishments in implementing the net zero action plan cambridge has momentum Transitioning off fossil fuels, including the existing building energy use, butoh performance standards, the fossil fuel free requirements for new buildings, the Electrify Cambridge program for retrofits, an ongoing feasibility study for a pilot thermal energy network in the city, and the solar assistance program for community solar projects. Cambridge faces multiple headwinds in maintaining this progress though. One challenge is the regulatory incentive for Eversource to maximize its profits and rate payer costs by replacing leaking gas pipelines at $3 million per mile rather than repairing them at $100,000 per mile. Policy order number six mentions Eversource's plans to dig up 54 sites in Cambridge to replace rather than repair natural gas pipelines. This will increase everyone's gas bills and lock us into decades-long fossil fuel debt service. The proposed bills would empower Cambridge to work with Eversource on four-year plans that could include more cost-effect repair and thermal network alternatives. Another headwind is increasing costs for upgrading our electrical grid. Maximizing rate pair access to community solar projects allows us to save money through net metering, otherwise known as selling power back to the grid. We support policy order number seven to include lifting the cap on municipal solar projects in Governor Healey's energy affordability bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lindsay Adams, followed by Chet Agni, then Ryan McMillan.

Hi, my name is Lindsay Adams. I live at 356 Pearl Street, and I'm a fourth year in the Harvard Virology PhD program. I am also the bargaining committee member on committees for benefits, for compensation, and for academic freedom. I was the Finance and Benefits Committee co-chair last year, where I oversaw distribution of multiple millions of dollars in benefits to the graduate students, and I'm the former treasurer of the Harvard Graduate Students Union. I am a carved out worker. My research is in understanding how B cells make decisions in class switching and gaining functionality following infection and vaccination. In addition, I serve Harvard University by characterizing vaccine antigens and how well they are able to elicit an immune response. I have been carved out because Harvard no longer sees my labor as work for them. They see it as labor for the hospital in which my boss is affiliated at. He is a professor of medicine at Harvard University and co-appointed at Mass General Hospital and the Reagan Institute for Infectious Disease, which is located in Kendall Square. I receive benefits in health care and dental insurance where I am able to get costs back for my dental insurance, for co-pays for my mental health care, and for my prescriptions. Without the benefits of the union, I am in a financially difficult situation because I cannot afford my own health care given the stipend that Harvard pays me. Additionally, overseeing the multiple millions of dollars that Harvard distributed last year in benefits to student workers, I know just how hard this carve-out is going to hit my fellow peers. Many of the students are trying to pay upwards of $30,000 a year in childcare costs, and Harvard is only giving them up to $18,000 per year towards these childcare costs. This does not cover all of them. And so the students that are parents in our university are going to suffer the most from these carve-outs where they can no longer afford to be in Cambridge. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Chet Agni, followed by Ryan McMillan, then Alex Marthews. We are at speaker number 11. Chet, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi there, my name is Chet Ugning. I'm a master's in public policy student at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and I live at 41 Pilgrim Street in Central Square. I'm here to read testimony on behalf of Wesley Hanson, who is a fourth year PhD student in virology at Harvard, who couldn't be here today. And this testimony is in support of the resolution against Harvard's carve-out of 1,000 student workers from the HGSU bargaining unit, which is policy order 8. So these are Wesley Hanson's words. The primary feeling I have in response to nearly 1,000 workers being carved out of our union is one of disbelief and deep concern. I struggle to understand why the university would take such an aggressive stance against its own students. Students who are here not only to learn, but also to contribute meaningful, often urgent research. My research focuses on the measles virus and how it produces proteins necessary for infection and dissemination. This is especially relevant now as the US faces its largest outbreak of measles since 1992. Harvard was the place I chose for this work because I believed it would support not only scientific inquiry, but also the people who carry it out. That belief is being tested. The union has played a vital role in securing the foundation that allows me to focus on this research. Emergency financial support, predictable pay, grievance procedures, and protections against overwork. Losing these protections means increased stress, uncertainty, and vulnerability, both academically and personally. It directly affects our ability to do our jobs well. What makes Harvard's decision especially painful is that it contradicts the values the university has claimed to uphold. I was proud of how Harvard leadership stood up for students when the Trump administration targeted our colleagues. I believe that leadership understood the importance of protecting academic freedom and student workers' rights. Now it feels like that same leadership is using the anti-labor climate of the current administration as cover to quietly divide and weaken us from within. I still want to believe that Harvard values its students and workers, but that belief becomes harder to hold onto as leadership takes action that suggests otherwise. These decisions aren't abstract. They're hurting our friends, colleagues, and the research we're all here to pursue. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ryan McMillan, followed by Alex Marthews, then Gideon Epstein. Ryan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

My name is Ryan McMillan. I live in Cambridgeport at 356 Pearl Street, and I'm here tonight to speak in favor of policy order number eight. I'm a PhD student at Harvard in the biophysics program. I developed methods to visualize many proteins in the same biological sample with super resolution microscopy. I was also one of the co-chairs of the Finance and Benefits Committee of the Hartford Graduate Students Union from fall 2023 to this past spring 2025. During my tenure, the committee administered $2.8 million in benefit funds annually for members in our unit. These funds cover expenses ranging from the $3,000 plus in monthly child care fees that parents in our unit incur, the thousands of dollars that international student workers regularly pay to renew their visas, and the considerable medical expenses beyond what's covered by insurance that graduate student workers incur. Harvard's unilateral removal of over 800 numbers of HGSU's bargaining unit prevents all of these workers from accessing these funds. That means parents who suddenly find themselves unable to pay for their family's medical care and daycare. It means international students who are already dealing with a hostile federal administration can no longer access funds to defray the considerable immigration-related costs they incur. It means disabled students who can no longer afford their medical expenses. At a time when the Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on higher education, we should all be band-aided together to get through this assault together. Harvard has instead chosen to leave some of its own students out to dry. I hope that the City Council votes to tell Harvard that standing up to the Trump administration means standing up for its student workers by voting in favor of PO number eight tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Alex Marthews, followed by Gideon Epstein, then Sonia Marrett. Alex, two minutes.

Hi, my name is Alex Matthews. I am a volunteer with Digital Forth, which meets here in Cambridge and which deals with issues of civil liberties and privacy. I'm here to speak on city manager's agenda item number seven, the reconsideration of flock safety cameras. The first issue that I want to highlight is that the money's gone. When you decided on this in February, the expectation was that urban area security initiative funding from the Department of Homeland Security would pay for the annual costs of flock safety subscriptions. That money's gone because Trump has rescinded it. because of Metro Boston's commitment to immigrant rights. You weren't expecting that you would have to shoulder this burden in future years. The good news is you don't have to. You can and should end this contract. This technology makes vulnerable Cambridge residents even more vulnerable at the worst possible time. There are no protections encoded for people including the thousands of Cambridge residents who attended protests this weekend. The protections that are listed in the letter from Cambridge PD for people who are coming here to seek reproductive or gender affirming care, there's no contractual obligation that is listed there. There are no consequences that are listed if a flock employee or a Cambridge PD employee shares sensitive information of that kind anyway. And especially for people living eastward of here in Cambridge, their whole pattern of life will be visible to these cameras. It's not too late. The cameras aren't up. We've not yet allowed every move in a car to be visible to law enforcement nationwide without a warrant. We urge you to block this contract and explore other better community safety options. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Gideon Epstein, followed by Sonia Merritt, then Dan Totten. Gideon, two minutes.

Good evening. My name is Gideon Epstein. I live on Everett Street. I work at the ACLU of Massachusetts as a policy counsel with a tech... Thank you. I work with the ACLU's Technology for Liberty program as a policy counsel. Like the previous speaker, we have serious concerns about flock safety's license plate reader technology. In addition, we have several outstanding questions after reviewing the Cambridge Police Department's response memo. At the center of the issues with Flock's license plate readers is its unrestricted data sharing model, which gives out-of-state law enforcement access to Massachusetts license plate reader data with no reasonable suspicion required, often enabling searches regarding investigations into protected health care. Specifically, Flock's system undermines our shield law, which protects access to reproductive and gender-affirming health care. The Cambridge Police Department's response memo regarding Flock raises more questions than it does answers. For example, does the decision to forego single sign-on with Flock mean that Cambridge officers cannot search Flock's nationwide database? And more importantly, does it prevent external departments contracted with Flock from accessing Cambridge's LPR data? In addition, what do the quote restrictive administrative settings actually restrict if external officers supposedly cannot access Cambridge LPR data anyway? We need transparency regarding any external sharing of Cambridge license plate reader data, which should come through public sharing of PII redacted audits. Other Massachusetts departments flock audits show that external agencies frequently enter generic search reasons like quote investigation or wanted, making it nearly impossible to identify searches that would supposedly be prohibited by these restrictive settings or even a human review. We need to know how Cambridge Police Department would handle these types of nondescriptive search requests or inquiries, whether they are made through Flock's nationwide database or through other means of communication. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sonia Merritt, followed by Dan Totten, then Kenny Horspan. Sonia, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Sonya Merritt and I'm a MCMPA at HKS. I live at 74 Fairweather Street. I'm here to read a testimony on behalf of a G3 in the Harvard SEAS school who couldn't be here today in support of the resolution against Harvard's carve out of a thousand student workers from the HGSU bargaining unit. That's policy order eight. As in their words, they say, I consider the union as my only advocate against Harvard. I've experienced medical emergencies and have received faster advice and assistance from the union than from the university officials. Another aspect, if you are in a Ph.D. program, other U.S. universities won't offer you a Ph.D. position. So if you are an international student, Harvard exerts total control over your presence in the U.S., Even if you can convince your PI, you are very limited in income sources. How can anyone negotiate with their only possible employer? There is nothing about TFing that changes my status as a PhD candidate doing research in a lab. Even when I TF, it is a 10-hour week task and a 100-hour week job. My pay changes by less than 10%, too. So why would that 10% change my status? Harvard exerts total control over my income and presence in the country. I can't work if they say no. I can't stay if they say no. The only party whose incentives align with mine, regardless of those 10 hours spent TFing, is the union of fellow graduate students. Simply put, graduate students turn money into papers. That's our central relationship with the university. That unites all PhD candidates together. Harvard's TFing condition for the union is embarrassingly disingenuous. They won't find a single PI that is okay with their PhD students spending 40 plus hours a week studying other than doing research. Thank you for my testimony.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dan Totten. Dan has not joined us. We will go to Kenny Vorspan. Kenny, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Kenny Vorspan. I live at 15 7th Street in East Cambridge. and I'm speaking to policy order number five. Fresh Pond Reservation serves as both our city's vital drinking water source and a beloved public park used by thousands of residents and visitors throughout the year. The two and a quarter mile perimeter path provides essential recreation and exercise opportunities for our community. However, unchecked poison ivy growth along the chain link fence frequently encroaches onto the walking path, creating a significant public health risk. Exposure to poison ivy can cause severe allergic reactions including painful rashes, blistering, and swelling that can last for weeks. Children, elderly visitors, and individuals with compromised immune systems are particularly vulnerable to serious reactions. We respectfully request that the Fresh Pond Master Plan Advisory Board, the FPMPAB, commit to cutting back the poison ivy growth along the perimeter path several times during the summer and fall months. This issue should have been addressed by the advisory board many years ago. City council members need only answer three questions to determine how to proceed. I'm gonna jump so I don't run out of time here. The Fresh Pond Master Plan Advisory Board has neglected their responsibility to the public. I have attended their quarterly meetings as much as possible since before the pandemic, always with the same request. One time the board complied by trimming back poison ivy. There has been no consistent ongoing management strategy for which they are accountable. After last month's meeting, which my request was once again rebuffed, I wrote up a petition calling on the board to have the Poison Ivy cut back on a regular basis and collected over 150 signatures. Poison Ivy is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. The Fresh Point Advisory Board has made it clear through their inaction that they will not do what needs to be done without pressure from this body. Thank you so much for your testimony.

Thank you, our next speaker is Amber Shen, followed by Sam Portolans, then Marzia Gassemi. Amber, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

hi my name is amber i'm a fourth year graduate student in the bioinformatics program at Harvard and I live at 334 Harvard street in mid Cambridge i'm here to speak on policy order eight regarding the Union carve out. The Union carve out is very upsetting as as this decision by the university has put many students in trouble. I have relied on the dental and eye fund from the union for the entirety of my time as a graduate student, and the support has covered my dental visits and contact lenses, which can be thousands of dollars a year. The union has greatly eased my anxieties about affording to live in Boston on a graduate student stipend, as I know if I have an unexpected expense, the union can help. I AM LUCKY ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IF I CANNOT MAKE MEN'S ENDS ME, I WILL HAVE SUPPORT FROM MY FAMILY. I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR MANY STUDENTS. AS A RESULT, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE DIFFICULTIES AND STRESS THAT HAS RESULTED FROM THE LOSS OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT THAT THE CARBON HAS CAUSED. THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SAM, FOLLOWED BY MARZIA, THEN ANDREW KIM. SAM, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. Sam, if you can unmute yourself. Two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Sam Portolance. I live at Mansfield Street in Somerville and work at Kendall Square in Cambridge. I'm speaking as part of the Digital Fourth. Block Safety is a company that advertises itself not just as an ALPR vendor, but as a nationwide integrated surveillance network. In an article on Andreessen Horowitz, a firm explained their investment in flock safety. The authors state, what magnifies the power of flock safety even more is that the digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies for a short period of time, making it more powerful as adoption scales within a community and across the US more broadly. In addition to police departments, flock sales accept their private entities like HOAs and corporations and leverages data pools across its clients to deliver value to one another. While their police department may have a narrow privacy agreement with Flock, I see good reason to be deeply suspicious about their plans to not share data with private citizens in the long or even in the near term. ICE, the Secret Service, and the Navy have now been revealed to have access to Flock data, and they've recently partnered with Ring cameras to expand their network of privately gathered data to sell to police. In addition to this privacy concern, Flock is trying to predict criminality. They flagged drivers as suspicious based on their behavior and have stated in a Forbes interview that their goal is to eliminate almost all crime in America within 10 years. Their ambitions go far beyond selling ALPRs to police departments. They want to take a leading role in engineering a system of predictive policing. I encourage Cambridge not to take part in this experiment. Enjoy other communities across the country in banning flock safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marzea Kasemi, followed by Andrew Kim, then Marianne Rosei. We are at speaker number 20. Marzea, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Marcia Gassimi, and I live on Kelly Road. And I'm speaking on city manager agenda number seven. I'm a professor of AI at MIT, and I'm strongly opposed to the installation of the flock cameras around Cambridge, many of which are near MIT. I say this as an expert in AI. I study how AI systems are used in biased ways in human society and systems. I also currently teach a class on AI and decision making systems in society and how it can work against civil rights from privacy and surveillance perspectives. Flock has a known track record of lying to municipalities about data, where they have it and where it's going, and we cannot rely on their assurances that they will comply with Cambridge requests. Any claims that flock cameras won't be used to help with immigration enforcement or other investigations of people who, for example, are trying to obtain reproductive health care cannot be confirmed. We also know that other agencies connected to the flock network can query for anything they want. And if these agencies don't explicitly state that the reason is for immigration enforcement, then FLOC won't know and won't be able to block that query. FLOC also does not have any way of confirming that such agencies won't themselves share the fruits of their queries with ICE. or with any federal government agency. We know from many past research studies and flawed deployments that predictive AI will limit human civil liberties and can end up with a more biased and destructive system in the end. Cambridge needs to protect our residents from this blatant grab at surveillance capitalism and training of biased AI tools and opt out of the flock cameras. We've already seen Eugene, Oregon and Evanston, Illinois just do the same thing. Please abandon the flock project. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew Kim, followed by Mary Ann Rosay, then Siobhan McDonough. Andrew, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Andrew Kim, and I live on Dudley Street near Alewife Station. And I'm here to speak against the implementation of flock safety license plate reader cameras in East Cambridge. I find Flock surveillance systems disturbing, particularly with regards to how the data is handled, and their presence would call into question this city's commitment to being a welcoming city and our commitment to our neighbors' safety. The fact that the system which Flock has shown is being used for the furtherance of ICE's continuing unlawful arrests and imprisonments would allow any agency with a Flock contract to search and access our camera's data disquiets me. even if the Cambridge Police Department pledges not to share the data. Furthermore, the fact that the contract between CPD and Flock has not been outlined to the public and that the CPD has not included that marginalized communities would be disproportionately affected in their surveillance report, despite being required to by the surveillance ordinance, makes me question if the implementation of these cameras has been given proper consideration. Have any guardrails been considered for this system in the event of a lone Cambridge police officer breaking the department's pledge? Or would that even matter, given that the camera's data are held at the enterprise level of flock and are not fully under the CPD's control? All of this, along with the fact that Flock itself has shown that it takes its own liberties with law enforcement by providing, unrequested, its own analyses on the data its systems collect, causes me to question if the city is outsourcing its policing to a private enterprise whose public actions show that their values are not aligned with Cambridge's. Other cities like Evanston, Illinois, and Eugene, Oregon, have stopped their Flock contracts, and I urge the council to make the right decision today to act likewise. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Ann Rosay, followed by Siobhan McDonough, then Kate Pierce. Mary Ann has not joined. We will go to Siobhan McDonough.

I'm Siobhan McDonough. I live on Walden Street. I'm a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, as well as the National Executive Board of the United Auto Workers Local 2320, and I'm here to support my union siblings. First of all, that means supporting Policy Order 4, supporting our statehouse workers as they attempt to unionize. We know statehouse workers are working under some difficult conditions with some notoriously bad bosses, and I think they really need to have all the protections they can get. Supporting workers, supporting union siblings, of course also means standing up to Harvard's union busting. Harvard works because HGSU is there. I say that as a law student, former law student there, and I say that as a current union sibling with these UAW workers. Harvard, HGSU, the union workers there are the reason Harvard has any backbone against the Trump administration. When Harvard stands up to the Trump administration, it's because the union is pressuring them to do so. It's because the workers there are pressuring them to do so. Insofar as we are proud of Harvard for doing those things, we need to be protecting the union and supporting them as they can continue to fight back against the Trump administration. And finally, on city managers, item seven, please don't take this private surveillance contractor at its word. We know Flock has a long history of lying about data sharing. Please reject these efforts to expand their surveillance state now and going forward. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kate Pierce followed by Zoe Fetter, then Madeline Klein. Kate has not joined, we will go to Zoe Fetter. Zoe, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to speak. My name is Zoe Fetter. I'm a seventh year PhD student in the biological and biomedical sciences at Harvard. I live in Cambridge at 80 Wendell Street, and I'm here to share two testimonies on behalf of my classmates at Harvard who couldn't be here today in support of policy order eight. My first classmate is a seventh year PhD student in the biological and biomedical sciences. who told me if it weren't for our union, I would be in massive medical debt because the union had the bargaining power to make our emergency and medical funds available. I'm not sure now what the future holds for students dealing with rising inflation and a weakened workers union that will hurt the most vulnerable students. And my other classmate is a six year PhD student in chemical biology. who wrote, it deeply saddens me to see nearly 1,000 workers carved out of the union, stripped of the safety nets they rely on, such as union representation, child care, health care, dependent insurance, emergency funds, and many other essential benefits. These are not luxuries. They are promises made to us. And for many, they are lifelines that help keep ourselves and our families financially afloat. This decision is especially devastating, given the already high cost of living in the Boston area. I know that many of the affected workers are now facing profound financial and emotional stress. These new burdens inevitably spill over into their academic lives, making it harder to focus on groundbreaking research and academic progress. As these workers are forced to navigate new obstacles, their capacity to continue the work they came to Harvard to do is diminished. Personally, I have relied heavily on these union-secured benefits. As a new father to a nine-month-old daughter, the child care benefit has been critical to me. It allows me to focus on my research by providing access to more affordable child care despite the extremely high cost of living in the greater Boston area. I have also used the emergency funds in moments of crisis. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Madeleine Klein, followed by Virginia Fisher, then Catherine Silvestri. Madeleine, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Madeline Klein, and I live on River Street in Cambridge, and I'm a graduate student at the School of Public Health in Longwood. And I'm here today to talk about Policy Order 8 on the union carve-out, which we've already heard a lot about. When I started graduate school, I was really determined to get the best possible training to become an epidemiologist who's capable of advocating for global and public health. And over the past nine months, we've seen a lot of forces combined to chip away at the ability for me and my classmates to achieve this goal. So in the face of campaign to undermine and attack the legitimacy of the work I do on climate change and health and on sexually transmitted infections, I'm seeing coworkers lose their jobs and fear for immigration status and challenging the composition of our graduate student union interferes with our ability to continue to work towards our collective training goals. THE CONFUSION AND FEAR AND LACK OF SUPPORT IS MORE TIME DIVERTED AWAY FROM OUR STUDIES WHICH MANY OF US SEE AS EXISTENTIALLY IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY IN THE CURRENT MOMENT SO AS A CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE CITY COUNCIL ENDORSE A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE UNION'S OPPOSITION TO THESE CARVATS THANK YOU OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS VIRGINIA FISHER FOLLOWED BY KATHERINE SILVESTRI THEN FIONA DEGNAN

Virginia, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Virginia Fisher. I live on Clinton Street. I'm speaking today on City Manager Item Number 7 to oppose the deployment of automated license plate readers by the Flock Safety Corporation. In response to serious concerns about the privacy impacts of this program, we have a letter from Police Commissioner Ilao attempting to assure the Council that we can trust Flock and the CPD not to abuse this power of surveillance. But even aside from the fact that this letter is not a legally binding commitment, Commissioner Elow describes truly alarming loopholes in the safeguards around the use of this technology. We are told, quote, data may be shared only with the Office of the District Attorney for court-mandated discovery in criminal cases or through proper legal process, e.g. subpoena, warrant, or court order, end quote. But what could constitute proper legal process? I'd like to bring the council's attention to the national security presidential memorandum seven signed by Donald Trump on September 25th, which directs federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorist organizations marked by quote, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity, support for the overthrow of the US government, extremism on migration, race, and gender, and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality." This is a brazen attempt to criminalize ideological dissent and political opposition. It has been well documented that the FBI has used proper legal process to target Muslim communities for surveillance, infiltration, and civil rights violations, including wrongful imprisonment and deportation as part of the war on terror. This is not a hypothetical danger. I urge the council to protect Cambridge communities by refusing to allow flock to operate in our city. Thank you.

Thank you our next speaker is Catherine Silvestri followed by Fiona Degnan then Alexandra Thorne. Catherine please go ahead you have two minutes.

Hello my name is Catherine Silvestri. I live at 253 Norfolk Street. I am concerned about the implementation of the flock ALPRs. Earlier this year, the ACLU warned the city council about the privacy risks of ALPRs. The risk of intrusive surveillance technologies have only increased over the past few months. In addition to the increased ICE presence in Cambridge, Trump's NSPM 7 designates an incredibly broad definition of anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorism, and many local activists are concerned about being unjustly surveilled and prosecuted. Cambridge Police Department's policy can be to not cooperate with federal agencies, but even they noted that they have to comply with subpoenas and court orders. The only way to avoid handing over dangerous and intrusive surveillance footage is to not record it in the first place. Additionally, Flock is a for-profit company and has a history of using illegally sourced third-party data obtained from security breaches. I do not trust with data

Catherine, you're breaking up. We're not hearing you right now.

I'm sorry. Can you hear me?

We can hear you now. Go ahead.

Okay. I apologize. If flock policies change such that data are exposed or they will sell it, are CPD and the city council prepared to take down all the ALPRs? I expect that CPD will once again cherry pick success stories of ALPRs. However, I do not think that these cases warrant a massive increase in surveillance of our city. Please end the contract with Flock and discontinue this effort to use ALPRs. Finally, as a former Harvard University graduate student and worker, I stand with the Harvard Graduate Students Union. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Fiona Degnan, followed by Alexandra Thorne, then Jacob Brown. Fiona, two minutes. Fiona? Hello.

My name is Fiona Degnan.

I'm a psychologist and currently... Fiona, we're not able to hear you. You're very muffled. If you can maybe uncover your microphone.

Yes.

All right, is that better? Yes, go ahead. Okay, I have lived and worked in Cambridge. Thank you for, I'm here to speak on agenda item number seven, the city's use of automatic license plate reader cameras with flock safety. Let me begin by saying that I'm glad the city of Cambridge is taking the time to re-examine this contract as Evanston, Illinois and Eugene, Oregon have done. In addition to the concerns which other people have detailed about Flock's data retention policy and their contracts with law enforcement specifically, I personally am very concerned about the tool which the AI tool which Flock has developed and spoken about at a press release in February and since then, which reports suspicious vehicle movement patterns to law enforcement. I believe that AI should not have a hand in assisting police with searching networks for these particular crimes. I think that a private company which does not have the same checks that which does not have the same checks that a government administration might, should not have a hand in deciding which patterns of movement may be decided as suspicious. Citizens should not be subject to the whims of this kind of algorithm and Flock has given Cambridge no reason to trust the idea or algorithms are unbiased or effective. We have no reason to believe that the way in which they are deciding which movement patterns are suspicious and which are not is biased in terms of where a citizen might be living, which other license plates this car may be linked to, and things of that nature. I think that with features like this and the other issues with checks that come along with flock safety system, that the city of Cambridge should terminate their contract with flock. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Mayor, we are at speaker number 30. It's 6.30 now.

So whereas the time of the hearing on the tax classification rate has arrived, we are going to recess the regular order of business. We will be coming back to the regular meeting, and we will pick up with a public comment at that time. So if you'd like to remain or go home and dial in online, Whatever your preference, we will be coming back to public comment. So I'm going to just ask for a roll call to recess for the purpose of conducting our tax rate classification. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Councillor Azeem?

Yes. Yes, Vice-Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

On the vote of nine members, we have recessed the regular meeting to go into the tax rate classification meeting. And the call of the meeting is as follows. The Cambridge City Council will conduct a public meeting on Monday, October 20th, 2025, for the purpose of the meeting being to discuss the property tax rate classification. Our first order of business is to call the role of the members present. Would someone please close the door? Thank you.

Madam Clerk. Councillor Azeem. Present. Present. Vice Mayor McEvern. Present. Present. Councillor Nolan. Present. Present. Councillor Siddiqui. Present. Present. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Present. Present. Councillor Toner. Present. Present. Councillor Wilson. Present. Present. Councillor Zusy. Present. Present. Mayor Simmons. Present. Present. You have nine members recorded as present.

The rule having been called. Our role here is to take up a meeting, have a public hearing. The Cambridge City Council will conduct a public meeting on Monday, October 20th, 2025 at 6.30. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the property tax rate classification. We have now called the roll. We'll move now to public comment. Public comment is made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G, and the City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you finish speaking, the next speaker will be called. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. Is there anyone that is signed up for public comment? If so, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Stephens. Ms. Stephens, public comment is in your hands.

Our first speaker is Denise Gilson. Denise has not joined. We'll go to speaker number two, Kieran Kelly. Kieran, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello there. My name's Kieran Kelly, and I'm the associate director of Cambridge Local First, representing over 400 small businesses citywide. I'm here in opposition to the unprecedented 22% increase in the commercial property tax rate for fiscal year 2026. Between fiscal year 2020 and 2023, the commercial tax rate declined slightly each year. It rose by less than 1% in 2024 and then by more than 10% in 2025. The proposed 22% hike more than doubles last year's already drastic increase. The city attributes this to declining office and lab values, but raising rates at precisely the moment when these sectors are struggling adds burden where resilience is weakest, penalizing small businesses for economic trends that are beyond their control. Cambridge businesses already shoulder an unusually high share of the tax burden. The current 66% commercial and 34% residential split far exceeds nearby cities. Boston, for instance, draws only 58% of its property taxes from commercial sources and other neighboring municipalities even less than Boston. Yet at the October 15th meeting, officials defended the proposal by noting that Cambridge's rate remains rate itself. Dollar value remains below Boston's and that residential owners are quote unquote house rich and cash poor. But that misses the point because our tax levy is pegged at sixty six thirty four. Businesses will always pay two thirds of the total. Comparing nominal rates without addressing that structural imbalance ignores the inequity faced by small businesses especially, and particularly when preserving that ratio requires a 22% increase just to maintain it. And we recognize the city's fiscal pressures and we want to collaborate on responsible solutions going forward. And with that in mind, we respectfully request two actions as we move forward. First, we request the delay of the adoption of this increase until a full economic impact assessment is completed, including a serious consideration of the small commercial exemption, a state policy allowing lower taxes, a potential 10% decrease in commercial property tax rates for commercial parcels that are valued under $1 million and that house businesses with 10 or less employees. About 40%, according to Cambridge's own data, of its commercial properties are valued at less than $1 million, meaning that there could be a substantial impact on the most vulnerable small businesses. And second, we hope that the city will want to establish a permanent communication channel like quarterly meetings between the city and business associations to ensure further transparency in the future. Our businesses are not asking for special treatment, just fairness and a seat at the table. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We're going to go back to Denise Gilson, followed by Heather Hoffman. Denise, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN, AND COUNCILORS. DENISE STILSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE HARVARD SQUARE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL TAX RATES FOR FY26 ARE PROBABLY LOCKED IN, AND AT THIS POINT, ANY ADJUSTMENT WOULD REQUIRE THIS COUNCIL TO IMPOSE DEEP BUDGET CUTS OR SHIFT A GREATER TAX BURDEN TO RESIDENTIAL OWNERS. YOU HAVE HEARD OVER THESE LAST WEEK OR SO, PROBABLY INCLUDING TODAY FROM COLLEAGUES, MY COLLEAGUES IN THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, CERTAINLY CLF, PROPERTY OWNERS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, AND HOTELS. AND WE CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW DIFFICULT THIS IS GIVEN THE KIND OF DISAPPOINTMENT AND FRUSTRATION THAT WE HAVE AS A BUSINESS COMMUNITY KNOWING THE BURDEN THAT OUR SMALL BUSINESSES IN PARTICULAR ARE GOING TO FEEL. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY27 BUDGET IS THAT YOU HAVE CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNCIL AND REALLY THAT WE MEET FREQUENTLY PARTICULARLY AS THE BUDGET PROCESS UNFOLDS. WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT AND PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE OF THAT LAST TIME AROUND. AND I DON'T THINK ANY ONE OF US REALLY ANTICIPATED THIS KIND OF BURDEN. BUT I REALLY FEEL LIKE WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. And the only thing that we can ask for is as we move forward that we have continued engagement and that there will be budget cuts and those cuts will hurt. But if we don't do that, I can't imagine having another year next year the way we've had this year. And I really look forward to working with you and making sure that the budget is carefully constructed, knowing that the business community cannot take this kind of increase next year. And thank you very much for listening.

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

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I'd like to build on what you heard from prior speakers and also what city officials said at the last hearing on this. I am well aware that you did in fact signal that this kind of an increase was coming months ago when you discussed and then adopted the budget. but people are human and people don't necessarily hear that. People also, even people who are very intelligent, who are not scared of numbers and all of that don't necessarily understand how the city budget works, how proposition two and a half works. And the things that have gone into getting us to this point. Now, setting aside any budget cuts that I might recommend or that anybody else might recommend, what I can say is that there are people working for the city who have done a very good job explaining how all of this works, but a lot of people can't read these memos and understand all of the implications. So really, if we don't want to have this keep happening, because I don't think times are going to be getting better anytime soon, then you owe yourselves and us some real education about how this all gets put together. And you might also think about some ways that you can do reasonable belt tightening so that people who are paying the taxes will not feel as beleaguered as I think so many of us are right now. So I'm going to agree that this tax rate is gonna go through most likely, but you have created problems for yourself by how you have acted to not educate people. And you need to improve that because you have people who can do it. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Luke Smith followed by James Williamson. Luke, if you can unmute yourself. Luke, you have the floor. Please unmute yourself. Luke is unable to unmute. We will go to James Williamson. James, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Thank you. The former clerk told me that she appreciated my asking that question. First of all, I'm kind of shocked. I don't know, shocked. Nobody's shocked about anything these days. I'm surprised, dismayed to hear that apparently there's nothing, people seem to think there's nothing that can be done about the tax rate. What's the point of having a public hearing about anything if the decisions have already been made? So I would like to believe that a tax rate hearing is tied to whether or not the city council, in their wisdom, will adopt recommendations or not. It seems to me that small businesses, we hear about it all the time about people worried about businesses closing, losing parking, going out of business. And here's an opportunity to do something about it. I mean, I haven't studied it carefully as others have, but 22% certainly sounds like a lot when applied to smaller businesses. I don't really care if big biotech companies that have because of irresponsible development policies, ended up with a lot of vacancies. Why is that our problem? I guess people in Cambridge got used to the idea that big companies, big real estate companies or biotech companies would pick up the tab. And politically, it was seen as an easy way to keep residential property taxes low. And now the chickens are coming home to roost. But if we care about So the big companies, they're the ones that really should have to bear this burden. The small businesses, and I thought the idea that mentioned by an earlier speaker makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure what the details are, but to allow there to be a differentiation between smaller businesses, defining what that line, or maybe there are three tiers, so that smaller businesses can prosper in this city. And we don't have just, you know, big biotech and IT companies and the university Harvard's endowment jumped to 57 billion, despite all their whining. So I really urge the council to be conscientious and tough about a tax rate and the tax rate public hearing, and really evaluate whether there isn't a way to ease the burden on the small businesses, which of course only gets passed on to the consumer, the customer, and we are gonna end up paying this higher tax. And I don't think we should, and I appreciate your consideration for mitigation of that burden. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, that is all that were signed up for this public comment.

This concludes public comment. Pleasure to counsel. On a motion by Council Susi to close public comment, please call the roll.

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.

A couple of comments now close on the affirmative vote of nine members. I will now invite the city manager and his team forward to take up the discussion. On the tax classification rate, don't run to the table. I'm just a city manager. If you will, before opening your opening remarks, introduce those that are at the table for those that are viewing in and may not know who's with you. And then the floor is yours.

Thank you through you, Mayor Simmons. We have Claire Spinner, our Assistant City Manager of Finance, Gail Willett, who is our Director of Sessing, and Taha Jennings, who is our Budget Director. So thank you all. I think... Claire, did we want to open with anything or I suppose I would say we have since the last meeting two weeks ago had a meeting where we invited the business associations and some of the small businesses that they represent to to ask questions and have their voices heard. I think it was a productive conversation. Some of the information out there, I think we tried to clarify, but certainly a lot of the message that we heard is pretty similar to what we're hearing today. And a lot of I think what we were sharing two weeks ago remains true. that this is really part of the broader budget process in that the decisions we have before us are not really related to how high or low the tax rate is. That's really driven by the budget that we set. And so we ultimately make decisions about the overall operating budget. And then as part of that budget, we are setting where the revenues end up landing. A lot of that, given the economic conditions, is landing on the tax levy, which is why over these last cycles we are seeing the tax levy increase higher than the budget increase. So it has been a lot of these conversations where we have been sharing the need for us to moderate our operating budget growth during these economic times. Our budget for this fiscal year is 3.8% in terms of operating budget growth, which is much lower. than previous years that resulted in 8% tax levy increase. And then as part of that process, we approved the budget in June, and then we assessing works to understand where the values land. And then we have the tax rate hearing, which is in the fall. And at that tax rate hearing, based on where the values are, the rates get set to raise the total amount of dollars in the levy that the budget requires. So I think before us today continues to be mostly the vote to affirm the split between the commercial rate and residential rate and then the residential exemption that we have. But I think these are good moments and I've said this in the meeting we had with the business associations, but these are good moments for us once we understand where the rates land to have a conversation about the budget and to ensure that we continue to get input and engagement, especially as we move into the next budget process. So I appreciate that we've been able to have more of this conversation and I certainly would be happy for myself and the team to clarify any additional questions about some of the dynamics that are at play, what kind of possibilities we have in terms of how we think about different ways we can approach this. Anything to add, Claire or Gail or Taha?

Does Ms. Spinner or Director Jennings want to add anything, or Ms. Willett? Not particularly in that order, but.

No, I don't have anything further to say. Happy to answer any questions. Mr. Jennings, anything you'd like to add?

If you, Madam Mayor, know as well, ready to answer any questions people may have, thanks.

Ms. Willett, this is your chance to talk or run.

I'll talk a little. No, I don't have anything either. I think we're ready for questions.

Very good. Okay, I'll open the floor to my colleagues in the first round. Councilor Toner, Councilor Azeem, because he's online, and then Councilor Nolan, and then anyone else that wants to be the Vice Mayor. So, Councilor Toner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I charted this issue at the last meeting, also fully knowing from the staff that we need to vote on this tonight because they have to be able to put the tax bills out because as we were apprised, we're already a quarter into the budget and money needs to be coming in. So we cannot delay this vote this evening. I'm prepared to vote for it. I only charted it so that there would be two weeks to better inform people and answer their questions so that people have a better understanding. The only statement I want to make to the general public, both residents and the business community is the budget process I think for the last three years, I don't know what it was like before I was on the council, but over the last three years, I believe we've had extensive meetings about the budget and the staff have made themselves completely available to answer every question that people want asked. And it's been very clear for the past, at least the past year, if not even a little earlier, that the economy of Cambridge is changing. Again, we're not in some sort of economic free fall, but the days of being able to just say yes and do anything and add it to the tab are kind of coming to an end. And I want to applaud the city manager and the staff because I know that Councilor Nolan and I I THINK LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE HAVING THIS VERY SAME MEETING SAID WE CAN'T KEEP DOING 8% RESIDENTIAL TAX INCREASES AND WEREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINESS SIDE OF THINGS AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. SO I FELT THE STAFF DID A GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO HOLD INCREASES IN BUDGET TO 3.4%. I THINK THAT WAS THE NUMBER. BUT UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE OF PRIOR SPENDING ON BIG PROJECTS LIKE SCHOOLS AND FIRE STATIONS AND UNIVERSAL PRE-K AND OTHER THINGS, THE BUDGET the tax rate is going up faster. And the only way to get that under control is, again, to aggressively focus on the budget going forward. And I won't be here for that, but my message to the residents of Cambridge is to start really thinking, we provide a lot of services, and I don't begrudge those services at all, but we already provide a lot of things that other cities and towns do not do. And if people are serious about saying they don't wanna pay increases in taxes, or at least not more than three or 4% per year, then they need to understand that there's gonna come a day when we have to say, we're gonna have to start making some cuts. We definitely can't add any more. Even at a 3.4% growth, and I guess this would be a question for Ms. Spinner at this point, just trying to keep it at 3.4% was an 8% increase. So even if we had a 0% increase in the operating budget in the next round of budget next year, There's still going to be an increase in the tax rate to sustain things. Am I correct if you'd like to just take a... You don't have to make any wild predictions, but I'm assuming that there'd still be a tax increase even if we kept budget growth at 0%.

Ms. Bennett? Through you, Mayor Simmons. I think if we had a zero change in our budget so that we, and as long as non-property tax revenues stayed flat, we would not need an increase in the property tax levy because we would just need the same amount of revenues. I don't think it is actually possible for us to have a zero growth because, as you know, there are just normal increases to budget. And one of the ways we were actually able to achieve the 3.8% budget growth this past year is we extended our pension costs. So we will have to all apply ourselves for the FY27 budget to be able to continue to focus on moderating our budget growth. It won't be easy, but I think it's something that we jointly have to work on.

Dr. Turner.

Thank you. Just for the follow-up, I mean, as you said, there's inflation, there's contract negotiations, there's health insurance costs, et cetera. So keeping it at complete zero, the only way to keep it at complete zero is to start making cuts. And I think people just have to understand, if that's what they want, I mean, I always use the example, my children played hockey at the high school for free. There's so many things that we do in our public schools for free that we all love and appreciate. I love the fact that on a weekly basis, the trash comes and picks up the recycling and the trash. Other towns, you have to pay for that, or maybe it's every other week. You know, there are all sorts of things that we do as a city, social programs, education programs, DPW, et cetera, all things that we do in Cambridge that many other cities and towns don't do. And I just, I want to alert the public that today's the day they need to start paying attention. And hopefully we'll continue to be a generous community. But if people do have ideas, legitimate ideas on how we can do things more efficiently, save money or something. I think this council or any future council is all ears to hear those ideas. But I don't want anybody living in a fantasy world that there's not going to be no tax increase short of major cuts. And as Vice Mayor McGovern has said many times, I don't think we've laid off, well, I don't think we had a major layoff or any type of layoff in the city of Cambridge since the beginning of Prop 2 1⁄2 in 1980. We've been very lucky to not have to make cuts to our fire department, our police department, our school department over the years. To achieve a 0% tax increase, it sounds like you would have to start cutting into the meat. There's not a whole lot of fat to go around. Some people might think some programs are unnecessary, and they are things that we do because we're Cambridge. it's gonna be real pain for people in one way or another going forward if we take that approach. Thank you, Madam Mayor Ayal.

Councilor Toney, is the floor Vice Mayor?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree a lot with what Councilor Toner was saying. I think we're all out there talking to folks, and we talk about the things that people like that we're doing, and that stuff all costs money. It costs money. That's what taxes are for. Now, I'm sure that there are things where we could make some cuts or there are some programs that maybe have outlived their usefulness and they're still going on because we haven't been in a position where we've had to cut things, right? But I do, you know, I do remember when we were voting, when I was on the school committee and we voted the innovation agenda through and some of the So some of the K-8 schools lost their middle schools, right? Their middle schools, they moved out, moved up to the upper schools. And the superintendent at the time came forward with a plan around curriculum coaches. Now curriculum coaches go with the teachers. They're there for the teachers. So if you have fewer teachers, you have smaller caseloads for those curriculum coaches. And he was going to, we were gonna lose like one curriculum coach. And people turned out to the school committee meeting as if we just said we're going to start going back to corporal punishment in the classroom. People were outraged. And I pointed out that Newton's public schools, who had twice the enrollment of Cambridge, at the time had eight curriculum coaches for their district. We had 33 for half the kids. So it just goes to this point. I mean, we're talking about after school tomorrow. Tell me another city that will take your kid from an East Cambridge school where they go during the day and bus them for free across to a West Cambridge after school program because it's more convenient for the parents to pick their kid up at that after school. That's free. So as we talk about these cuts, I think it's easy and we're hearing this a lot out there. Well, they're not fiscally responsible. I just want to point out The school budget is 30% of the city's budget, roughly, 29 point something. So where are we talking about cutting? Are we talking about cutting the public schools budget? Okay. Where do you wanna make those cuts? You know, public safety's a big part of our budget. Okay, where do you wanna cut in public safety? DHSP that pays for those programs like preschool and after school. What do you wanna cut there? And so it's really easy to talk about we have to be more fiscally responsible until you actually get to the point where you have to make those decisions. So I'm with Councilor Toner in agreeing that I think we're gonna have some challenging conversations moving forward. And people are gonna have, you know, there may be a little bit of pain that we haven't felt here in 40 years, practically. And so I do hope that we, continue to have these public conversations. I encourage people who call into public comment. I hope that they stay for the conversations because some of these things we've discussed before and tell me if I'm wrong, Mr. Manager. I don't know if the city solicitors here, but my understanding is that We can't set different tax rates for different sized businesses. I believe, and maybe I'm misremembering as they now say, that we have asked, and you have answered this question several times, and yet we continue to hear people say, do this. And so we have to keep repeating these things all the time so that people Because a lot of times people don't hear it because they're, you know. So we can't do that, right? So we can't say if you're a business of 10 employees, you pay this rate. If you're a business of 100 employees, you pay this rate, right? Am I correct in that? Mr. City Manager? Thank you.

Through you Mayor Simmons, that is correct. I think there are very few flexibilities in terms of how we charge different commercial properties, different rates, really the way that we do it, where there are these different classes and then the valuations are driving the differential rates. That is the way every city and town essentially does it. And there's not a lot of provisions that allow for something different to happen. I'd also just note there is a challenge where what we're hearing from are small businesses, and those are the folks that are sometimes impacted because of the lease arrangements where some of those taxes are passing through, but the taxes are not on small businesses. They're on commercial property, and so there is an indirect nature to this that makes it a little bit harder to do some of that targeting where really I think the ask is to say, how do we insulate small businesses from taxes, but they're not actually the ones that are being taxed. I do know there's been some conversation about some specific provisions that we've reviewed. We don't think really apply that well within the city of Cambridge, but I think we could either get into that or have the conversation separately.

I don't think we need to get into it now, but through you, Madam Mayor, I also, We heard a couple property owners get up two weeks ago and say they're concerned about passing these expenses on to their tenants and they're afraid that their tenants might leave and then they'll have a vacancy. Well, don't pass it on. Right? If you are a large property owner that owns multiple properties in Cambridge that has small businesses in them and you're afraid that those businesses are going to leave and you're going to end up with a vacancy that's going to end up costing you more money in the long run because it's hard to find a tenant, amend your lease. Help them. Be part of the community in solving this problem. The property owners have a hell of a lot more money than the person who's running the little frozen yogurt store. So they're not forced to pass this on, or at least all of it on. So be part of the solution. And I'll yield because I know we're going to have to do this. I certainly do support better and more communication. But at the end of the day, we do a lot of incredibly wonderful things in this city that people, I think, over the last 40 years have grown to expect and take for granted. They don't realize that these things cost money and where that money comes from and that conversation is gonna be real tough on everybody over the next few years. Thank you.

Vice Chair yields the floor. Councilor Azeem, do you want to speak on this?

I do, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I had only brief comments, which is I think that we've tried to bring forward for the community that we're going to have slower budget growth. And we talked about that a lot this year. I think that still has filtered down into the community in tough conversations and that I think everyone on this body and in this call in general have heard that. And yet we still get a lot of questions about why are you not funding the next program? You know, why are you not doing this other new thing? And so I think that just going from where we were, where it was very easy to expand to new programs, to being where we are now has been a big change. And hopefully this will be another point that will make it an easier conversation next year. I don't have much more to add for today except I did want to just say that you know I know that there was a lot done in prior administrations about like making sure we did have healthy commercial growth as well and I think that that's always a tough conversation because new jobs means more people want to live here But I think that that is something that I would be excited to revisit and talk about as we are closer to the next budget cycle as well and trying to see if there is interest in having new commercial properties in Cambridge and what that might look like and if there's anything that we need to do on the city side to encourage that. Thank you.

Councilor Zima yields the floor. Councilor Nolan, would you like to speak on this item?

Yes, thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. Yes. I think as my colleagues have pointed out, we have been in a position the last probably decade or even longer due to mostly new development. The property commercial and also values and residential have gone up so significantly that as we added more and more programs, expanded programs, there was not the same level of appreciation and growth in the tax rate, but even the last few years, it's been significant. We heard it not just this year for residential, but the last few years, it's been around, you know, seven or 8% every year, that's higher than inflation. And what's particularly difficult this year, which we all understand and have heard, is that we have focused typically, and as finance chair, as all of these meetings and my colleagues are at it, we have typically focused more on the residential rate, what impact it will have on condos, on single family, two family. And this year, when we saw that there was a very, very different impact on the commercial tax rate, it was something that I think has taught all of us that the kind of communication that happened in the couple of weeks since we had this discussion delayed in order to communicate is something we need to include and I know the staff is aware and will include in future discussion that when we do the tax rate hearing we need to ensure that we have the same level of detail on the impact on commercial which if folks haven't had a chance to review I think the memo that went out and if the staff wants to talk some about that it really laid out for all of us the fact that for some commercial tax properties, their taxes aren't even going up in dollar terms because their valuation went down so much that a 22% raise in the rate has meant that their actual bill is very similar to what it was last year. However, there's others where if their valuation went up on top of it, a 22% rate increase, it means that their actual dollars being paid is more than 22%. It could be, I think, as high as 27 or 30% for a few properties. And that is something very challenging for people to as we heard in public comment. It's also something we have to remember that we still do have lower tax rates on both the residential side and the commercial side compared to almost every other community around. Just a couple points. I think all of us are very sensitive to the burden this places. Again, 8% overall for residential is not insignificant. 8% overall, which we need on commercial is not insignificant. It's difficult for many people to pay that. And we knew this when we passed the budget. Last May, it was very clear graph that this was going to happen. We didn't know exactly how it would land, but we knew for sure everything was having to go up 8% on the property tax side in order to fund a budget that we passed that even though it was only a few percent higher, It included an incredible amount of spending, closing in on a billion dollars. I want to have all of us be clear that since the idea raised in public comment about whether we could have different tax rates for commercial property based on size or number of employees, as the Vice Mayor asked, it's clear from a legal perspective, we may not, we cannot, It's just not within our power. That's something only that the state dictates that and we must follow obviously the state law. It's not just that other communities do the same. They do it because it's the only legal pathway forward. So right now, if we were to decide that it was a primary goal to lower the 22% tax rate on commercial, the only two options available to us are to shift the burden or shift that dollar amount to residences and raise the rates there. or cut our budget a quarter way into the year. And that would mean likely some programs being cut or some salaries being cut. So right now, I think we all understand and Denise Gilson, I think resignedly understands the budget enough to know that those two options are not something I'm willing to entertain right now to either shift to residences and make the rates higher or cut our city budget. I do think going forward, we need to understand that this is not sustainable. And that means, as several people have already said, next year's budget conversations, which, by the way, will be starting next month in December. We're not going to wait till next spring. they're already starting on some level on the city now, are really going to include, as ACM Spinner noted, conversations about how we can work smarter, because we are going to have to do that in order to avoid this kind of rate increase next year. You know, the lab space vacancies, the assessments are not going away. So I will end with one question, which is it would be helpful to hear a little more detail from the, through you, Mayor Simmons and the staff of, I'M VERY GLAD THE MEETING HAPPENED, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT GOOD NEWS FOR THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES. I THINK JUST HAVING SOME TIME TO ADJUST WE KNOW IS REALLY IMPORTANT. IS THERE A REPORT BASICALLY ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED OR SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS HAD AT THE MEETING THAT WAS HELD BY THE CITY IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN HOW IT IS THAT WE GOT TO THIS SITUATION? IF THERE'S ANY LEARNINGS FROM THAT OR ANYTHING that we should know about, it would be really good to hear about now. Again, I really appreciate everyone understanding this a little more and coming to us with concerns because it is something that really needed to be out in the public and to understand, as the Vice Mayor said, it's because we passed a budget that included all the spending that we have. There's no way around it.

Mr. City Manager, do you want to, you or someone from your staff want to respond?

Ms. Spinner? Yes, thank you, Mayor, through you. I think I would say primarily I think the meeting was a very good conversation and a good opportunity for us to hear some of the concerns. Gail Willett and her staff actually put together a very helpful presentation that we shared with staff THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND THEIR MEMBERS AS WELL AS WE SHARED ALSO WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TRYING TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE THE SORT OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN RATES, OVERALL LEVY INCREASE AND ACTUAL VALUES BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, AS WE'VE ALL SAID THAT 22% INCREASE IN THE in the commercial tax rate is not because we were looking for 22% more revenue, it was just that intersection of needing to raise 8% more and what happened to values within the class. So I think we had some learning really to hear about some of the concerns, some of the communication concerns. I think as we look forward to next year when we're doing this in terms of what information we put out through our the memo that goes to the city council explaining the tax rate and other informational material we put out, we'll put some more focus into more information about impacts on various classifications within the commercial sector as we have typically, as we've all explained, focused a lot on our residential taxpayers. So I think that is really, and I think also just encouraging ongoing sort of engagement and communication with our small business and business associations, I think, as we all embark on the work to put the FY27 budget together.

Ms. Spinner yields the floor. Does anyone else from your side of the table?

Mayor Simmons, just one more point.

Hold on, Council. I wanted to see if anyone from the table... Hold on, Councilor Nolan. I wanted to see if anyone else wanted to say anything. Okay, sorry. Anything else? Okay, very good. Back to you, Councilor Nolan.

Just one quick point to make, and thank you, I apologize for interrupting, Mayor Simmons. The timing of this was also something that we need to reiterate, which is it's not that we were hiding it. We knew about the 8% in May and June. We could not know about the differential rates until some other processes had happened. And I think that was part of the frustration and confusion and also, you know, concern expressed is that why didn't you tell us this before? Well, we couldn't know. So if we could just confirm that and make sure we all understand the timeline is that we don't even get that information as I understand it until September or early October. And that's why that's when the tax rate hearing comes out. So thank you. And with that, if there's any response from the staff, fine, but otherwise I yield Mayor Simmons.

Any response from the floor? Sure. Thank you, Mayor Simmons. Yes, it is, we are collecting data, we are analyzing data in the assessing department, so we do not understand what the tax rate is, nor do we understand the value implications on the different classes of property until much later. We actually didn't know the tax rate until the Monday, the week before, because we were still doing analysis and still looking at different options.

Miss Wilk yields the floor. Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Pleasure of the City Council. Councilor Susi. Councilor Siddiqui.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will be short. I just wanted to thank you for all of your work. I felt like you prepared us to understand that our financial circumstances had changed. We had five meetings about that last year, and I think it was just maybe more of a surprise to our neighborhood associations and businesses. So again, going forward, we'll need to communicate better with them and i wonder if some town meetings around town might be helpful too because i think if the residents realize they sort of see what's going on too but i think if they're more informed they might have ideas also about places we can do cost cutting I think the only thing I was surprised by last year, my first year on the council, was that we didn't cut more from the budget, anticipating the uncertainties ahead. And I think the public might have some great ideas about places that we might consider cutting back. ANYWAY, I'M SO APPRECIATIVE TO ALL OF YOU FOR KEEPING US IN GREAT FISCAL STRENGTH. WE STILL HAVE THAT AAA BOND RATING. AND PLEASE HOLD ON TO THE FREE CASH FOR US. I THINK ESPECIALLY DURING UNCERTAIN FINANCIAL TIMES, IT'S JUST NICE TO HAVE A LITTLE EXTRA CASH AROUND. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND I YIELD.

Thank you, through you, I agree with a lot of what my colleagues have said. I know that the city usually mails out that one pager and what I was wondering if in the daily update maybe something could be sent now that we've done this and I felt that the presentation was really what you had sent to us was really helpful and if there's somewhere some section of the Daily Update in the next week, some kind of summary explaining this, reiterating, you know, the fact that basically what's everything's been said would be helpful. Even as we get these questions, the more, you know, information, the more explanation I think is really helpful. So that's just an ask and a suggestion. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Councilor Siddiqui is the floor. Councilor Vianney-Wheeler, you want to be heard?

Thanks, by the way. Yeah, through you. As others noted, I think it's important to clarify that the amount of the city budget was decided back in June when we voted on it. And so the only thing we're talking about tonight is the split between the commercial and the residential rate. The only choice before this council this evening is if we want to move forward with the commercial residential split that staff have put forward, or if we want to increase taxes on Cambridge homeowners in order to reduce the tax rate on businesses in the city To be clear, I do not think that makes sense. I would not support with that. When we were discussing in the budget in the spring, I think staff made clear we were going to see local impacts as a result of the national economic climate on property valuations. We did pass that budget on a unanimous vote in the spring. I think if councilors were concerned, myself included, about the size of the budget, that was the time to raise those concerns and put forward specific reductions to spending. Don't hear anyone tonight saying, I made a mistake. I didn't understand what I was voting for. So I hope we can all move forward with this tonight. We'll point out that I and some other counselors spent a lot of time during those budget discussions in the spring talking about parts of the budget that were maybe not currently priorities. I supported reducing spending on new equipment requested by CPD. It didn't have the votes to pass at that time. I think that was the only specific spending reduction that was proposed. And just when we were talking about the budget, we didn't hear a lot of advocacy around reducing parts of it from the community. We heard a lot of advocacy about things people wanted in the budget, about things we wanted to make sure were in there. Did not hear big concerns about the size of the budget or pieces of it. I think we can always improve the public education process around the budget. help explain how the size of the budget translates into the tax rate, help make sure folks understand what the tax implications are of the budget process. We'll know that I'm glad to have put forward charter amendments about starting the budget process earlier, just so we can start that budget conversation earlier. We don't start the budget process, have it before us until the spring. Hopefully starting that earlier gives people more chance to raise those concerns earlier. or just have that discussion and would flag that, you know, I hope anyone with concerns about the budget or the tax rate will vote yes on the charter and we'll spread that to their network to, you know, improve the budget process and bring that out earlier. I think that's, if that's a, you know, a takeaway, if you have questions or concerns about this, let's have the budget process start earlier and let's make sure we do these charter changes that are some of the first we've done in 80 years. That's all I had to say for this for now and I'll be back.

Councilor Sabrina, we'll use the floor. Councilor Wilson, floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you, thank you again for the presentation and for the work that you all have done. I really want to appreciate the level of transparency and just how we are able to kind of engage in these conversations right now. What I was kind of noting to myself was just like, you know, I totally agree with all my colleagues here with like, we were talking about this for some time about the financial responsibilities and knowing that we can't, expend outside of our means, if you would, and we have to be tighter with our pockets. But on the same token, we were increasing the cost to do repairs, say, even to the firehouse, or to other projects, or even police firearms. just other things that we had to tap into, free cash and stuff. So I really think the shock wasn't that we would need to be increasing. I think it's the amount in which we need to increase. And by 22%, and however that kind of plays out, is not a small number. And so regardless, I think for our commercial businesses, for our commercial folks, it's important that we are thinking about what that impact would be. Right. And I think those are the I don't want to say unintended consequences, but that's just the area. I mean, we know that it takes our small businesses to also help our community thrive. So if perhaps a small business may, because a commercial landlord, right, is actually possibly going to put the dollars onto the tenant, and if it is a small business owner and that can impact their ability to remain, those are the things I want us to be able to capture in terms of data. Like, what does that actually look like? Because we don't want to see a business not be able to maintain their livability or their ability to stay in Cambridge because of a tax increase. So I don't know how we could be intentional around understanding what that looks like for small businesses. I think to have it chartered and be able to have the two weeks to even engage with our commercial district folks, our associations was good so that we can actually know on the ground. And I want to see that those conversations are happening more frequently because those are the folks who are on the ground with our businesses. and can really inform how we move forward. And again, with tax increases that this will probably not be the last of it, right? That we wanna make sure that we're engaging folks across the board more intentionally. And even if it was to come, at some point down the line, even back to resident increases, we want to engage as soon as possible in these conversations. I think, again, and many people have already said it, in Cambridge we are super privileged in that respect that we still will have the lowest tax rates across the Commonwealth. And so with that, or within the region. And so with that being said, it's like that's great, and the impact of even increases could hurt individuals. I think somebody said it in public comment. Again, while we don't want to push it on residentials who are living maybe house rich but income poor, that can be the same for our businesses as well, who are trying to really make it day by day with selling the goods that they have in our community. I'm just curious if there's any feedback or any thoughts that are going into just how we're thinking, long-term thinking, about how we're engaging with folks around our taxes, but also understanding the moment that we're in right now, we're going to be here for a little bit. So, like, as we even jump into our next fiscal year and move forward even over the next three to five years, what are the conversations that we're having and how can we be... more, I guess, I don't want us to be reactive. I want us to really be thinking proactively on how we can be preparing our community across the board for what increases will be looking like.

Mr. City Manager, Assistant City Manager Spinner, do you want to speak to this, Mr. Jennings? I'm sorry, I know your name, but I can't think of it right now. Ms. Willett. Ms.

Willett, thank you. Through you, Mayor Simmons, thank you for the question, Councilor Wilson. A lot of the message, I think, that was coming out of the conversation with the small businesses and business association members is to remain engaged, especially as we go into this next budget process. I think that's really where the decisions are being made about how quickly the budget is growing and how we think about the allocation of resources. In terms of getting in front of it, I would say one of the challenges is also we don't know exactly when there will be a lot of feedback coming, especially on something like this. I would say residential rates have been going up for some time and it's been pretty quiet, but that would be where I could see we need more engagement as we move forward. Some of the conversation we have been having about the budget and the trends we're seeing particularly as it relates to the residential commercial shift, is the chance that we will max out on how much we can continue to shift to commercial. And so as much as we're having this conversation where a lot of the small businesses are saying, well, there's a 22% increase in the tax rate on commercial, a lot of that is being driven by how similar to every other city we are protecting residential taxpayers. And so the split between commercial and residential as part of this year's budget increased from 140% commercial rate to 152%. When you get to 175%, that's it. You can't increase it anymore, at which point more and more of the total increase, especially if commercial values continue to decline and residential values either stay flat or increase, you could see a really significant spike in residential tax rates. So that'll be some of the conversation we're having, depending on the economic conditions, both for this upcoming budget and the following one. And so I would probably note, we wanna continue to engage with the small business community, but it may be the case that we should be engaging more with residents, especially as we're thinking about how some of these levy increases could end up more on the residential side, depending on how the values shift.

Thank you, and through you, Madam Mayor, to the panel. Yeah, I appreciate that, and I think it will be intentional. It will be purposeful for us to be engaging in those conversations sooner versus later, but also to really think about, because it's not just homeowners, right? It would be property owners, right, for residentials, and so And y'all can correct me, please, through you, Madam Mayor, if it's, like, if we're looking at affordable housing units versus luxury units, like, what does, and I'm talking about rentals specifically, can you just break down kind of what that looks like? Because as we are increasing our conversations around zoning and, you know, building out more units, if there's going to be this, you know, larger tax... larger tax thing on people. I think it's just something, again, for folks to be mindful of as they're engaging in, oh wow, there's this new piece of property, but residential's about to be taxed even higher. What does this look like in terms of the long term? And again, thinking about the affordability for rents. That's what we're really trying to combat is the affordability and if it's possible that the residential taxes are going to be going up, it's going to end up being going back onto the tenants. I just want to be mindful of that cycle and again, how we're having those conversations sooner versus later. not something you have to answer now, but I just want us to be super, super mindful of how we engage in it so that next year when we're talking about this and having to pass a budget, that it's not this, we just had this conversation in October and we didn't touch it again, or we didn't engage the community or developers or whomever. So I want us to really think about what we're doing across short-term and long-term to engage individuals throughout our community on this. Thank you, IU.

Councilor Wilson-Yost, the floor.

Councilor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just had one question. There was an earlier response that you gave to Councilor Toner's point that the budget increased 3.4%, if I remember correctly. and that if it had not been there, we would not have seen a tax increase. My understanding is that because the commercial property value still went down, even though we would not have collected more tax revenue because the budget would have stayed the same, we would likely still have seen a shift to retail and hotel use so that those uses in particular would probably still see somewhere around maybe 14% tax increase, even if the budget did not grow at all.

Ms. Spinner, Assistant City Manager for Finance, Spinner.

Thank you, Mayor, through you. Yes, I was really responding to the overall levy increase. You're completely correct that each and every year when the assessing department goes through and confirms new values, even if we did not raise additional money from year to year, there would be changes within the classes, both on the residential side and the commercial side, really based on what happened to the values.

Councillor Azeem. Thank you, IU. Councillor Azeem yields the floor. Does anyone else want to be heard on this item? Hearing none, we'll move to the vote. So the first, I'm gonna read the communication item. A communication transmitted for me on Long City Manager relative to votes necessary to seek approval from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue of the tax rate for 2026. I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the tax rate for fiscal 2026.

So moved.

On a motion by Council Wilson, roll call.

Councillor Azzin? 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. You have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the tax rate is approved on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to Order 1A, that the City Council classifies property within the City of Cambridge into $5,000. property classes allowed for the purpose of allocating the property tax levy. Additionally, that the City Council hereby adopts a minimum residential factor of 0.600298 for the purpose of distributing the property tax levy. I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

A motion by Councilor Nolan to adopt Order 1A. Please call the roll.

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.

Order 1A is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to Order 1B. that the City Council approve a 30 percent residential exemption for owner-occupied homes. Moved by- So moved. Moved by Councilor Toner on the motion.

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 order 1B is adopted from the vote of nine members. Council Wilson, do you move, would you put forward a motion to place this matter on file?

Yes, Madam Mayor.

On a motion by Council Wilson to place the matter on file. Roll call, please.

Councilor 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. Thank you. Councillor Nolan, yes.

At some point, I would like to move reconsideration.

Councilor Nolan moves reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail. Well, first on- Suspension. Thank you. On suspension, roll call.

Councilor 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 rules are suspended to take up reconsideration. On reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail.

Councillor Azeem.

No.

No, Vice Mayor McGovern. No. No, Councillor Nolan. No. No. No. Councillor Siddiqui.

No.

No. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

No.

No. Councillor Toner.

No.

No. Councillor Wilson. No. No. Councillor Zusy. No. No. Mayor Simmons. No. No. And you have nine members recorded in the negative.

And reconsideration fails on the affirmative vote of nine members. On adjournment, is there a motion? On a motion by Councillor Wilson to adjourn the tax rate classification meeting, roll call. Councillor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Counselor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Counselor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Counselor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Counselor Toner.

Yes.

Yes. Counselor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Counselor Zusy.

Yes.

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

And the tax rate classification meeting is adjourned on the affirmative vote of nine members. We'll now go back to the regular order of business. We left at...

Madam Mayor, we left off at public speaker number 30 of 42, so we will resume with Alexandra Thorne.

Okay, so the recess having concluded, we're back into the regular meeting, and the first person, or the next person to be heard is, I'm sorry, I couldn't barely hear you.

Alexandra Thorne. Alexandra, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Alexandra Thorne and I live in Somerville at 173 Hudson Street. Thank you for allowing me to speak about agenda item number seven regarding the city's use of Flock ALPR cameras. Flock claims that they would not share data from Cambridge cameras with federal agencies, but the reality is that private companies are routinely compelled to share data with the federal government, often in secret. The only way to truly ensure that data is kept local is to avoid storing data in national databases or on platforms accessible to the service provider. Minimizing the retention time for non-target plates also helps to keep data secure. Many ALPR companies have policies much better aligned with protecting privacy than Flock does. For example, ParkPow offers a product with on-premises while ThirdEye and Axon advertise cloud-based products with local-only access. In contrast with Flock's policy of retaining all data for 30 days, ParkPow, ThirdEye, Axon, Motorola, and Omniscient all offer configuration options that will retain data for less than a day. Unlike companies that profit from the sale of cameras, FLOC's profit model is based on sharing their national database with customers. This creates perverse incentives with regard to privacy. Please, if Cambridge needs ALPR data, the city should contract with a privacy respecting company. This means minimizing data collection and limiting retention times. In my remaining time, I'd just like to also express solidarity with the Harvard Student Union I WISH THEM THE SUCCESS AND I HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL VOTES FAVORABLY ON THEIR ISSUE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO AN EARLIER SKIPPED SPEAKER, DAN TAUTTON. DAN, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. PLEASE GO AHEAD.

Yes, hi, my name is Dan Totten. I live at 54 Bishop Allen Drive, and I'm here to talk about Flock as well. I think reasonable minds can disagree about the role that policing and surveillance needs to play in our city, but I actually don't think that's what this one is about. I think this one is about the fact that this Flock company seems really untrustworthy and problematic, and also that our federal government is It's just, I don't even need to say how concerning that is. And I think that moving ahead with these cameras at this time will put our most vulnerable residents in danger by giving the feds and ICE an additional tool to access. I think it would be an unforced error. I think it goes against the spirit of our welcoming communities ordinance and also our sanctuary city resolution. I understand that the city is trying to negotiate careful terms with the company, but I'm not sure that we can entirely prevent misuse and abuse, but also the company has proven themselves to be untrustworthy. If you have not read about what happened in Evanston, Illinois, you should. Evanston decided to revoke the contract, end the contract, because they discovered that this company was transmitting data to the feds against their wishes. And when they decided to revoke that contract, they removed the cameras, and a few days later, Flock came back and reinstalled them. and the city actually had to put covers on all of the newly installed cameras to prevent flock from continuing to, if you don't believe me, I linked you to a Chicago Tribune article in your email and you should read it. It's astounding. I understand that the ACLU remains in opposition as well. There's too many unknowns. We are in extremely scary times. We need to just reject it. And lastly, also, I do support the Harvard Grad Student Union. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jacob Brown, followed by Patricia Latterman, then Leah Serker-Stark. Jacob, you have two minutes. Please unmute yourself. You have the floor. Jacob Brown, you need to unmute yourself. We will come back to Jacob.

Sorry, can you hear me?

We can hear you now.

I'm so sorry. Oh, okay, okay, so sorry. I thought I was unmuted before. Okay, perfect. Yeah, I mean, hi, my name is Jacob, and I live on Magazine Street here in Cambridge. I'm here, like, Some many other people here just to speak on city manager item number seven to protect our neighbors and community from the illegal actions of the federal government and the data brokers and surveillance contractors that would assist them by opposing the deployment of the automated license plate readers by the flock safety corporation. As a Cambridge resident, I care deeply about protecting the people of the city from federal overreach. We've seen the results of cities that have been selected as targets for ICE and DHS enforcement. Residents being ripped out of their homes and cars and targeted solely on the basis of their race. Flock will only provide more tools for these agencies to target our neighbors. In July, California police violated state law to share Flock data with the federal government. In August, Illinois cut off Flock's access to the cameras, as Dan just mentioned, because it came out that Flock had lied to local officials about sharing data with CBP. Even when Flock's representatives assure cities that they won't share information with the federal government, we see that DHS still ends up with this surveillance data. I do not want to see my city providing this government with additional tools to terrorize my neighbors. Flock is also set up to disproportionately impact East Cambridge residents. 11 of the 16 cameras proposed, meaning all of the ones not on major hideaways surrounding the city, are in East Cambridge. The city's surveillance ordinance simply told the city there was no such impact and they went forward with pursuing the contract. This is not a fair application of surveillance technology and I don't believe it's right to subject my East Cambridge neighbors to this. Furthermore, we've seen other examples of cities rising up to block contracts with Flock. Evanston, Illinois and Eugene, Oregon have had city managers opt to stop their contracts. However, city manager Huang is often to pursue the contract in the face of the opposition we've seen here today from the public as well as opposition from the city council. Flock helps the federal government paint a target on our backs and is being posed in a manner that will disproportionately harm the people of East Cambridge. I ask you to please protect Cambridge and keep Flock out of the city. I yield my time and again support for the Harvard Grad Student Union. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Patricia Latterman. Patricia has not joined. We will go to Leah Serker Stark followed by Jennifer Warren. Leah has not joined. We will try Jennifer Warren. Jennifer is not on. We will go to Benedette Mathis, followed by Riva Stein. Benedette has also left. We will go to Riva Stein. Riva, you have two minutes. Please unmute yourself. You have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you. So my name is Reva Stein. My name is Reva Stein. I live at 2C Grave Road in Cambridge. I'll be speaking to policy number five to address the poison ivy at Fresh Pond. I am very allergic to poison ivy. Thank you, Councilor Patty Nolan, for putting this policy order on the agenda. I got poison ivy from my time at Fresh Pond. I developed a systemic allergic reaction and had to take prednisone for four weeks to recover. The poison ivy along the fence in the path at Fresh Pond poses a public health threat. I regularly see dogs and children wandering through that poison ivy along the fence and I really do believe that it's a public health threat. I hope the council will make sure a solution is developed to cut back the poison ivy and make sure that there are adequate signs that let the public know that the poison ivy is there. The signs there right now are small and very far apart. There are very few of them and they don't make it clear that there's a threat there and what the poison ivy looks like and the signs are so tiny that I really think that there needs to be a better solution. So thank you for addressing this, because it is really a problem. I also want to support policy number seven as a member of Mothers Out Front on Climate Change. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is James Williamson, followed by Aya Al-Zubi. I'm in my time now. Thanks. James, you have two minutes. Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Appreciate it. James Williamson, longtime resident of Cambridge, North Cambridge now. Block the flock. I was originally intending to suggest an expansion of the purposes of surveillance cameras to include monitoring bicyclists rolling through red lights and crosswalks all over the city. But of course, to have that be an effective enforcement tool, we would have to have licenses for certainly Cambridge-owned bicycles, which apparently we used to have. But I don't see this council or any council ever doing anything to protect us from the bicyclists, but I'm gonna keep trying. The other thing that surveillance cameras might be useful for would be settling once and for all the debate about who goes through red lights more, automobiles or bicyclists? I think we all already know the answer, but that would really nail it down. However, hearing the comments, the very thoughtful and informative comments from previous speakers about flock, block the flock, an unscrupulous organization that, you know, A private, you know, their business model may include providing data that may have nothing to do with enforcement to other entities. I mean, come on. But I'd like to pair this with the discussion earlier about the tax rate. I mean, you guys are funding this stuff and then saying we can't do anything about the tax rate, you know, the budget, and people have to understand what we can do about the budget. Here's an example, as was Linear Park, $7 million project, $140 million for bike lanes many people don't want. There's lots of room for doing something if you would just, you know, do it. So thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Aya Al-Zubi, followed by Helen Gibbons, then Gary Mello. Aya is not in the Zoom. We will go to Helen Gibbons.

Hi, this is Anya. So I appreciate that the council's revisiting the camera issue. I want to add my voice to those speaking against the use of the LPR cameras, especially given what I've learned about the implementation and flock since the February approval. The vendor's potential opportunity for data sharing with federal agencies is particularly dangerous to our community. I recognize we all live in a surveillance culture, so I'm not thinking Google doesn't know where I am. I just want to put that out there because there was some discussion in February. It felt like they were naive talking about surveillance. That said, Cambridge should not provide access to any possible tools to an increasingly authoritarian and unpredictable federal administration to surveil our city. We see on a daily basis how the federal administration does not follow the law, lies, ignores civil liberties, and is contemptuous of the courts. I was not at all comforted by the information offered by CPD on the data sharing protections in the flock contract. And a retrospective, an annual audit to look for contract violations or improper use will be too late for many of our neighbors. These are not normal times, as we all know. If there are no cameras, there's no data to share, as another speaker said. I urge any deployed cameras be removed and the contract be canceled. And I live at 208 3rd Street, East Cambridge. So thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Gary Mello, followed by Heather Hoffman.

Well worth the wait. My name is Gary Mello. I live on Franklin Street. I'm here to comment on Manager's Agenda item number three. Henry Kissinger himself would admire the secret manipulation guaranteeing that no Cambridge Republicans except Charles Marquardt and Etheridge King can snag the $1,000-a-week no-show Election Commissioner Plum, even if they themselves are ineligible under state law. They've sewn up the lifetime sinecure with Mr. Huang's full compliance. Don't believe me? Both Mr. Marquardt and Mr. King got the job only following their predecessors' deaths. The format of public comment requires that I stick to the published agenda and can't elaborate on consequences. Unlike our city manager, I follow the rules. Later in tonight's session, the city budget will be discussed. Will somebody ask Mr. Huang why Cambridge pays its election commissioners as much as 50 times the stipend other communities offer? All the more remarkable considering that Cambridge hosts the fewest citywide elections in the whole state of Massachusetts. Good night, folks.

Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman, followed by LaQueen Battle. Heather, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I have somewhat of a theme tonight, and it is about how Cambridge is incredibly hypocritical and thinks that what is sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the Cambridge gander. First off is litigation. I applaud the litigation that the city is involved in that's listed in those multiple tables against the excesses of the current regime in Washington. But it appears that anyone who dares to sue the city, on the other hand, is an enemy of the people should be canceled, should be thrown out of the city, should be shut up. Why are the rules different? With respect to the Bacall petition, for example, one of the biggest objections was that citizens thinking ordinary peons dared to file a zoning petition that could limit anything that Cambridge might want to do. What were we thinking? And yet, all of us, or a large number of us, including me, spent some nice time on Saturday objecting to that very thing happening in Washington. And then there's the Dover Amendment. Cambridge threw away its exemption and now wants one for free. Nice work if you can get it. Committee on Public Planting has laudable, laudable and very important areas that it is supposed to advise the city on. And wouldn't it be nice if the city ever listened? You get all these very fine people on a committee and then when they write to you, you ignore them.

Thank you, Heather.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Laqueen Battle. LaQueen, if you can unmute yourself, you have two minutes.

Yeah. Can you hear me?

We can. Please go ahead.

OK. Great. OK. Hello. My name's LaQueen Battle. I'm a candidate for Calvary City Council and CPSD School Committee. I just want to let you know I am in support of the Harvard University Graduate Students Union. I personally myself have worked personally at Harvard University as well as have attended classes through the HMX Harvard Medical School. pre-COVID studies program. I do believe that Harvard University PhD students deserve their employee benefits, welfare, allotments, and protections that they rightfully deserve. These students are not only pursuing an advanced education for five, seven, 10 years at a time, but are also essential contributions to the university's teaching, research, and service. Ensuring that they receive proper health care, financial stability, and social support is not only a matter of policy, it is a matter of equity, respect, and sustainability. As was Harvard University, MIT, and other large educational institutions, large and small, these businesses, as well as our both small mom and pop stores, are the backbone of our community. They provide jobs, services, and opportunities that support the residents and families. However, certain tax structures must reflect fairness and equity, ensuring that both small and locally owned businesses are not only overburdened while larger corporations continue their fair share to the community that sustains them. Fair business tax rates help promote economic growth, attract entrepreneurs, and ensure that Cambridge remains a city where innovation, diversity, and opportunity can thrive side by side. By supporting equitable tax policy, we invest in a future where every business, whether a corner store or a research hub, has the resources to succeed and contribute meaningfully to our shared prosperity. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chair, we're gonna go back to hear from Aya Al-Zubi. Aya, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Ayal Zubi. I used to see her series and I'm living in Cambridge Port. I wanted to quickly express my support for Harvard's unions. And I also want to address Flock in voicing my opposition to its deployment. I genuinely think the fact that we're considering this, especially in the time we're in, is so contradictory. Concerns around privacy leave people feeling more unsafe around government infrastructure during this time, and it's problematic to be exploring it at a time under this Trump administration where people are fearful to go to work or to pick up their groceries, just as two examples. We have seen how federal agencies like DHS have abused data to target people and communities such as immigrants, and language that attempts to reassure people that there would be no cooperation is not enough when there isn't much transparency around surveillance and policing. So it's not ironclad. Please say no to flock, and how about we work on transparency first? Ailton.

Thank you. Our final speaker will be Kate Pierce. Kate, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Oh, can y'all hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay. Hello, my name is Kate Pierce. I'm an undergraduate student at MIT, and I'm here to give comment on City Manager's Agenda 7, as many of y'all have already done. I'm calling on the City Manager to stop the rollout of FLOC. FLOC has a track record of just flat-out lying to municipalities about where its state is being killed. For example, they ran a pilot allowing federal law enforcement to access flock servers even though flock representatives claimed that that would not be possible. You claim that flock cameras won't be used for immigration enforcement or investigations of people obtaining gender-affirming care or reproductive health care, but you have no way of knowing that. Law enforcement in other states can search flock servers. for our camera footage and agencies connected to the Flock Network can query for anything they want if those agencies don't explicitly state that the reason is for immigration enforcement, FLOC wouldn't even be able to know. And so they wouldn't be able to block that query. Additionally, it's also possible that such agencies would not share themselves, share the fruits of their queries with ICE or any other federal government agency. Additionally, FLOC has been receiving Flock has been applying AI to innocent drivers' license plate records to see if police might be interested in drivers that exhibit certain patterns. Flock thinks they're suspicious. People in Evanston and Eugene have already blocked Flock, so block the Flock. Thanks.

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

Great, thank you. We'll give one to someone else on a motion by Councilor Zusy to close public comment, 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, that's nine members voting yes.

All right, thank you. We will now move on to the city manager's agenda.

Pleasure of the council. Mr. Chair, pull number seven.

Pleasure of the council. Councilor Zusy. Councilor Zusy, and then I'll come to you, Councilor Nolan.

I'm gonna pull nine, cuz I think Councilor Nolan will pull one.

Is that right?

We'll find out. Councilor Nolan.

I was actually gonna pull nine, but happy to pull nine and one. I mean one instead of nine and one.

Pleasure to have the council. Seeing and hearing nothing. On the balance, 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, Madam Clerk. We go back to number one, this is pulled by Councilor Nolan, the communication transmitted from Yan Wang. City Manager, relative to the federal update, including an update on relevant court cases. Mr. City Manager?

Thank you so much. Through you, Mayor Simmons, we wanted to provide an update on the impacts of the government shutdown, which is now in its 20th day. Many of the essential functions of government have continued, but we continue to be very concerned and dismayed over the number of federal employees who have been furloughed or are going without pay. We also know there are important and valued federal staff who have partnered with us, City of Cambridge departments and staff, and some of those federal employees are people who have received termination notices and some of those termination actions are being challenged in court but the human cost of families that are struggling to make ends meet the uncertainty over people's jobs and the undermining of the important work that so many federal agencies do every day is really heartbreaking so just to call out that we have had some of those conversations internally And we're really experiencing that on behalf of federal workers. So to our friends and colleagues who are there in federal government, we are with you. We're grateful for all of your years of service and just that we're thinking of you. Basic federal operations appear to be continuing, but the longer the shutdown goes on for, the more that many of these agencies are being undermined through a lot of these arbitrary staffing reductions and the harder it will be to do the basic work of government. Gold Star Mothers Park is an example. of where we are required to collaborate and seek EPA approval for our remediation plan. This is still in a very early stage, but we do anticipate challenges here due to the shutdown and some of the understaffing that's happening in that department. We will work hard to try and expedite this as much as possible, but we recognize that some of these pieces are really tied together. I also want to talk specifically about food security. The federal budget reconciliation bill that passed in July made one of the largest ever cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP or food stamps. These cuts totaled almost $200 billion through 2034. And as a reminder, this is the same bill that included $4.5 trillion, so $4,500 billion in tax cuts, which mostly accrue to the most wealthy Americans. Major provisions of SNAP cuts include shifting funding to state budgets, implementing greater work requirements and documentation, time limits for benefits for older adults and families, and eliminating eligibility for lawfully residing humanitarian immigrants. Many of these requirements are technically active as of now, but actual regulations have not been released for implementation. The state, this is Massachusetts State Department of Transitional Assistance, or DTA, is the department that administers SNAP in Massachusetts, and they've noted on the website that SNAP benefits will remain the same until federal rules are released and that details will be communicated when more is known. As brief context, based on our most recent data from the state for July 2025, Cambridge has 6,700 households, which is about 10,000 people who benefit from SNAP. Nationally, SNAP provides a benefit of about $187 a month per person. So 6,700 households, about 10,000 people, and the benefit is about $187 a month per person. The government shutdown also has significant potential impact on SNAP beneficiaries. The state DTA has communicated that October SNAP benefits are being issued on time, but there is not currently information about how November SNAP benefits will proceed. So that will be in just under two weeks. There is a $6 billion contingency fund available to the Agriculture Department that could be utilized, but does not cover the full benefit amount for November, which totals about $8 billion at the federal level. It's really hard to predict at this point what might happen over the next two weeks, and there are a lot of avenues for SNAP benefits to continue, but we will continue to monitor the situation carefully and happy to keep the City Council apprised. There are a couple of other programs, so cash assistance programs for transitional aid to families with dependent children and emergency aid to the elderly, disabled, and children, which are also both administered by state DTA. Those are not affected by the government shutdown and are continuing normally. There are currently 1,150 people in these two programs in Cambridge. And the WIC program or Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program is also funded at this point for the foreseeable future. So the federal administration, which was running out of money for WIC, transferred tariff revenue over to cover those payments. And I think our understanding is that those payments will continue through November at this point. Overall, the unfortunate reality is that food security and some of these assistance programs are going to be areas where we're seeing less resources as a result of federal actions, either immediately as part of the government shutdown or longer term as a result of the July budget reconciliation bill. Just to connect these dots, I think this is going to be a real challenge as we're having conversations about the tax rate, about the budget. We're going to be really challenged with less resources than we've been used to having. We are continuing to see a lot of our ARPA programs wind down and that source of federal funding that we were able to use during the last time of great need, the pandemic, we are not going to have as we face these challenges with where the federal government is going. I will say beyond funding in the intermediate term, once SNAP benefit work requirements are released, there will be a challenge for all of our communities to be keeping eligible families on SNAP benefits. So those more restrictive work requirement regulations, once those rules roll out, that's going to be an area where we will all need to come together as a community and figure out how we can support people who are eligible to stay eligible. We are in conversation with our nonprofit partners who are working in food security and providing food through food pantries, the people that are most on the ground with a lot of the folks that are on and benefiting from SNAP benefits. And we'll be gathering to talk about how we can work together to confront both any immediate and future challenges and how we can coordinate efforts and where the city can play a role. As with all that is changing, we'll keep the city council updated and happy to take any questions or ideas as we move forward. And finally, I just wanted to call out the incredibly hard work of the law department to fight so many of these policies in court. They really have been working overtime. We are continuing to update the litigation tracker that we're bringing forward, and we are currently signed onto as plaintiffs in two federal cases, and we've filed or intend to file amicus briefs in six additional court cases. So we're continuing to examine opportunities to litigate, to fight for the constitutional safeguards that need to be preserved and to protect our community and our values. So really appreciate the work that everybody in the law department is really contributing toward. So thank you all and appreciate the council's continued engagement and support in all of these efforts. I'm happy to take questions and discussion and any other items that you wanna bring up.

Thank you. I appreciate very much. As much as the news is very hard, I think the shutdown is something we all hope can end so that folks in the city can continue to receive their benefits. I do have a question about whether there's any other news on any of the other grants. Are those being affected? You mentioned the GOLD STAR PARK, WHICH NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION THERE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER GRANTS THAT WE SEE MIGHT WELL BE AFFECTED AND THE COMMUNITY SHOULD BE AWARE OF?

through you, Mayor Simmons. No new significant developments. We've essentially won in this first process in court over the implementation of new conditions on existing grants, and happy if Elliot or Franz want to provide any updates on that. I'd say in the longer term, there's both the legal risk that some of those cases we would not win, but also the longer term funding for a lot of these grant programs is uncertain. And so, you know, in the first federal administration, CDBG, as an example, was a program that the executive branch continually defunded in their proposals and continually was funded when Congress appropriated the budget. So it's hard to say at this point what's going to happen to some of these major grant programs. I expect we will find out in the coming weeks.

Does Assistant Solicitor Veloso-LaBianca have anything to add?

Sure. Through you to the chair, Madam Mayor, just a brief update relative to the impact of the current federal government shutdown on our litigation. So all federal courts, like much of federal operations, are currently in sort of essential service mode. So the federal courts have issued a directive that. Only those matters that they deem as essential litigation are proceeding on normal track, so that would constitute criminal cases. For civil litigation, the federal court is essentially taking an approach that unless there is a specific request by the federal government to halt matters, that they will keep things going and ensure that all preliminary injunctions that have been enacted remain in place but that it sort of is placed into a standby mode unless there are critical rights that are in jeopardy. The federal government has sort of taken the position that they are, frankly, slow-rolling matters unless plaintiffs take active steps to ensure that litigation continues. So the plaintiffs and the city in those cases that we are involved in are remaining vigilant to make sure that all preliminary injunctions that have been entered in our favor remain in place and ongoing throughout the shutdown and that our rights are protected during this period of time. And I will also hand it over to Franz to give specific updates relative to the litigation tracker.

Assistant Solicitor LaBianca, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. The one specific example is the State of New York versus US Department of Justice. It is a case involving state challenges to the revocation of various exemptions under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. which is part of the federal welfare system and governs the eligibility of non-citizens for public benefits. In that case, the defendant federal government moved to stay the case because of the federal shutdown, citing that as the reason, and that was denied by the federal judge in Rhode Island. So that's a... particular example, but otherwise as Deputy Solicitor Veloso stated, we're maintaining an eye on all litigation that the city is involved in and doing our part to make sure that they stay active. That's all I have. Thank you. Are you yielding? Yes. Thank you.

Just one other brief update, Madam Mayor. Also, of the amicus briefs the city is joining, two of those cases are Oregon v. Trump and Illinois v. Trump. These are both challenges by both states that are... Seeking orders prohibiting the federal government from federalizing National Guard troops and deploying them to conduct domestic law enforcement Those are two cases. I just wish to highlight that the city is joining a meek eye in support of those states and in opposition to These illegal and unconstitutional federalization of National Guard assets for domestic law enforcement Thank You councillor Nolan follow-up question I

No, that covers my questions. Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I yield.

Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Councilor Siddiqui.

Thank you for the update. I wanted to just also mention the fact that the council, we received information from the ED of the Community Agency of Somerville talking about Head Start and You know, federal government is 70% of their budget, and there's about 183 kids between Somerville and Cambridge, and they may have to close temporarily. So I think, you know, if we can get in touch with the folks who are there, offer our support, I know there's so many moving pieces, so ideally none of this doesn't continue past November 30th, but we just don't know. So I think that should be on our radar. The other thing I had a question about was we did put aside money into a stabilization fund. So how are we thinking about... anticipating needs if they do arise and where we can have that conversation when in kind of just be prepared.

And you're asking that of the city manager? Yes. The city manager?

Through you, Mayor Simmons. I think that's a great question. Some of where we are right now, I think really the worst is yet to come. And a lot of the potential programs that we're worried about funding being cut for, many of those cuts are likely to be taking place I mean, yes, SNAP benefits we're a little bit concerned about related to the government shutdown, but I think the majority of the risk is probably in 2026 and related to the next federal budget as opposed to this one. So I think it's a really important conversation that we're gonna have to watch. And I think the biggest challenge is going to be a sense of how much, even with more resources than most cities have, how small the amount that we have is relative to some of the needs. So we're talking about SNAP benefit programs, and it's 10,000 people at an average of $187 a month. I mean, that's... almost $2 million per month that is coming in federal benefits to families in just that one program. We talked a little bit about some of the other federal grant programs and very quickly you end up seeing gaps of five, 10, $20 million a year. And so that's going to be the challenge that we're facing. It's certainly the challenge that the state is looking at when they look at this. And I think there is going to be also a multilayered impact from how these different decisions at the federal level are going to be impacting not just the state, but then when it impacts the state, you'll have that flows from the state to cities and also to community organizations get reduced. And a lot of that money is also direct. When we look at food security overall, a lot of that money is flowing in. I think only about 10% of those dollars are state dollars. 90% are really federal dollars. And if we're expecting a significant reduction, the state is unlikely to be able to, and they're already signaling this, they're unlikely to be able to fill that whole gap. So I would say we're watching a lot of this and once something more concrete is known, we'll certainly be having the conversation in our community. And a lot of what we're gonna also need to do is have that conversation across our region and with the state to better understand how we collectively think about prioritizing which programs we can try to buttress or how we engage with ultimately supporting a lot of vulnerable members of our community.

Councilor Siddiqui.

Thank you, through you. No, I agree. I think there's a lot of conversations with the state, with our nonprofit community, the folks who are directly working with the most vulnerable to figure out to figure out, you know, our process to some of these answers, right? But, you know, I wanted to just say, acknowledge that we did put this money aside. I think we, as a council, you know, have already, we've talked briefly about it, but it seems we're getting closer and closer to perhaps those moments where we'll have to use some of it. And so how we prioritize that, prioritize the who in that is really going to be challenging. And so as much preparation and information that we can have as a body working with you and your team around some of this will be really important. So I just wanted to make that point. Thank you.

Councilor Siddiqui yields the floor, pleasure of the City Council. Hearing none, I motion to place on file by Councilor Susie, roll call please.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice-Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan.

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

And the matter is placed on file with the affirmative vote of nine members. Move now to number seven. I believe this is pulled by Councillor Toner. reads as follows. A communication transmitted from Yan Wang, City Manager, relative to a waiting report, number 25-53, regarding a request that the City Manager consult with relevant departments about the implication of deploying license plate readers and providing recommendations as to whether adjustments and plans for deployment should be made in light of changes since approval in February. This is pulled by Councilor Tolaner. Do you want to hear from the Commissioner first, or do you want to launch in?

Yes, Madam Mayor, the Commissioner and her team would be great.

So the Commissioner's online, and I'd ask the other teams from Public Safety to come forward. And for the audience viewing in, please, we have Commissioner Elu online, and then we also have Superintendent Wells, and I don't know your rank, so I don't want to say it wrong.

And Deputy Superintendent Peter Valucci.

Deputy Superintendent Vellucci.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And?

Deputy Superintendent John Boyle.

Thank you. Commissioner, do you want to start off?

Yes, Madam Mayor. Can you hear me okay?

I can hear you fine. Thank you.

Through you to Councilor Toner, thank you so much for pulling this. I just want to go back to a year ago when we approved the cameras or when we were in these conversations about surveillance cameras. And I do recognize, or the ALPRs, I do recognize that a lot has changed in the last year. But We were looking at an unsolved homicide from 2023, where we really did believe that, you know, license plate readers and some technology would have helped us solve those crimes. And that is kind of the spirit that we went forward with adding automated license plate readers, plus the safety cameras in Central Square. And I do understand how this landscape over the past year has shifted. And I guess some of the questions that I have now for everybody, I mean, even last year, the ACLU, there were ways that they talked about we could implement technology in a way that was transparent and that would build trust with our community. And that's really what I'm interested in, you know, how we move this conversation forward. Are there any communities out there that are using technology in a way that's transparent, in a way that our community would approve of. And I'd really like to know, could we look a little bit deeper? There were some conversations in public comment where people talked about companies that are doing it right. I would like to explore that. So I'm really hoping that we could continue this conversation about automated license plate readers and the benefit that they can have, particularly in investigating crimes. and then figure out how we can better protect our community from overreach by the federal government. So I'm going to stop there and see if my team members want to add anything. And I'm also open for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner yields the floor. Superintendent Wells, anything to add?

Through you Madam Mayor. The only thing that I would add would be when we carefully crafted. Bring the mic closer to you.

Sorry.

We really took our time and carefully crafted the policies. The policy around the ALPRs to make sure that it included looking at the city council's welcoming ordinance and the commonwealth shield law. And that's actually recently been updated in August under Governor Haley's administration, and it prevents state and local authorities from assisting out-of-state investigations involving legally protected activities such as immigration, gender-affirming care, and reproductive health. Our goal was to use the ALPR technology as an investigative tool that helps victims and really supports getting crime solved more quickly to prevent other crimes from happening as well. So I just wanted to add that. Thank you.

Thank you, Superintendent. Superintendent Wells yields the floor. Deputy Superintendent Vellucci, do you want to add anything?

Through you, Madam Mayor, I think it's important that we consider all the community's input that they've been giving us and this opportunity here to engage us. And they've reached out to a lot of city councillors who have also reached out to us with concerns. Concerns with federal agencies, concern with the political climate and everything. And I think it's important that we really take into consideration where we're going and moving forward. So I think understanding the technology, our partners involved in this, and how it's going to affect our community is vital moving forward. And I yield, Madam Mayor.

But she yields the floor. And before we just go back to Councilor Toner, Deputy Super, whoever you are back there, John Boyle, anything to add? Very good. Councilor Toner, do you want to, the floor's back to you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I pulled this because I didn't realize it was a year ago. I thought it was seven or eight months ago, but we voted six to three to adopt using license plate readers for all the reasons that were discussed in those meetings. We heard lots of testimony back then. A lot of the same people who were opposed to just license plate readers then testified again tonight. But after reading the documents about the policies we have in place and the values we have as a community and the good work of our police department, what I'm really hearing and what I've heard the most criticism of is the company called Flock. I don't know anything about them other than the emails I've been getting. What I'm hearing is LPR technology is a good technology for us to use and it can be used well and thoughtfully. Living in the neighborhood where that shooting happened on Clifton Street a year ago, if we had LPRs put up on Ridge Avenue to capture the license plate of the fleeing car, we'd be able to solve that. crime much more quickly, and I know there are other instances we've had in the city. In addition, It's my understanding that most cities and towns, our surrounding cities and towns, already use LPR technology, so you're being watched coming and going from the city of Cambridge, maybe not by the city of Cambridge on LPRs, but by every other community around us. And if it's really about whether we have trust and faith and flock, I'd rather that we have that conversation and give the police department in our solicitor's office some time to really investigate the accusations that are being made about flock because again i i don't have the time or expertise to delve into whether they are guilty of the things that they're being accused of so i'd like to make a motion to send this discussion back to the public safety committee for further discussion and between now and the time that that MEETING COULD BE SCHEDULED TO GIVE THE CITY STAFF THE CITY MANAGER THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO DIG MORE INTO WHETHER FLOCK IS THE RIGHT PARTNER FOR US IT SOUNDS LIKE THE TECHNOLOGY IS THE RIGHT THING FOR US TO HAVE BUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE PARTNERING WITH FLOCK OR SOME OTHER COMPANY THAT PROVIDES THESE SERVICES SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION MADAM MAYOR COUNCIL COUNCIL TONE COUNCIL TONA MOVES THAT THIS IS IT ALPR OR LPR

the conversation of ALPRs and FLOC? FLOC be referred to the Public Safety Committee. Is there discussion? Now, what is said at this point has to be on the motion. So, Mr. Vice Chair, on the motion, your remarks, please.

Thank you. Yeah, so on the motion, I guess I would say a couple things. One is, I would like to, and we don't have it in writing, but I'd like to add to it that we stop using the cameras that are already up while this discussion is taking place. So that would be an amendment that we would put somewhere. And then the other thing, and Councilor Wilson and I are the co-chairs of the Public Safety Department, I do wanna, when we did the surveillance ordinance, So I was mayor at the time, and when we did that, before we brought anything back to the public and the whole body, there were several meetings that took place between the city, city departments, the ACLU, other groups, to actually work together to draft the policy that we would then come back to the committee with. And when we did, I mean, although nobody got everything that they wanted and there were still some organizations that just don't want any surveillance whatsoever, and I don't think that's not where I am. I think technology can be very useful, but I also agree that at this time it can be misused and terribly dangerous. But essentially, when we brought that surveillance ordinance back to the committee, the whole council, the ACLU was saying we should pass it. Most of the other organizations were saying they weren't crazy about it, but it was great. It was called the most progressive surveillance ordinance in the country at the time. So the Public Safety Committee may not be the best place to work out those details. So I guess I would just like you to consider before we schedule that, is to ask the city and this wouldn't go into the amendment into the motion assert but i would encourage the city to sit down with the aclu sit down with these organizations do the process that we did before and work closely with them to draft something that will get much wider support so that would be my suggestion but i i do think i think one of the questions now is we do have the cameras up there's a question of them being used I would like them not to be used, and I think a lot of us would probably like them not to be used while we're trying to figure out the best way to do this. I don't trust this government at all, so thank you.

Mr. Vice Mayor, a few things. Let's find out if they're being deployed now, because they may not be. If they're not being deployed, that's one thing. The action required here is to place on file. We can refer it to a committee, but I'm talking to our clerk. We can't amend Councilor Toner's motion? Thank you. Her recommendation is if it's going to be referred, let me go back. Let's first find out, are the cameras currently being deployed? So Superintendent Wells, are the cameras currently being deployed?

Through you, Madam Mayor, yes.

Okay, thank you. So now that we know they're in operation, according to what our clerk is saying, what we may wanna do is, you can certainly, No, that wasn't what I was going to say. We can refer this memo or the work to the Public Safety Committee. What you could do in a late order is have a real motion, and then that motion before the end of the meeting is moved to, now that it's been referred, But in addition, before the meeting adjourns, is to make a motion that we desist, or whatever the proper language is, and Mr. Alpert is working on some language, unless you can do that, to say that we do.

I'll do a late order.

Very good. Are you yielding the floor? Yes. Okay. Councilor Nolan and then Councilor Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons, and thank you to the police department and also the city staff for taking this concern really seriously, which I understand from Superintendent Wells. It's been a long conversation and understandably because we are in troubling times, and we understand that what happened eight months ago in terms of approving this, which I did not at the time, but I understand it was the will, that things may have changed such that we are now in this conversation. What I heard from commissioner and i think both superintendents are a willingness to say we still believe whether that's the will of the the rest of the council or not but we still believe in this technology and we're willing to consider whether flock is the right company for this given the concerns are raised and given that there are some other alternatives so i i fully support that in the referral motion by counselor toner i would ask that no matter what gets referred as well as this memo and we need to see the entire contract. As the Vice Mayor said, anytime we've been reviewing this we have had the benefit of the voices of real experts in this area who helped fashion our surveillance ordinance and are certainly a group that i respect that the council respects i don't that the contract should be a matter of public record i would it should be released now and it should be reviewed by folks who are expert in this, like the ACLU. So I'm not sure if we can say that that would be referred to as well to this meeting. I support the referral, but I also will support the late order that Vice Mayor McGovern is bringing in. I think these are times that require us to be incredibly detail-oriented and understand what can and cannot be done with this data. The memo from the police department did talk about the contract, which again, I assume is a public document and needs to be released. I've certainly asked for it and have not yet seen it. And the policy oversight and governance section does suggest, for instance, the policy will be updated to reflect community feedback And yet we're not exactly sure how that will end up being used. So I do, even though I'm not on the Public Safety Committee, I will certainly attend that meeting. I can support that referral as long as we have some of the other questions that have been raised also addressed in that meeting. So that all of us can benefit from understanding the use and misuse of this data. And part of that is I'm just not convinced that this will actually do what we would like. But I understand there's others who feel that way. And I do look forward to voting on that late order from Vice Member McGovern.

Are you yielding the floor?

I do, Mayor Simmons.

Councilor Nolan Nielsen. Floor, Councilor Zinn, the floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I wanted to echo some of the comments that my colleagues made, but really, I just had one question beforehand. When this was traditionally introduced, it was said that we were going to get a grant to pay for this, and then I heard in public comment that that's not necessarily true anymore. I was wondering if we could get confirmation of that one way or the other.

Commissioner Elu, are you still available?

Yes, Madam Mayor. I'm going to give that to Deputy Vellucci. Can you talk about how we paid for the cameras, please, Deputy Vellucci?

Absolutely, Commissioner. Through you, Madam Mayor. So the first eight cameras were UACI funded of $24,000.

UACI stands for?

Urban Area Security Initiative. Okay. And it was for $24,000 for the first year. The police department also did eight cameras for another $24,000.

So part of it came out of the Urban Area Security Initiative. Security Initiative. And that was six? Eight cameras. Eight. And the others?

A total of 16 cameras. Eight were UASI funded. Eight were City of Cambridge funded.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Back to you, Councilor, Councilor Azeem.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. And is that what we expected? Has the funding been canceled for all subsequent years or were we not expecting to get that? Or was this always part of the plan?

Commissioner, do you want to respond?

Sure. Through you, Madam Mayor, this is always what we expected as far as where we are right now. Things have been pretty consistent up until this point. We do anticipate changes moving forward to funding, especially with UASI, as I think was talked about earlier.

Councilor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think that was actually very helpful information to get out there that I don't think that there's been a change in the funding plan of it. I would say that there's actually like, you know, at the initial meeting on this, I found the arguments less persuasive. I would say that the arguments made tonight felt more persuasive and I'd be very interested in having a meeting at the Public Safety Committee to hear about them. I think specifically the questions that I would like to hear about is like, where is this information hosted and who has access to it? And I'm trying to spell things out to be very tangible, such as clear expectations of what the concerns are as much as possible. and who has access to it. I think specifically we've heard concerns about can other people access this information? Is Flock sharing them even without our consent? Can Flock employees access them? So I think that'll be really helpful. um second um you know i think it would be helpful to just invite flock to this committee hearing if they are willing um that just gets us on the record of like this is what's actually happening and this is what's not happening and then i think third is like are there other vendors available um obviously it looks like we've already purchased a number of cameras and so that might not be an option but um that would be very interesting to hear um And finally, just what are the options going forward? I think that those will all be very, things that I'd be very interested in hearing. I think at this time, it would be really hard to confirm it. And I agree with Council Member Govern in that I would take them down until, or at least like turn them off until things change. And we can hear back about these concerns in particular. Thank you.

Councilor Azeem builds the floor. Councilor Zuzi, the floor is yours.

I support both the motion and Councilor McGovern's additional motion, or moving this to the committee and the additional motion. And building on what Councilor Azeem was saying, So I just wanted to make sure, like with the body cameras, we bought the body cameras, but then there's – I think we are employing five people to look at the footage of the body cameras. So the cameras we've got, but then is there an annual subscription fee that would no longer – be paid for by the government. I mean, so it'd be good to understand sort of overall costs and which would be, and who would be paying for them. Thank you.

So we're talking, so are you relative to the motion? Are you, we were, that's what's before us now. Did you have any questions?

I think the motion is excellent. adding to what Councilor Azeem was saying about what I would like to see in this meeting. I'd like to understand the cost, because often there is the equipment cost, but then there are also personnel costs. There are real costs that are actually ongoing and subscriptions, so I think we need to be very well aware of what those are. Thank you. I yield.

Are you yielding the floor? Councilor Azeem yields the floor. Council Sabina Will and then Council Siddiqui.

Thanks Madam Mayor, through you and thanks to the city staff for this response. When we discussed this back in February, I had voted against approving the FLOC safety technology along with Councilors Siddiqui and Nolan and it was because of the concerns about the company and the way the technology could be used that we have seen borne out in the reporting since then. To name some of those that have been proven by the reporting, the data from FLOC is being shared with ICE. The data is being sent to commercial data brokers on private residents. And one of the concerns I specifically remember bringing was about abortion rights and abortion access. And we have seen flock cameras used since then to assist in a nationwide search for a woman who'd had a self-administered abortion who was in Texas, but that search was being used nationwide through flock cameras. That is one of the ways this technology is being used. I continue to be opposed to this technology. I want to be the co-sponsor in late policy order on this and see these technology questions as deeply tied to our welcoming city ordinance. If we as Cambridge don't support the militarized actions of the Trump administration and the federal overreach we're seeing at cities across the country, we have to be sure that we aren't using technologies that are facilitating those kinds of actions. So I think this is a concern about this technology, but it's also a, you know, flag a canary for other sorts of technologies that we're considering and that we're currently using right now. We are not in a closed circuit world anymore where we put a technology out there and the only folks who have access to that are the city of Cambridge and our employees. The data is in the cloud. All these systems are very interconnected. We have to be vigilant and really precise about what we are doing with these and who has access to them. So I hope this next time a technology request comes through and we can review the other ones we have that this is something we're considering. I yield back.

We yield the floor, Councillor Wilson. I mean, Councillor Siddiqui, I'm sorry. Councillor Siddiqui, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I agree 100% with that, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. I did want to bring up that the ACLU did come today with a number of key questions, whether that was around flock sharing and just a lot of other technical questions. And Councillor Nolan had reached out to them and included Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler and I. I think we obviously want the ACLU involved in some of these questions to be at the forefront because it'll seem that the will of the body will be to afford this. I think we're living in really different times and data is being exploited and there's a lot of fears and I think when a few of us voted against this in the first place, as Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said, it was based on those concerns, and the source of the funding for me also was a big, especially this administration, was a big reason, and so I'm happy to have further discussion, but I wish, I think we need to really be weighing a lot of the potential trade-offs, and whether this really outweighs the major, major concerns. Thank you.

Councillor Siddiqui yields the floor. Councillor Wilson?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I want to just appreciate the amount of conversation, public testimony, and just for our city staff for kind of diving into this as well and just kind of hearing counselors in terms of where we are, kind of where folks were in February around it, why the vote was 6-3 in that way, but also kind of where we are now today so many months later. But I feel like there's a heightened level of, misuse, mistreatment, or what have you, and I think it is important for us to just have a transparent conversation and just really bring it to the table around what we can, how we use this technology, what we're using it for, and making sure that we're protecting all of our citizens with the use of it. So with the late policy order that's gonna go in, I think also with the referral to public safety, we'll make sure that we can get a conversation discussion going definitely before the end of this term so that we're able to really dive deeper and have partners like those from ACLU and whoever else to be engaged in that conversation. But I think what's also important would be, if possible, for you all to have that conversation first. so that we're not kind of hashing things out on the floor. It would be nice for us to have a discussion that's a little bit more unified and we're able to come to the table after we've kind of cleared some things. Recognizing that the use of the technology may, and again, I think So Ms. Solicitor's office, Ms. Solicitor Veloso is here. So it's like we could talk about how the use of the welcoming ordinance and the use of the technology and all that, how it all ties together. But I think the trust is what's really impacting the, not only counselors, but our community. And I think that's where we really need to rebuild and really think about how we're building that trust because we've seen it now or we're hearing the stories now of how it has been misused in other communities. So we don't want to see that here. So I appreciate the conversation and dialogue. Look forward to this late policy order that's going to go in. And so with that, do you want to do a suspension of the rules to bring that forward?

Does anyone want to just?

But just like, I think in terms of procedurally, because we have Councilor Toner's motion on the table, do we need to, I guess in terms of procedurally, what would we need to do?

What I was going to recommend is Councilor Toner has a motion on the floor that will influence what we do with this. communication from the city manager and what I was gonna recommend rather than holding it, we could suspend the rule, if I can have your attention, we could suspend the rules to bring up any other orders so that we can discharge it all at the same time as opposed to taking it up later on. So, is there any more, thank you. Is there any more discussion on the proposed motion?

No, Madam Mayor, thank you. I appreciate the suggestion from Vice Mayor McGovern, so I can support that when it comes forward officially as a policy order. The one thing I just want to comment on is, again, we had this lengthy discussion and debate months ago, and what I'm hearing is you know, concerns about the company that we partnered with. So hopefully I agree that Flock should be able to come here and, you know, talk about their work and what they do, you know, and I also would want to hear from the leadership of the police department at some point, whether they still have faith in that partnership during this conversation. So with that, I yield, Madam Mayor.

Councilor Turner yields the floor. So my recommendation is Councilor Turner can make the motion. We can vote to adopt it. That would send this to public safety. We could then move to place it on file. Then we could also then suspend the rules to take up your late order and we can discuss it, make any appropriate amendments after that has been taken care of. That will take care of this in its entirety, I would hope. So if there's no discussion, any more discussion, Councilor Nolan, any discussion from you or Councilor Azeem on Councilor Toner's motion?

No, as long as it is paired with the question that we've raised, I mean, of us not deploying this technology.

We haven't gotten to that. We haven't gotten to that, Councilman. This is just to refer this item, the subject matter, to the Public Safety Committee. There's going to be a late, we're going to suspend the rules to take up a late policy order, and all that can be added at that time. You with me? If not, let me know. Any other discussion on the motion? On placing on file, roll call.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes, Vice-Mayor McGovern.

I'm referring, I'm sorry.

I'm so anxious to go home.

I apologize.

I'M REFERRING CITY MANAGER NUMBER SEVEN TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. YES. COUNCILOR Azeem.

YES.

YES. VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN. YES. YES. COUNCILOR NOLAN.

YES.

YES. COUNCILOR SIDDIKI. YES. YES. COUNCILOR Sobrinho-Wheeler. YES. YES. COUNCILOR TONER. YES. YES. COUNCILOR WILSON. YES. YES. COUNCILOR ZUZI. YES. YES. MAYOR SIMMONS. YES. YES. AND YOU HAVE NINE MEMBERS RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

In city manager's agenda item 2025, number 257, has been referred to the Public Safety Committee on the affirmative vote of nine members. I'm placing the matter on file. Vice Mayor moves to place the city manager's agenda item number seven on file, roll call.

I know, I know.

That's right, I'm sorry. See what happens, air deprivation. All right, on suspension of the rules.

Counselor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Counselor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Counselor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Counselor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Yes. Counselor Toner? Yes. Yes. Counselor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Counselor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. You have nine members recorded in the affirmative. The rules are suspended.

So Vice Mayor wants to offer a motion. So, Counselor? Should I sent it there we go try to keep it short and simple I didn't think we needed a lot of whereas is okay order at the city stop using flock cameras and all ALP our technology currently in use until a policy Beguiling the use of ALP ours is brought before the Public Safety Committee of the City Council is their discussion?

Just a clarification Hold on council no Just a clarification through you to the staff. Do we already have a policy? Isn't that what we've already developed and that we've been talking about this evening? That we feel is already protective and conforming with our values, et cetera?

Through you, Madam Mayor, yes. Superintendent Wells?

I didn't hear the answer. What was your response?

I said there is a policy in place right now, yes.

There's a policy in place to do what? Somebody.

Through you, Mayor Simmons. I think it would be accurate to say that we currently already have policies regarding the use of ALPRs and how we think about both internal access and how we're using the system. I think maybe the suggestion in terms of the process that it sounds like the council would like to see is not until a policy is brought before the Public Safety Committee, but I think it's probably a little bit broader in terms of a broader discussion of

We could say review.

So the vice mayor, the city manager and the public safety department is saying there is a policy. So are you clear? Does that policy speak to what you're saying here?

No, I understand. I was thinking of a policy specifically to flock, but I get where it falls under. So, I mean, we could just make it even simpler and just say ALPR technology current policy. currently in use until a meeting is held by the Public Safety Committee of the City Council.

So let me just let that be typed out. So it reads now, ordered that the city stop using flock cameras and all ALPR technology currently in use until a meeting is held by the Public Safety Committee of the City Council. Does that?

Yeah, and I guess I would be open to other, sorry, I was trying to do this quickly, but I'd be open to other people. I also don't wanna give the impression that we're gonna hold this meeting and then we're gonna necessarily go back to using that technology. So, I mean, I don't know if this is clear enough. I mean, I think people get the point.

I think, if I may, there's two issues. People are very concerned about this particular company, which is Flock, which is the one that we have the contract with. I think there's a separate concern about ALPRs. I guess this speaks to it without being too narrowing or too oversubscribed. So let's have some, let's have a discussion on it. Is there more discussion? So this is the- Mayor Simmons. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I have two remarks on this. One is I would like to be added. And secondly, it may be the order should read that the city stop using flock cameras and all ALPR technology currently use until the council takes an affirmative vote to allow it. because the way it meets now, you can hold a meeting and even if, in the day of the meeting, then they could be used. So I don't think that's the intent.

Vice Mayor, this is your. Okay, so can Ms. Steffen, Ms. Steffen, excuse me.

Councilor Nolan, if you can repeat.

Councilor Nolan, can you repeat the amendment?

Instead, until a meeting, until the City Council votes to allow the use of such devices.

Madam Mayor. Council knows no one still has the floor.

I mean, the fact is, if we're saying we want them not to be used until We have a chance to discuss it. It would seem to me after the discussion, we would either vote to say, yes, we're comfortable that there's enough safeguards in place. We've reviewed the contract, which I think is critical for this and publicly in the public domain, or we would vote to say, no, we actually don't want to use it. But otherwise there's a chance of misinterpretation of when these could start to be deployed again. So I yield.

Councilor Nolan deals the floor. Councilor Zane. I would like to be added. I got that. Councilor Zane, did you have anything that you wanted to add? I do not, Madam Mayor.

Councilor Toner. Thank you, Madam Mayor, not to beat a dead horse, but we did vote six to three months ago to allow ALPR technology. This wording basically undercuts that, but... I THINK IF WE GO FORWARD AND HAVE THIS MEETING, THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS MEETING IS TO DISCUSS FLOCK, THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE AND WHETHER THERE NEEDS TO BE ANY FURTHER CHANGES TO IT BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT WE'RE OKAY USING ALPR TECHNOLOGY. THAT WAS THE VOTE MONTHS AGO. AND THE QUESTION THAT CAME BEFORE US TONIGHT WAS ABOUT our confidence in our partner in using this, and we're suspending use of the technology until we can have this meeting and get those questions answered.

So, Councilor Turner, to your point, what if we change, instead of saying stop, to say suspend, and then it gives us wiggle room? that city suspend using, we're not using them, but I guess we are using them. Is suspend better than stop?

I'm just gonna raise the point. I think that this is what we're trying to do. The surveillance ordinance that Vice Mayor McGovern spoke to requires the council's approval for a technology and then allows the council to revoke that approval. So we're revoking that approval. If we wanna give approval for it again, we can take another vote to allow it, but this, My understanding of this policy order is to say, no, we are revoking the approval of the city to use that. We're using our authority as the council to revoke the previous vote.

Thank you, Council, Sabrina Wheel. I think suspend maybe speaks to both of those because I'm not sure that we are revoking in its entirety. We're saying we don't want to use them at this time until we have a broader conversation. So I thought suspend might be a better word. I'm gonna go to, do you want the floor back, Council?

Yes, if I could, and I think we could say it a different way that gets to what Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler is saying, because this way, it's saying allow such use. You could put, until the City Council uh votes to revoke the use of such devices which would come after this meeting if because right now on the table we've already approved of it months ago so after this meeting after we hear we're suspending use of it so it's not being used but after this meeting at the end after we've heard all the answers we were asking for and we vote to revoke it then we can revoke it madam mayor just on that let me just go back to council sabina wheeler for a moment

I'm just trying to make sure I understand. I think you could say allow or revoke. So we're suspending it. We're sort of putting it in limbo. We're not going to use it. And then later, we'll take a vote one way or the other. Or I think that. That's good. I'm just looking at language now. That, I think, makes sense.

Yep, that makes sense to me. You yield the floor? I do, thank you. Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I mean, I think any of it's fine. I mean, I do think technically, Councillor Toner is right. We've already allowed it. And now we're putting a pause on that by passing this, should have passed. And then at some point, we're going to have to take, we're either going to vote to keep going or we're going to vote to take it to stop it altogether. So reinstate, revoke, I think is probably either one. I think it's fine.

Any other discussion? Yeah, Mayor. Council Wilson and Council Susie.

Thank you. I want to appreciate the dialogue that we're having right now and just recognizing that where we were back in February to today is definitely some time, right? And I think the difference in time is something that I just want to appreciate kind of where we are and that we have the opportunity to make those adjustments and changes. I think this speaks to it. So I... I think this is fine. I think this is fine, and this allows us, again, we would put a rush in terms of having those conversations when it comes back to the full council. Hopefully, again, it's still before the end of the term so that all members who are currently on this body are able to weigh in on that. But yeah, I think this is fine as it looks. Thank you.

Council Wilson yields the floor. Council Zusy.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I just would love confirmation from the... Public Safety Department. Yeah, either Commissioner Elow or Wells or Vellucci about whether we can trust Flock, because if the story in... In Illinois, it's true that the cameras were supposed to be off, but they were still on. So do you, would you be turning off, would you be turning them off, or are you gonna be telling FLOC to turn them off, and we'll be trusting that FLOC is turning them off? How can we know that they're really off?

Is Commissioner Eel still with us?

Yes, Madam Mayor, I am on through you. I think there have been enough questions, right, brought up over this last year that we need to examine the relationship with Flock and if they are trustworthy. But I do believe when we say that, you know, we're going to shut or if, you know, we have to go to Flock to shut the cameras off, that they will do that. And we actually had that conversation with them before this meeting today. So I do trust when we tell them to shut the cameras off that that will happen and we will be able to verify that. Council Susie.

That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. I yield.

Council Susie yields the floor for the discussion. Hearing none, the first item is to amend this policy order to add Councilor Nolan. So roll call on the, is there any discussion on the amendment of adding Councilor Nolan? Councilor Azeem, any discussion?

No, thank you.

On the amendment, roll call. Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Counselor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Counselor Siddiqui?

Yes.

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

And the policy order is amended by the affirmative vote of nine members on the policy order as amended.

Counselor Azeem?

Yes.

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? Council Wilson? Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the policy order as amended is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. Thank you, that was a robust conversation. I really appreciated it. We move now to the city manager's agenda item number nine. A communication transmitted from Yanwang City Manager relative to the waiting report item number 2534 regarding curb cut disputes. This was pulled by, I don't know, I think it was Councilor Zusy. Vice Mayor? No. This is your writing. Okay. Thank you. Okay. It was, it was Council Susie? It was. Council Susie, the floor is yours.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to thank the law department for this report. It's great news that we can retract a curb cut that was given based on false evidence from the developer. So my question is, and again, this all relates to the curb cut at 177 Hancock Street where there were red flags about it from the beginning. But the question for me is, so what are the next steps? So what I understand from people on Hancock Street is that the developer immediately did the curb cut. And then he put down gravel, but he's planning on paving in the spring. So what would the city do in this situation? So the curb cut has already happened. So would the city just leave the curb cut and then disallow the developer from... allowing people to use the parking lot, I mean the parking place, and refuse to let them pave, what would be the next course of action?

Assistant Solicitor LaBianca, are you going to speak to that?

Through you, Madam Mayor.

Deputy City Manager?

I think there's a legal process in terms of if there's a process that the council takes to actually withdraw the curb cut. So that would be the first step. And so I think the law department can talk through that. In terms of the logistics of if the curb cut authority was revoked, then you presumably the city would direct the con the property owner to restore the curb to remove the curb cut um and i think if that was not done then the city could go and reconstruct the sidewalk so i think but that's sort of the second question behind if the city council determines that there's evidence that um that the curb cut should be revoked

Through you, Madam Mayor, well, I would certainly propose a motion that we revoke the curb cut that we supported based on false evidence or the withholding of evidence.

Madam Mayor?

I just wanted to ask a procedural question. The Council wants to yield the floor to you. I am happy to yield the floor. Councilor Turner?

The way I read this, in order for us to do that, the Council would have to take a two-thirds vote to reconsider. and my understanding is someone on the prevailing side would have to make the motion to reconsider if I'm correct about Robert's Rules, and Councilor Zusy is not on the prevailing side. She and Councilor Nolan voted against it.

So point of information, Councilor, Councilor Toner is correct. You would not be able to move reconsideration. It would have to be somebody that was on the prevailing side. Are you yielding the floor? And, excuse me if I may, you'd have to suspend the rules if you wanted to make a motion in this context. Because the action on this is just to place it on file.

I am hopeful that a colleague will vote to reconsider the motion, understanding that I do not have that right. Thank you, I yield.

Councilor Zusy yields the floor. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? I apologize, was it Councilor Nolan? Because I can't see. Okay, Councilor Nolan and Councilor Azeem, and then we'll come to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Councilor Nolan?

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This may seem a little bit trivial, but it's not trivial for the neighbors who live there. I've had many, many communications with the law department and with the neighbors on this issue. I'm gonna remind us of the context. It is the council's responsibility to review all the documentation provided, approvals from the departments, letters from abutters, impact on public utilities. And as the city's website clearly states, the placement of curb cuts can have significant impacts on the safety and quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood. That's quote, unquote. While city staff review the petition for safety issues, quality of life, et cetera, the council is the only body who reviews THE APPLICANTS HAVING REACHED OUT TO ABUTTERS AND REVIEWS WHAT THE NEIGHBORS THINK OF IT. THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE WAS INCOMPLETE. IT DID NOT INCLUDE NOT JUST ONE BUT SEVERAL ABUTTER LETTERS. A NUMBER OF THEM WROTE TO US ABOUT HOW THEIR LETTERS WERE NOT INCLUDED. THAT WAS INVESTIGATED AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NOT, IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION. AND THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL TOOK A VOTE ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION, WHICH WAS THE POLICY ORDER THAT WE REFERRED TO THE CITY SOLICITOR. And I don't think this is a reconsideration. This is a revocation of an action taken. So I would think this is not on the basis of any kind of reconsideration or move suspension. This is actually revoking a curb cut. That was what the language was used in the memo from the city solicitor. And that a policy order, if we decided to do that, would need to include fact-based rational basis. And I think a fact-based rational basis is that there was not just wrong information and incomplete, but actually misinformation that led to the council making a decision based on wrong information that had been provided directly by the people who had applied for the curb cut. So I personally do see it as a mistake. It should be rectified. I think we should find out how that happens. My understanding from reading the memo was that it would have been a policy order brought in in order to revoke the curb cut, not a reconsideration of the vote taken before.

Madam Mayor, can we get clarification from the solicitor on that?

Deputy Solicitor Veloso, do you want to speak to that? Councilman Nolan argues that reconsideration is not necessary. Could you opine on that, please?

Certainly, Madam Mayor. Through you to the Chair. Per page two of the memo, I believe we state that the City Council rules state that an order cannot be reconsidered where a motion to reconsider that order was not made prior to the adjournment of the next meeting after the order was originally adopted. However, the City Council may suspend the rules regarding reconsideration by two-thirds votes of the entire City Council. Accordingly, as an initial matter, if the Council wants to reconsider a prior order approving a curb cut outside of the timelines established by the City Council rules, then it may do so if two-thirds of the entire City Council votes for reconsideration.

And I guess my question to you, Deputy Solicitor, does it have to be by someone that was on the prevailing side of the original vote, or does that not count?

No, I believe per the rules, reconsideration can only be reopened if it's someone that was on the prevailing side.

Thank you. Council Turner. My question is answered. Thank you. Council Nolan.

So this is a revocation of a permit that was issued. This isn't a reconsideration. I still want some confirmation about the fact that this is a revocation of a permit.

Deputy Solicitor Veloso, we have a little disagreement.

I'm sorry. Through you Mayor Simmons, I think we're just putting our heads together. I think we may be a little hung up on the reconsideration. It is the case that the council rules govern whether a vote can be reconsidered and council rules can be suspended. And so we're already outside of the window for reconsideration. If the council wants to suspend those rules, they can suspend them. Similarly, it is a council rule that you have to be on the prevailing side in order to move for reconsideration. That rule can also be suspended. So I think one of the quirks is that all council rules are rules that can be suspended by a two-thirds vote, and that can ultimately be a path here. I think the more important note, and maybe either Frans and Elliot can speak to it, is actually the... the conversation about notice needing to be given. And that may affect just hearing some counselors want to take action tonight. I think that may be of concern in terms of the legal process. So maybe we can just speak a little bit about the notice requirements. And also, you know, this could ultimately be something that's moved through reconsideration, or it could just be a separate action, I think that the council is taking.

Well, Mr. City Manager, if I might add another log to the fire. I don't know where this curb cut is in terms of, has the person pulled something up to the sidewalk or not? Has action started to take place? So it seems to be a little bit more convoluted than just taking a vote. If this is revoked and I'm not taking a side, and the curb cut is already made, we're going to go back and seal up the sidewalk. Is that what I hear?

I agree, so maybe just to add, and maybe we get this all out, and then we can work through each of these issues. I think the first issue is the appropriate process to follow. I think the second issue, Mayor Simmons, you're raising appropriately, is what is the actual fact on the ground, and to what extent is this something, given that it's already been approved, has already been completed, and the council is actually trying to revoke a done deed and how that impacts things. And a third issue would just, I would just want to call out, we've been talking a little bit about the good reason required section. And as much as there has been an allegation that there's been a misrepresentation, I think the memo is really saying if there were a misrepresentation, then it would be appropriate for a revocation to happen. But if that is actually a debatable fact, then there's going to be a much harder conversation in terms of the city council acting on something that may be true, but you could see a challenge to say, no, this is not actually true. And then we're in that conversation. And so that may also be just an area for some legal advice on what happens if there is a debate over what is a good reason. So defer to you on which of those three you want to start with.

So to the Deputy Solicitor Veloso, one is the process to follow. The second thing would be the facts on the ground, to use your verbiage. And are we not saying the address for some reason? Is it a secret? Or does it have some... If I may, through you. I didn't see it. Maybe I missed it.

So I will turn it over to you, Deputy Solicitor. The question itself was more of a general question. Can the council revoke a curb cut? And it may have been inspired by a specific granted curb cut application, which is apparently 177 Hancock Street. But the question is more of a general one. Can the council revoke a curb cut permit that it previously granted? And the answer is yes, if there's proper notice given and there's good reason to support that. But it's kind of like in the nature of a court case. Stop right there. It says if it's proper notice to permit.

the person that requested it.

In general, yes. It has to be published to the city's website, posted downstairs by the city clerk's office. Anything that would be done in the normal course of posting, you're welcome, an agenda item. As the city manager pointed out, there are allegations regarding the Hancock curb cut that there were misrepresentations or an incomplete application. the notice of course would allow the applicant who got the curb cut or the property owner to come in and and State their case and say and also the one has to keep in mind that abutters are restricted to those who touch the property and are across the street from the property and As the council seen in other prior curb cut cases sometimes folks that the way at the other end of the street will submit a ABUTTER NOTICES AS PART OR THEY'LL SUBMIT THEM TO THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION PACKAGE AND THOSE AREN'T TECHNICALLY ABUTTERS. EXACTLY. SO THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS HERE BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT. WE WERE ASKED CAN THE COUNCIL REVOTE. THE ANSWER IS YES UPON PROPER NOTICE AND WITH GOOD REASON. I YIELD.

Further discussion? Councilor Sabrina?

I just briefly wanted to make the point I feel like I've been making for two years is that most cities just do not do this, spend hours and hours talking about individual curb cuts. I think the majority of the council has said very clearly, we do not want this power. We want city staff to decide on curb cuts. There are plenty of things I would like the council to have power on, have more power on. Individual curb cuts is not one of them. We passed that policy order. We got a response back. saying, you know, the hybrid thing. I think we were waiting for language to come back on that, but this, you know, I'm pleading as soon as we can get that back would be great. I think, yeah, this just, like, raises a whole bunch of other questions about individual curb cuts that I don't know this council wants to wade into. Like, we can revoke this one. Could we revoke a curb cut that's been approved 30 years ago based on false information and just seal up that person's driveway they've been using 30 years? Because it was false, you know, you know, false... falsely submitted then it just it doesn't doesn't make sense even if we have that power council shouldn't be doing this not a good use of our time raises a ton of questions pleading please please you know help us figure out a better process for this um i go back council sabrina will use the floor counselor zane floors yours

Thank you, Madam Mayor. My understanding of the situation is, I just want to confirm my understanding from city staff, is that if there was a motion, someone would have to make it and then there would be notice. So who would make that motion and what would the motion be?

Deputy Solicitor, you want to give it a go?

Through you to the chair, I believe the first question would be, would the body move to suspend the rules or not? Because under a typical process, it would be a motion for reconsideration, which, again, you would have to be a member of the prevailing party to, again, move for reconsideration to reopen it. but not to suspend the rules right but not to suspend the rules uh so so that would have that would require again a two-thirds vote if the rules are suspended and then the matter is brought up i believe then you would then have to go through the processes as outlined in the memo again providing notice requiring a public hearing and then again going through the process again and Just noting on the second question, which is what is the condition on the ground, it is my understanding that the curb cut has already been installed and at this point the work has been completed. So again, if this body were to again either move for reconsideration or suspend the rules to reopen this matter, Public notice would be required. The applicant would have to come back in again and represent the case, and then you would have to go through, again, the entire process again, including a determination of whether there was a good reason that reversal would be justified.

Thank you. Councillor Zane?

Thank you. So I would say that based on all the information that's presented today, I would make a few different points. The first is, I think I could not agree more with councilor June Sobrinho-Wheeler that like, I don't think that city council needs to be doing this. And I would just have staff do ministerial approval of curb cuts personally. The second point is that, in general, I auto-approve most curb card applications that make it to the city council stuff, to the city council phase. I don't think that our uncertainty helps the process at all. But third, I would say that, you know, to my colleagues, Councillor Nolan and Councillor Zusy in particular, who seem interested in this case, I think that there's a fact basis of what exactly did this person leave out and what made this application invalid that I would need evidence for. But if they can provide that evidence and it is reasonable, even if I would still agree with it, I don't want to be in a place of rewarding bad developer behavior in that you can just come to us with a missing application and there's no consequence for that. And so I would encourage them that perhaps next week they can bring forth a policy order with like, here's what the person left out of the information. And if that ends up being true, I'm happy to vote for a policy order that revokes it if it was made on the presence of false information. Like, I don't think we should be rewarding false behavior, but that would be my series of events that I would recommend to my colleagues. Thank you.

Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor Azeem. Who yields the floor? Councilor Turner.

Again, still on process. Councilor Azeem suggesting a policy order next week, but I think what I'm hearing is we would still need a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules to go back and look at this matter, whether you call it reconsideration or revocation. Two-thirds of this committee, this council, needs to agree to even reopen the conversation.

Mm-hmm.

I just wanted to make that clear. Is that through you, Madam Mayor?

To Solicitor LaBianca Orvalosa, who wants to take that? Through you, Madam Mayor.

yes to to recon i mean could you have a policy order to discuss curb cuts in general and revocation yes without reconsideration to reconsider this particular curb cut then you need as an initial matter to recon to have a vote on reconsideration does that answer yes it does so i i thank you through you madam mayor you know

I don't really want to call for a vote, but at the same time, I have a feeling there's not two thirds of this body that actually wants to reopen this matter because, and if people want me to make a motion for a vote, It sounds like we would also have to have like a little mini trial to judge the veracity of the people involved, who's telling the truth, who's not, about who filled out what form and who didn't fill out what form. I don't remember the exact vote, but I think it was seven to two to approve this uh curb cut and even at that time there were people coming here speaking against it but we voted to approve it anyway um so i just want everybody to understand that we still need to two-thirds of the members of this council to take a vote to suspend the rules to even reopen this matter and it sounds like we're opening a kettle of fish in my opinion thank you madam mayor i yield council attorney yields the floor pleasure of the city council council zoosie

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree. I don't want us to have to decide about curb cuts. I agree with my colleagues that we have more important things to discuss, but I do feel as though it seems like we were hoodwinked with this curb cut and it was hastily voted for, so why don't we see if next week some of our colleagues here might be interested in bringing this back because both Counselor Nolan and I have received many communications from people on Hancock Street who remain very upset about the specific curb cut which takes up two parking places and it also it creates a driveway right next to somebody's patio and it's also near a fire hydrant and it's right when you're turning right off of mass ave so it's a dangerous place to have a curb cut so there are many many many different reasons why it was the wrong decision to approve this curb cut but anyway i guess we should wait till next week and see if there is support for discussing this again. But the reason I'm so persistent about this, and I think Councilor Nolan too, is because we really have been, we keep hearing from the residents of Hancock Street about the injustice and how problematic the curb cut is. It's only because of that that we persist. Thank you, I yield.

Are you yielding the floor? I do. Council Sousa yields the floor. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I would just say that I think where this gets tricky is, I wouldn't say that the decision on the vote on this curb cut was hasty. I think it was chartered. There was a charter right on it. I think we heard from a lot of people. We got a lot of, I mean, it lasted about as long as any conversation on a curb cut could last. So I don't think people were hasty about approving it. These things were all brought up before. I mean, the only thing we're just going to have to think about is, and I would be fine if we didn't have to approve this at all, but if we take a vote and we approve something, you know, the going back, once construction's already done, people have paid money, now they're gonna have to, I guess, pay money to undo what they've done if we revoke this. We just need to be careful about that, right? And so, But I did want to just say, I think we gave this a whole lot of time. But certainly, I would agree with my colleagues that if there is more evidence to show that this person cuts cut some corners and didn't follow the rules the way they were supposed to, then there should be some kind of consequence for that. I just think we sort of had this discussion before, and it was a six to three vote to say, well, we don't think there was enough evidence. So if there's anything new or anything else that can be brought forward, fine. But yeah, it would be much easier if we just did away with this altogether. But I don't know where we go from here. Are people saying they want to charter until next week? Are people saying?

Well, you can't charter, right, according to the clerk, the city manager's agenda. The action that's required is to place, this is a notification from the city manager. What do we do with it? We place it on the file. If we want to, and I would have to, look to our deputy solicitor or solicitors to find what action we could take. But required right now with this notification, which is what it is, is to place it on file. If there is an appetite for this council to re-litigate, reconsider, re-evaluate, re-vote on it, I think that's a whole other action that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, deputy solicitor, that we can still, we can place this on file and still according to what I think I heard you read to us, if we are feeling so compelled to suspend the rules to reconsider something that we had already done, that can still happen. You can place this on file. Councilor Zusy is saying, well, let's, ruminate on this a little bit longer, and someone can bring in an order to reconsider under the constraints or the advice that you've laid out already, if I'm going in, if I'm rowing in the right direction here.

That's correct, Madam Mayor. You can place this on file and then vote to suspend the rules relative to reopening this.

And if I may, Deputy Solicitor, if a person that was on the prevailing side is so moved to do that, they could do that by putting it on the reconsideration calendar for our next meeting.

I believe they would have to suspend the rules first. They would still have to suspend the rules. Right, because motion for reconsideration for the procedure is it can only be done by the prevailing side. So the only way you could countermand that is if you suspend the rules and therefore can, again.

So what I'm trying to figure out, maybe you can help us, is how do someone that is so interested that was on the prevailing side, how would they bring it to the floor at the next meeting if that was what the committee wanted to do? They don't want to suspend the rules and reconsider it now and go through all those machinations. If I understand my colleague, Councilor Susie, saying maybe we want to think about this and bring it back next week through someone who was on the prevailing side, can we do that? And if so, how?

I think, again, it would have to be a motion to suspend the rules because it cannot be a policy order because, again, the policy order can only speak as to the generalities and this is a settled matter. So, again, it would have to be a motion to suspend the rules.

So someone at the next meeting, if we go that route, would say, I want to suspend the rules to take up reconsideration on a vote that we took. whenever we took it. So that can happen anytime because we're going out of order.

Yes, that's correct.

Does everyone understand that? Okay, are there any questions? So it sounds like to me, before I go back to Councilor Nolan, I've not heard from Councilor Siddiqui, I don't know if you wanna impound on this, Okay, so you're not wanting to have any comment on this.

Madam Mayor. Yes. My apologies. Just one point, though. If there is an intent to suspend the rules, we would note that per the open meeting law, you have to make a note of it relative to the agenda, just so, again, there is prior notice relative to that action being taken.

So if I understand, you said prior notice. Prior notice to what?

on the agenda, so.

So where would you put it?

I think it would.

Unfinished business? On the calendar? What? Yeah. A communication? I think it would be a communication. Okay, very good. Thank you. That's why you get the big dollars, Vice Mayor. So, Councilor Zusy, I think you have a very good recommendation. Let's place this on file. and then someone can bring it as a communication, that communication can be brought forward, and then we can take action if the will is still here to do that. Yes. Now she's gonna move adjournment, city manager, you cannot talk.

Madam Mayor, the only one thing we just want to add is that we've been talking a lot about the notification process, so I think we've sort of dug into that. The other part is really a documentation of good reason to revoke the permit, so I just want to point that out. So I think, and I would look to the law department folks, but it would seem like if there was a motion...

So if there was a communication to ask for reconsideration, we would also have to have documentation for... Of good reasons to revoke the permit. And who would come up with that?

I think that would need to be part of the submission in terms of the revocation.

So for the purposes of conversation, Counselor X... brought it in the communication. They would have to not only bring in the communication for reconsideration, which the rules would have to be suspended to do, they would have to provide with that communication documentation of good reason. That is my understanding.

Yes.

There's only one of us that went to law school here. So, go ahead. The two of us, I'm sorry.

But yes, I agree. Because there has to be, again, a showing of good reason relative to that, I would agree that that should also be part relative to, again, the notice of what is intended.

So it's important that the council understands what reopening this discussion is going to require. Not only going to the agenda as a communication, someone, you know, I couldn't do it, I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on television, wouldn't be able to do that. So someone, it seems like one of us would have to do that, or would we come to the law department and say, can you provide us a notice of good reason?

and then i'll come to you council tone i'm just curious madam mayor through you the whole idea is here is that someone applied for a curb cut they went through a process they were granted a curb cut by this council now the council may want to revisit that decision the person who got the curb cut deserves the opportunity for a full notice of why this is being reconsidered why it could potentially be revoked so that they can respond. So I would say that the communication should clearly state that the council wishes to reconsider the grounds for the reconsideration and what items they have, what documentary evidence they have supporting the communication. And that way the person or the applicant has an opportunity to meaningfully respond. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just had one question actually for the Deputy City Manager in her former role as DPW Chair. At least the way I understand the rules for curb cuts, abutter approval isn't necessarily required. I mean, has this council in the past given curb cuts even if it was a 50-50 split or even a majority of abutters opposed it? I know there's a process, but the city council could still approve a curb cut even if all the abutters are opposed to it.

I was going to call you commissioner. Deputy City Manager Watkins.

I can play commissioner for a little bit through you, Madam Mayor. And I'm consulting with the other commissioner in the room. Yes, it is part of the process. It is not a required piece. And I think people have talked about changing the process. And we are working on that and look to come back to council in a couple weeks with proposals for how council could delegate that authority to staff and you know the sort of a butter notification and sort of um having them weigh in is one of those challenges because right now it goes to City Council it's one of the things that's considered but it is not a requirement that people approve it it's just part of the process Council Turner

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I only raised that issue because, again, our fellow Councilors who want us to reconsider it are going to have to make the case that the rest of the Council would not have approved this based on new information that maybe a couple of abutters didn't agree to it. When ISD, DPW, the Historical Commission, they all agreed to it and they all approved it. and this is coming down to abutters arguing over whether they said fill out a piece of paper or not. So that's what we're looking at. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Councilor Turner, you have the floor. Councilor Wilson. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I'll be really brief on this. A couple of things that are coming up. First, I just want to appreciate the crash course, I want to call it crash course, on Robert Rules and just really going through this process. I really just want to appreciate the robustness of this whole situation right now. But the other piece here is that this was voted on back in March. So I just want to name that in respect to not only the person who applied for the application, but the abutters and everything. So just, I don't know where they are in this process. I don't know if they've already spent the money, done the curb cut, what. And then what that would look like to reverse it. So I just want to name that respectfully that That's huge, and I also feel for the neighbors, respectfully, because this sounds like something not so cool on that street. So I just wanna name that one. The other piece is that, and this is kind of, and please correct me, Madam Mayor, if I'm out of line in terms of this question here, but going to the conversation about there was a policy order on council no longer doing the curb cut having this conversation where are we in that process because that was many months ago and i mean i really want us to to be removed from this conversation or from this um responsibility so let's start with your your last query um to either the deputy city manager city manager where are we with being uh released from this duty

Please release, through you, Mayor. That's what I was referencing earlier. I think we're a couple weeks out from coming back to council with alternatives and options, and I think one of the things we have struggled internally with is this abutter notification, particularly because, as Councilor Turner mentioned, right now, Butters way in and again, it's the direct abutters It's not everyone on the street And so I think one of the challenges is that other folks on the street may have opposed but that's not part of the official process and so one of the things we've been challenged with is how do we have some level of a butter notification and what do we do with that because if it's going to come to city staff there needs to be a clear process and it can't be sort of like a oh one person's opposed to it so we're not going to get it and so i think this is the piece that's been most challenging as we've tried to lay out those options but it is our intent to come back to city council with some options in terms of how we could approach and delegate and council could choose to delegate that authority to city staff council wilson

Thank you. I appreciate that and look forward to that conversation. I look forward to the recommendation. I look forward to the recommendation and the conversation. And I think, again, respectfully, because we've had such quite contentious conversations around carb cuts, I think it's just really important that we move as swiftly as we can and really thinking about what...

the process would be for the city to take that over and and have a policy in place so that it's pretty clear so with that i yield thank you council wilson yields the floor so at this point to my colleagues if i may council nolan i will come to you uh where i am on this i i was going to call the question because i think this horse has been beat pretty well uh All it's asking for us to do is to place on file. I certainly agree with my colleague. Let's not do this this evening. It can be brought to the floor at any time. Council Wilson made some very salient points. If it's already done and we reverse it, who's gonna pay to reverse it? Do we? And the other piece was, I heard from the solicitor, deputy solicitor, the abutter is the person to your left, to your right, and in front of you. And so if you're saying, if I hear, and I don't know who's complaining because I may have missed the emails, and I apologize if I have, if you're down the street around the corner, if you're not in the direct catchment area, for lack of a better word, you may not really have a dog in the fight. So that being said, at this point, if it were to come to a vote, I probably would not vote for it, because I think we're just too far down the road with it. But that's my opinion. Councilor Nolan, I'll give the floor to you, but then I do want us to take a vote, and that vote is to place this on file. Councilor Nolan?

Thank you. Yeah, I've had my hand up for a while. I'm sure it's hard for you to see. Just to remind us very quickly that I do think we had had one GovOps meeting about this, and I think we're going to have another GovOps meeting because the direction from the council was important. I completely agree for us to not have the council be involved, and we can delegate. However, I also feel incredibly strongly that every single meeting we talk about making sure that neighborhood voices, council members, that the council includes the community in any decision. And the council at this point is the only step in this process that even considers the neighbors, the abutters, and the impact of a curb cut. And again, our website itself says that the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood is something that needs to be taken into consideration with curb cuts so just to remind us happy to delegate but that that inclusion of the community seems to me if we do delegate needs to be critically important in it and remember two things about curb cuts we are taking a public good an actual publicly owned curb and handing it over to private use that's what a curb cut is and it's really important that we do that thoughtfully in my view personally i would like a at some point and i may bring it in to understand i think we are far far far under pricing this it should be more like what the value added to the property which is on the order of forty or fifty thousand dollars And secondly, the reason this is hanging around so long and I put in the policy order to say let's understand if we have the power to revoke is because there does seem to be, after that decision, pretty clear documentation of false information provided to the council regarding the curb cut. not just, oh, I forgot to include it, but actually deliberately withholding information. And as Councilor Azeem said, that's a principle that is worth discussing, that if there's anyone in the city who provides false information, we see it with a lot of neighbors being concerned about contractors or other folks providing false information or not following our own rules. it's really important that then we monitor and do our due diligence as oversight. So this individual curb cut is not something a hill I would die on, but the principle of making sure that the council does its oversight work, which we are the only step in the process that is doing that. That's why I thought it was really important for us to have this discussion, but I am happy to have this be discussed later and establishing the parameters around which the neighborhood voice would be heard and would be included within the city decision. And then we will never have to have a curb cut discussion again on council. I yield.

Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Councilor Azeem.

Madam Mayor. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll keep my comments very brief. I just wanted to say I'm very excited to have options and that I think I could not be further from Councilor Nolan on this specific issue and that I don't think that having your direct abutters like you enough It's different than development where you're going to get new neighbors and it's about the structure even. This is about should you get you a curb cut because your neighbors like you or not? Obviously it has an impact, but it's also just about interpersonal relations and all that. And I just feel like that's not fair rules that apply to a city. And so I hope there'll also be an option that is not based on your direct about his feedback but on objective standards such that like this is when we approve and this is when we not approve and it's based on like how many curb cuts there are on the street and what like parking availability looks like and everything like that. So just wanted to say that as well. Thank you. I yield.

Councilor Zinn yields the floor. Vice Mayor.

Can I please call the question?

Vice Mayor calls the question. The vote on calling the question does two things. One, it ceases the discussion, calls for the vote, and only passes with the affirmative vote of six members. Madam Clerk.

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.

On city manager's agenda number nine.

Roll call. On placing the matter on file? Yes. 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.

Thank you. And the matter is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to policy orders. What is the pleasure of the city council? On a motion by Councilor Wilson to adopt policy orders one through eight. Sorry, Mayor Simmons? There's a motion, now it's Council Wilson. takes back her court request, which she doesn't. So the question has been called. You cannot, we have to take the vote. So on adopting policy orders one through eight.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. No. No, Councilor Nolan.

No.

No. Councilor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Toner?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? No. No. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have six members recorded in the affirmative and three recorded in the negative.

And the items on the policy order list have been adopted by the affirmative vote of six members, three voting in the negative. We move now.

Mayor Simmons?

Yes. Were you not called?

No, I'm concerned that I want to vote in favor of the policy orders. I was voting no because I wanted to discuss some. So I don't know how to fix that.

You can't fix it, dear. It's done. I'm sorry. The vote has happened. We're going to move now.

No, then I want to request a unanimous approval to change the vote on that. Because they were especially policy orders that I put in. I want to be voting on the record in favor of.

You did vote in reckon favor of, they're all approved. They're all voted in the affirmative.

Oh, you voted no, yeah.

Okay, so you're there, you're no. I don't know what to tell you.

Yes.

Councilor Nolan has the floor. Councilor Nolan, please continue.

I wanted to discuss these and I don't, that is why I voted no, not because I don't support them.

Okay.

I want us to have unanimous consent for those of us including Vice Member McGovern and Councilor Zusy to be recorded in the affirmative for the prior policy orders.

Okay.

So there's a motion by Councilor Nolan for unanimous consent to be recorded in the affirmative. Hold on. No, you can't. Let's not talk out of turn. Let's try to follow the procedures as best we can. There was a vote. On a motion that Council Wilson made and passed 6-3. So one of my colleagues, our colleagues, wants unanimous consent to be recorded in the affirmative. That's the motion, to be recorded in the affirmative. So that, I will come to you. That's the vote that is in front of us. So if you want to discuss it, you have to discuss voting for unanimous consent. So the motion's been put out there. Councilor Zusy, you want to speak on the motion of voting unanimous?

I do. There are some I do not want to, I would rather be a no, so it can be eight to one.

Okay, so Council Susi wants to be recorded. When you vote for the unanimous consent, you vote no. Okay. Madam Mayor.

Madam Mayor, I want to be recorded as the affirmative of all the policy orders as well.

Okay, so if there's no further discussion on- Mayor Simmons, if Councilor Zusy votes no, does that mean there's not unanimous consent and she will be preventing the Vice Mayor and I from being recorded?

No, it means she doesn't agree with it. It doesn't change the unanimous consent. Your vote has been changed to the affirmative. You need, right, the majority will prevail.

I didn't know what unanimous consent meant, if it has to be unanimous.

Well, I think it doesn't have to be unanimous, but if I'm wrong, sue me. It's on unanimous consent. On unanimous consent.

For myself and Vice Mayor McGovern?

Stop it.

Well, I think it's important we know what we're voting on.

What we're voting. The vote has been called, so I can give you a tutorial afterwards. All right.

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, Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councillor Zusy.

No.

No, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded in the negative.

And so the unanimous consent passes on the affirmative vote of eight members, one voting in the negative. We now move to the calendar. There's one Charter Right. Let me read the following. On Charter Right number one, this is more of a housekeeping matter. This committee report was before the City Council on September 29th, 2025. A charter right was exercised by Councilor Azeem and the matter came before the Council at the next regular meeting which was October 6th, 2025. On October 6th, 2025, policy order 2025 number 137 was referred to the Housing Committee and the Health and Environment Committee. The committee report as summarized below was never accepted and placed on file. and this is the policy order. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on September 16th to review and discuss solar impact analysis and zoning options to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for registered solar energy systems. Therefore, I would like to, and the Charter of Rights was exercised by Councilor Zima and the Council on September 29th. I would like a motion to accept the report and place on file. On a motion by the Vice Mayor to accept that report and place on file 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.

There's a couple of items on the table. I don't think we, if we do nothing with them, they just stay on the table. So let's, if there's no, no one's against that, then let's do that. Go over Passover unfinished business and go to one application and petition. It's a curb cut. I'm sure you want to spend some time on that.

Motion to approve.

On a motion by Councilor Toner to approve the one curb cut I'll read it. The application was received by Brian Albrecht requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises number 239 Brookline Street. Subpetition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking, and Transportation. Historical Commission and Public Works response has been received from the Neighborhood Association. The motion by Councilor Toner is to approve. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, please call the roll.

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.

We have nine members recorded in the affirmative. And the approval goes through on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to communications. There's 23. Pleasure of the City Council. on a motion by Council Wilson to place the communications on file. Roll call, please.

Councillor Azeem.

Yes.

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

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Toner?

Yes.

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

And the communications are placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We now go to resolutions. What is the pleasure of the City Council?

I'd like to pull six, please.

I'm sorry, six?

Six.

Pleasure of the City Council.

Move adoption, making the unanimous upon adoption.

On a motion by Councilor Nolan to take one through five, seven, eight, and nine to adopt and make unanimous upon adoption. 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. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Deputy. We're going to go back to the one, the non-consent item. Resolutions, which is number six. Gratitude to Cambridge's own Louis Doc West, musician and mentor, and best wishes for his continued success. This was pulled by Councilor Zusy. Councilor Zusy is the main author.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to remind everyone that Lewis West will be performing at the Zing Cafe at Porter Square this Friday, October 24th from 5.30 to 6.30. He is one of the blind boys of Alabama and a longtime Cambridge resident. So come hear him on Friday. Thank you.

Further discussion? Hearing none, we'll 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 resolution is adopted and made unanimous upon adoption by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to committee reports. There are two, one from neighborhood and long-term planning and the second one from the ordinance committee. What is the pleasure?

You have to do number two. Place on file. You want me to do? Because number two, you have to take a vote if you read.

Okay, so the clerk has asked me to take them one at a time. So on committee report number one, the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Public Facilities Arts and Celebrations Committee held a hearing on September 25th, 2025 to discuss whether the city should reinstate something similar to the exemption of the Dover Amendment to regulate the density and impact of institutional development within residential districts. The 1979 and 1980 exemption was eliminated February 10th, 2025 with the passage of the multifamily housing ordinance. On the motion by. So moved. The Vice Mayor to accept the report and place on file.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor 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. The report has been accepted and placed on file with Golden at number two. The ordinance committee held a public hearing on October 7, 2025, on a zoning petition by Martin Bacall et al. to amend the city Cambridge zoning ordinance in sections 4.30 and 4.40, with the intent to restrict increasing pavement and open space districts by establishing paved pavement and open paved roads. way greater than 10 inches wide as a principle used within the table of use regulations. That would be prohibited in open space districts and permitted in all zoning districts with a footnote providing further clarification and restrictions on the establishment of paved ways. The Kennedy moved to forward this Martin McCall et al. zoning petition to the full city council with an unfavorable recommendation. Council Susi.

Madam Mayor, I just wanted to mention I understand that the Bacall petition is restrictive and even DCR allows for paths to be from 10 to 14 feet depending upon the need for the path. And CDD argued that sometimes for accessibility reasons, sometimes for shared use paths, there are different reasons why you sometimes need a wider path. So I see the challenges with this petition, but I just want it to be on record that I'm very sympathetic to the petition because I agree with it in principle. The current trend in park design is to be heavy with pavement and hardscape, and parks serve all different functions, but mostly we want greenery, we want trees, We want nature in a very dense city. So while I realize that this petition won't advance because it doesn't have council support, I do think it's important that we're mindful of not paving too much and of the importance of creating natural spaces within the city so that people can connect. I yield.

Council Sousa yields the floor for the discussion on this item.

Madam Mayor, just to clarify what we're, we're voting on accepting this, and then when we get to the unfavorable recommendation, we're voting yes to approve the unfavorable recommendation. Is that correct?

Defeat it or accept it. Please ask. I wanna make sure we know what we're voting on. What is the appropriate answer? To vote yes, we're voting to voting the unfavorable recommendation, which votes it down, or is it no to vote it down? I want to have an understanding of what the actual vote should be. She's pondering.

We can certainly... We're going to take two votes, one to place on file, but for the recommendation, we're voting yes on the negative recommendation, correct?

We're voting yes, and I believe, and the clerk will come back, if we vote yes, we're voting to accept the unfavorable recommendation that would then... DEFEATED. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I DO BELIEVE THIS PETITION IS TOO RESTRICTIVE, SO I WILL VOTE for the unfavorable recommendation, but I just wanna make it very clear that I think it's got, in principle, I think it's right on. Okay, very good, thank you.

Further discussion? So the first what we're gonna take is to accept the report and place on file. Motion. Motion, bye.

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 item is accepted and placed on file. The second vote we will take is the committee move to forward the Martin Bacall et al. zoning petition to the full city council with the unfavorable recommendation. And I believe from the clerk it is a yes vote to defeat it. Discussion?

God bless you. Hearing none, roll call. Councilor Azeem. Yes.

Yes.

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

Thank you. The matter has been defeated. It's my understanding the affirmative vote of nine members. The next item is communications and reports from other city officers. On a motion by the Vice Mayor to place on file, is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call please.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor 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 communication is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to late resolutions. We do have one late resolution sponsored by you, Mayor Simmons. It's a late resolution to the family. Condolences to the family of Kimberly Casanza. Is there any discussion? Well, first of all, we have to suspend the rules. So, on suspension. Councillor Azeem.

Yes.

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

Thank you. On the late resolution relative to the, for the Costanza family, many of you are going to know Paul Costanza works for, worked for the Gately for a number of years. This is his family. And the funeral, I believe, is this week. That's why I was bringing it forward. Any further discussion?

Hearing none, on adoption.

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 resolution is adopted on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to late policy orders. Are there any?

There are none.

Announcements. Council Wilson.

That real fast. Yes, Madam Mayor, thank you. I would like to announce that we have a Human Service and Veterans Committee meeting tomorrow, 12 to 2, here in the chamber in regards to the out-of-school time expansion update. We had this meeting back in May, and we are going to have further discussion and conversation on this topic. So please join us. Announcements?

Announcements? Council Zusy.

I just, there's a meeting about the demolition of Riverview on Wednesday, October 22nd from six to 8 p.m. And then on Thursday night from six to eight, the Cambridge Historical Society will be having a culinary crossroads fundraiser, which sounds like a lot of fun. Thank you.

Mayor Simmons.

Yes, Council Nolan.

Yes, since it's before our next meeting next Monday at 11am there will be a health and environment committee meeting to talk about the urban forest master plan with a report from the city about how that has been working and. It runs from 11am to 1pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

Other announcements. We will be having an Italian heritage observance this Wednesday from 11 to 1 with light refreshments. Yes, one meatball. That's right. If you're not Italian at all, you just get to walk by the food. Okay, so just an FYI for folks. Also, by way of announcements, I just want us to send our sincerest condolences to the family of Bernice Taylor, who works in the clerk's office on the loss of, I think it was her mother, her mom, her mother passed. And so we will put in a more formal policy order next week, but I want us to go on record at formally sending our condolences to her and her family at this time. I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn. on a motion by Council Wilson to adjourn. Is there any discussion? We'd like to talk about a curb cut. Roll call, please.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. Nicole. Nicole, can you enter over there?

Yeah.