MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 20, 2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS, CHAIR REGULAR MEETING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OCTOBER 20, 2025 5:30 PM, SULLIVAN CHAMBER

1 MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Good evening. A quorum being present, I call tonight's October 20th Meeting to order. The first Order of Business is the roll call of the members present. Deputy Clerk? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Present. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Present. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Present. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Present. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Present. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Present. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Present. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Present. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Present. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Present. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Absent. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Absent. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Present. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Present. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Present. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Present. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Present. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Present. You have eight members recorded as present, and one recorded as absent. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Stand if you can and pause for a moment of silence. MEETING PARTICIPANTS: 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. (Pause) (Gavel) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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/publiccomment. You can also email written comments for the record to the City Clerk at cityclerk@cambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation and you can sign up until 6:00 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 take -- 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 --

2 INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Forty-two. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Forty-two. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- 42. Whereas we have 42 people signed up for Public Comment, as per our rules, the amount of time -- allotted amount of time for each person to speak is two minutes. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Stephen. Ms. Stephen, would you please start Public Comment? EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our first speaker is Margery Davies, followed by Evan Mackay, then Nick Birk. Margery, you have two minutes. Please turn on the mic by pressing the button, and you'll see a green light. Yep. MS. MARGERY DAVIES: My name is Margery 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. As -- we are especially concerned that GSEP locks us into decades more of fossil fuel dependence, placing an unfair burden on -- 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 solars 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 Sidorenko, for testifying to this effect -- EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you, Margery. MS. MARGERY DAVIES: -- at the State House on October 9th. Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Your time has expired. Please email the remainder. Our next --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Ms. Stephen, 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 will come back to Public Comment. I just want to make people to be aware of that. So, please, go ahead.

3 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our next speaker is Evan McKay, followed by Nick Birk. Evan, two minutes. MR. EVAN MACKAY: Thank you. Hello, Evan Mackay, Porter Square. I'm 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you for your testimony. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Nick Burke, followed by Laura Chen, then Lidya Tadesse. Nick, you have two minutes. MR. NICK BIRK: All right. Hello. My name is Nick Birk. I live on Norfolk Street in Cambridge. I'm speaking on Item 8. 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 MassHealth and still

4 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our next speaker is Laura Chen, followed by Lidya Tadesse, then Ruchita B. Laura, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. LAURA CHEN: Hi there, sure. My name is 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 1, 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 2, that Harvard informed us that they had unilaterally decided that stipended (sic) 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 percent 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 your 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lidya Tadesse. Lydia, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. LIDYA TADESSE: Thank you. Hello, my name is Lidya Tadesse, 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 Ri Dresser, who is a sixth year PhD student in physics who couldn't be here today, in support of Policy Issue 8. 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 percent 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

5 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 fundraisers 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. This means 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Rushita Balasubramanian, followed by Marissa Fried, then Simon Warchol. Rushita, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. RUCHITA BALASUBRAMANIAN: Hello. My name is Rushita Balasubramanian and 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 colleagues' 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 carve-outs and to stand with us in protecting the right to learn and promote public health. Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Madam Clerk, I'm just going to let you fix the screen. (Pause) EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our next speaker -- thanks for waiting -- is Marissa Fried, followed by Simon Warchol, then Cynthia Hibbard. Marissa, two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. MARISSA FRIED: Good evening. My name is Marissa Fried, she/hers. I live at 50 Prospect Street in Somerville, speaking on Issue 1, and I'm 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 and the Massachusetts Teachers Association, providing the opportunity to apply for an annual scholarship to cover the cost of the latter

6 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 percent 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 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you for your testimony. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you our next speaker is Simon Warchol, by Cynthia Hibbard, then Lindsey Adams. Simon, two minutes. Please go ahead. MR. SIMON WARCHOL: Hello, my name is Simon Warchol, and I live at 2 Greenough Avenue in Mid-Cambridge. I'm here to speak on Item Number 8. 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 postdoctoral fellow in my lab, of an NIH grant that has, in the three years since, awarded Harvard one -- or has awarded $1.4 million to Harvard University, of which, Har- -- and Harvard takes 70 direct-- -- less -- a little less than 70 percent 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 the 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Cynthia Hibbard, followed by Lindsay Adams, then Chet Agni. Cynthia, two minutes. MS. CYNTHIA HIBBARD: Good evening. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Good evening. MS. CYNTHIA HIBBARD: My name is Cynthia Hibbard. I live at 23 Ellsworth Avenue, and I'm speaking today for the Cambridge-Somerville Node of 350 Mass. We strongly back Policy Order Number 6, support of the State gas infrastructure planning bill, and Policy Order Number 7, 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, BEUDO

7 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 ratepayer costs by replacing leaking gas pipelines at $3 million per mile, rather than repairing them at $100,000 per mile. Policy Order Number 6 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-effective repair and thermal network alternatives. Another headwind is increasing costs for upgrading our electrical grid. Maximizing ratepayer 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 7 to include lifting the cap on municipal solar projects in Governor Healey's Energy Affordability Bill. Thank you very much. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lindsey Adams, followed by Chet Agni, then Ryan McMillan. MS. LINDSEY ADAMS: Hi, my name is Lindsey 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 copays 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: 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. Mr. CHET AGNI: Hi there. My name is Chet Agni, and 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 Hansen, 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.

8 So, these are Wesley Hansen's words. “The primary feeling I have in response to nearly a thousand 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 on to 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ryan McMillan, followed by Alex Marthews, then Gideon Epstein. Ryan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MR. RYAN MCMILLAN: 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 8. 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 Harvard Graduate Students Union from fall, 2023, to this past spring, 2025. During my tenure, the Committee administered $2.8 million in benefit funds annually from members in our unit. These funds covered expenses for ranging from the $3,000-plus in monthly childcare 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 members 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 banding 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 8 tonight. Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Alex Marthews, followed by Gideon Epstein, then Sonja Marrett. Alex, two minutes. MR. ALEX MARTHEWS: Hi, my name is Alex Marthews. I am a volunteer with Digital Fourth,

9 which meets here in Cambridge and which deals with issues of civil liberties and privacy. I'm here to speak on the City Manager's Agenda Item Number 7, 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 have not yet allowed our 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Gideon Epstein, followed by Sonja Marret, then Dan Totten. Gideon, two minutes. MR. GIDEON EPSTEIN: 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 -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: (INDISCERNIBLE 0:34:32) MR. GIDEON EPSTEIN: 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 healthcare. Specifically, Flock system undermines our Shield law, which protects access to reproductive and gender- affirming healthcare. The Cambridge Police Department's response memo regarding Flock raises more questions than it does answers. For example, does the decision to forgo 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our next speaker is Sonja Marrett, followed by Dan Totten, then Kenny Vorspan.

10 Sonja, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. SONJA MARRETT: Thank you. Hello, my name is Sonja Marrett, and I'm a MCMPA at HKS. I live at 74 Fayerweather Street. I am here to read a testimony on behalf of a G3 in the Harvard SEIS School who couldn't be here today in support of the resolution against Harvard's carve-out of 1,000 student workers from the HGSU bargaining unit, that's Policy Order 8. 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 PhD program, other US universities won't offer you a PhD position. So, you are -- if you are an international student, Harvard exerts total control over your presence in the US. 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 --10-hour a week task and a 100-hour a week job. My pay changes by less than 10 percent too. So, why would that 10 percent 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 parties 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.” EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: 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. MR. KENNY VORSPAN: Thank you. My name is Kenny Vorspan. I live at 15 7th Street in East Cambridge, and I'm speaking to Policy Order Number 5. 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 going to 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, at 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 150 -- over 150 signatures. Poison ivy is a serious issue. It 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you so much for your -- MR. KENNY VORSPAN: -- pressure from this Body. Thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you so much for your testimony. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next

11 speaker is Amber Shen, followed by Sam Portolance, then Marzyeh Ghassemi. Amber, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. AMBER SHEN: 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 8 regarding the union carve-out. The union carve-out is very upsetting as this decision by the university has put many students in (INDISCERNIBLE 0:41:45). 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'm lucky enough to know that if I cannot make ends meet, I will have support from my family, but 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 union -- that the carve-out has caused. Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our next speaker is Sam Porterlance, followed by Marzyeh Ghassemi, then Andrew Kim. Sam, you have two minutes. Sam, if you can unmute yourself, two minutes. MR. SAM PORTELANCE: Thank you. My name is Sam Porterlance. I live at Mansfield Street in Somerville, and work at Kendall Square in Cambridge. I'm speaking as part of the Digital Fourth. Flock 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 of 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 adopting scales within a community and across the US more broadly. In addition to Police Departments, Flock sells its stuff to private entities like HOAs and corporations, and leverages data pools across its clients to deliver value to one another. While the 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 green cameras to expand their network of privately gathered data to sell to the police. In addition to this privacy concern, Flock is trying to predict criminality. They flag 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 and join other communities across the country in banning Flock Safety. Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Marzyeh Ghassemi, followed by Andrew Kim, then Marianne Rezaei. We are at speaker number 20. Marzyeh, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. MARZYEH GHASSEMI: Hi, my name is Marzyeh Ghassemi, and I live on Kelly Road, and I'm speaking on City Manager Agenda Number 7. 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

12 Flock cameras won't be used to help with immigration enforcement, or other immigrat- -- 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 Flock won't know, and won't be able to block that query. Flock 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew Kim, followed by Marianne Rezaei, then Siobhan McDonough. Andrew, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MR. ANDREW KIM: 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Marianne Rezaei, followed by Siobhan McDonough, then Kate Pierce. Marianne has not joined. We will go to Siobhan McDonough. MS. SIOBHAN MCDONOUGH: Hello. I am 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 State House workers as they attempt to unionize. We know State House 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. And 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 -- a former law student there. And I say that as a current union sibling with these UAW workers. And Harvard, HGSU, the union workers there, are the reason Harvard has any backbone against the Trump administration. When Harvard stands up to

13 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, City Manager's Item 7. 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our next speaker is Kate Pierce, followed by Zoe Feder, then Madeleine Kline. Kate has not joined. We will go to Zoe Feder. Zoe, you have two minutes. MS. ZOE FEDER: Thank you. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to speak. My name is Zoe Feder. 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 8. 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 have 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. It will hurt the most vulnerable students”. And my other classmate is a sixth year Ph.D. 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, childcare, healthcare, 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 childcare benefit has been critical to me. It allows me to focus on my research by providing access to more affordable childcare, 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Madeleine Kline, followed by Virginia Fisher, then Katherine Silvestre. Madeleine, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. MADELEINE KLINE: Thank you. Hi, my name is Madeleine Kline, 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 a 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 co-workers 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 carve-outs. Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our next speaker is Virginia Fisher, followed by Katherine Silvestre, then Fiona Degnan.

14 Virginia, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. VIRGINIA FISHER: 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 Elow 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 7, 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 U.S. government, extremism on migration, race, and gender, and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on families religion, and morality”, end quote. 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Katherine Silvestre, followed by Fiona Degnan, then Alexandra Thorn. Katherine, please go ahead. You have two minutes. MS. KATHERINE SILVESTRE: Hello, my name is Katherine Sylvestre. I live at 253 Norfolk Street. I'm 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 (INDISCERNIBLE 0:57:29) we should trust the data --. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Katherine, you're breaking up. We're not hearing you right now. MS. KATHERINE SILVESTRE: I'm sorry. Can you hear me? EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: We can hear you now. Go ahead. MS. KATHERINE SILVESTRE: 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

15 Students Union. Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Fiona Degnan, followed by Alexandra Thorn, then Jacob Brown. Fiona, two minutes. Fiona? MS. FIONA DEGNAN: Hello, my name is Fiona Degnan. (INDISCERNIBLE 0:58:45). EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Fiona, we're not able to hear you. You're very muffled. If you can maybe uncover your microphone? MS. FIONA DEGNAN: All right, is that better? EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Yes, go ahead. MS. FIONA DEGNAN: Okay. I have lived and worked in Cambridge. Thank you for -- I'm here to speak on Agenda Item Number 7, 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Madam Mayor, we are at speaker number 30. It's 6:30 now, so. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, we’re -- 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 the 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? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler?

16 COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. On the vote of nine members, we have recessed the Regular Meeting to go into the Tax Rate Classification Meeting. (RECESS FROM 6:30 P.M. TO 7:34 P.M.) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: We'll now go back to the regular order of business. We left at --. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Madam Mayor, we left off at Public Speaker Number 30 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Number 30. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: -- of 42. So, we will resume with Alexandra Thorn. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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 could barely hear you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Alexandra Thorn. Alexandra, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. ALEXANDRA THORN: Hi, my name is Alexandra Thorn, and I live in Somerville at 173 Hudson Street. Thank you for allowing me to speak about Agenda Item Number 7 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-premise storage, while 3dEYE and Axon advertise cloud-based products with local-only access. In contrast with Flock's policy of retaining all data for 30 days, ParkPow, 3dEYE, Axon, Motorola, and Omniscient, all offer configuration options with retent- -- that will retain data for less than a day. Unlike companies that private from -- sorry, unlike companies that profit from the sale of cameras, Flock's profit model is based on sharing their national database with customers. This creates a perverse -- this creates perverse incentives with regards 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 would just like to also express solidarity with the Harvard Student Union. I wish them success, and I hope that the Council votes favorably on their issue as well. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. We are

17 going to go back to an earlier skipped speaker, Dan Totten. Dan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MR. DAN TOTTEN: 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, you know, reasonable minds can disagree about the role that policing and surveillance needs to play in our city. But I don't -- 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jacob Brown, followed by Patricia Lotterman, then Leah Cirker-Stark. Jacob, you have two minutes. Please unmute yourself. You have the floor. (Pause) Jacob Brown, you need to unmute yourself. (Pause) We will come back to Jacob. We’re going to go --. MR. JACOB BROWN: Sorry, can you hear me? EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: We can hear you now. MR. JACOB BROWN: 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 7 to protect our neighbors and community from the illegal actions of the federal government, and the data brokers and surveillance contractors out of the system, 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 -- Evanston 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. Eleven of the 16 cameras proposed, meaning all 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

18 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 has opted 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Patricia Lotterman. Patricia has not joined. We will go to Leah Cirker-Stark, followed by Jennifer Warren. Leah has not joined. We will try Jennifer Warren. Jennifer is not on. We will go to Bernadette Mathis followed by Riva Stein. Bernadette has also left. We will go to Reva Stein. Riva, you have two minutes. Please unmute yourself. You have the floor. MS. RIVA STEIN: Thank you. So, my name is Riva Stein. I live at 2 Seagrave Road in Cambridge. I'll be speaking to Policy Number 5 to address the poison ivy at Fresh Pond. I am very allergic to poison ivy. Thank you, Councillor Patty Tolan for -- 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 and 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 the sign- -- 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 7 as a member of Mothers Out Front on Climate Change. Thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is James Williamson, followed by Aya Al-Zubi. James, you --. MS. RIVA STEIN: I'll end my time now. Thanks. MR. JAMES WILLIAMSON: (INDISCERNIBLE 2:16:34) EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: James, you have two minutes. Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead. MR. JAMES WILLIAMSON: 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 all over the city -- 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 that -- I don't see this Council or any Council ever doing anything to protect us from the bicyclist, but I'm going to 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

19 business model may include providing data that may have nothing to do in enforcement to other entities. I mean, come on. And -- but I’m -- 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, a $7 million project, $140 million for bike lanes people -- many people don't want. There's lots of room for doing something if you would just, you know, do it. So, thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Aya Al-Zubi, followed by Helen Gibbons, then Gary Mello. (Pause) Aya is not in the Zoom. We will go to Helen Gibbons. MS. ANYA: 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 ALPR 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 Third Street, East Cambridge, so thank you. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Thank you. Our next speaker is Gary Mello, followed by Heather Hoffman. MR. GARY MELLO: 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 3. 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 at Election Commissioner plum, even if they themselves are ineligible under State law. They've sewn up the lifetime sinecure with Mr. Huang's full -- 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 the Cambridge hosts the fewest citywide elections in the whole state of Massachusetts. Good night, folks. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman, followed by LaQueen Battle. Heather, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. HEATHER HOFFMAN: Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street.

20 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 the multiple tables against the excesses of the current regime in Washington. But it appears the -- if -- 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 -- why are the rules different? With respect to the Bakal 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. Many on public planting have 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. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Thank you, Heather. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our next speaker is LaQueen Battle. LaQueen, if you can unmute yourself, you have two minutes. MS. LAQUEEN BATTLE: Yeah, can you hear me? EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: We can, please go ahead. MS. LAQUEEN BATTLE: Okay, great. Okay, hello, my name's LaQueen Battle. I'm a candidate for Cambridge 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 and 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 well as Harvard University, MIT, and other large educational institutions, large and small, these businesses, as well as our -- both small and -- 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 contribute 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. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Mr. Chair, we're going to go back to hear from Aya Al-Zubi. Aya, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. AYA AL-ZUBI: Hi, my name is Aya Al-Zubi. I used the she/her series, and I'm living in Cambridgeport. I wanted to quickly express my support for Harvard's unions. And I also want to address Flock and 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

21 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? I yield. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Thank you. Our final speaker will be Kate Pearce. Kate, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. MS. KATE PEARCE: Oh, can you all hear me? EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: We can hear you. MS. KATE PEARCE: Okay. Hello, my name is Kate Pearce. I'm an undergraduate student at MIT, and I'm here to give comment on City Manager's Agenda 7, as many of you all have already done. I'm calling on the City Manager to stop the roll out of Flock. Flock has a track record of just flat out lying to municipalities about where its data is being used. 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, Flock wouldn't even be able to know, and so they wouldn't be able to block that query. Flock -- additionally, it's also possible that such agencies would not share -- wouldn't themselves share the fruits of their queries with ICE or any other federal government agency. Additionally, Flock has been receiving -- Flock has been applying AI to innocent driver's license plate records to see if police might be interested in drivers that exhibit certain patterns Flock thinks are suspicious. People in Evanston and Eugene, have already blocked Flock. So, block the Flock. Thanks. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Vice Mayor McGovern, that is all that were signed up to speak. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Great. Thank you. We'll give it to someone else for -- on a motion by Councillor Zusy to close Public Comment, roll call. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes.

22 CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. CITY CLERK ASSISTANT: Yes. That's nine members voting yes. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: All right. Thank you. We'll now move on to the City Manager's Agenda. Pleasure of the Council? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Mr. Chair? Pull --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Pull Number 7. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Pleasure of the Council? Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Vice Chair McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Councillor Zusy, and then I'll come to you, Councillor Nolan. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I'm going to pull 9, because I think Councillor Nolan will pull 1. Is that right? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: We'll find out. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: I was actually going to --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: I was actually going to pull 9, but happy to pull 9 and 1 -- I mean 1 instead of -- VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: 1. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: -- 9 and 1. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Pleasure of the Council? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE 2:32:11) the balance. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Seeing and hearing nothing, on the balance, roll call? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the

23 affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you, Madam Clerk. We go back to Number 1. This is pulled by Councillor Nolan. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the federal update, including an update on relevant court cases. Mr. City Manager? CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: 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 twentieth 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, with 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, you know, to our friends and colleagues where they're 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. Goldstar Mothers Park is an example of where we are required to collaborate and seek EPA approval for a 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 depart- -- the State’s, 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

24 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 are 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, it 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 regulat- -- 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 on 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 want to bring up. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: 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 the folks in the city can continue to receive their -- or 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? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mr. City Manager? CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: Through you, Mayor Simmons. No new significant developments. We are -- you know, we've essentially won in this first process in court over the implementation of new conditions on existing grants. And happy if -- if Elliot or Franz want to provide any updates on that.

25 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Does Assistant Solicitors Veloso and LaBianca have anything to add? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: 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 attorney -- the federal government is sort of taking 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Assistant Solicitor LaBianca, the floor is yours DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. The one specific example is the State of New York versus U.S. Department of Justice. It is a case involving the 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 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. Are you yielding? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: Yes, thank you. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: 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 amici in support of those States, and in opposition to these illegal and unconstitutional federalization of National Guard assets for domestic law enforcement. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Very good. Thank you. Councillor Nolan, follow-up question? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: No, that covers my questions. Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I yield. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan yields the floor. Councillor Siddiqui?

26 COUNCILLOR SUMBUL 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, it's federal government is 70 percent 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, you know. I know there's so many moving pieces. So, ideally none of this ha- -- and then if it 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 meeting needs if they do arise, and where we can have that conversation, when, and kind of just be prepared? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And you're asking that of the City Manager? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mr. City Manager? CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: Through you, Mayor Simmons. You know, I think -- 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 going to 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, you know, we're talking about SNAP benefit programs, and, you know, 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 $5, $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 multi-layered 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 money that flows from the State to cities get -- 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 percent of those dollars are State dollars. Ninety percent 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 going to 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL 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, you know -- to figure out, you know, a 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

27 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Siddiqui yields the floor. Pleasure of the City Council? Hearing none. On a motion to place on file by Councillor Zusy, roll call, please. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: (Response not audible.) INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And the matter is placed on file with the affirmative vote of nine members. Move now to Number 7. I believe this is pulled by Councillor Toner. Reads as follows: A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting 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 challenge -- changes, excuse me, since approval in February. This is pulled by Councillor Toner. Do you want to hear from the Commissioner first or do you want to launch in? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes, Madam Mayor, the Commissioner and her team would be great. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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 Elow on the -- online, and we also have Superintendent Wells, and I -- don't know your rank, so I don't want to say it wrong. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: Deputy Superintendent Peter Vellucci. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Deputy Superintendent Vellucci. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: Thank you, Madam Mayor.

28 INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: And --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And -- SUPERINTENDENT JOHN BOYLE: Deputy Superintendent John Boyle. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. Commissioner, do you want to start off? POLICE COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE ELOW: Yes, Madam Mayor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Go ahead. POLICE COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE ELOW: Yes, Madam Mayor. Can you hear me okay? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: I can hear you fine. Thank you. POLICE COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE ELOW: Yeah. Through you to Councillor 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, right, in a way that our community would approve of? And I'd really like to know, could we, you know, 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner yields the floor. Superintendent Wells, anything to add? SUPERINTENDENT PAULINE WELLS: Through you, Madam Mayor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: The floor is yours. Sorry. SUPERINTENDENT PAULINE WELLS: The only thing that I would add would be, you know, when we -- when we carefully crafted -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Bring -- bring the mic closer to you, Superintendent. SUPERINTENDENT PAULINE WELLS: 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 we have definitely -- and that's actually recently been updated in August under Governor Healey'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 APR -- ALPR technology as an investigative tool -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm.

29 SUPERINTENDENT PAULINE WELLS: -- 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you, Superintendent. Superintendent Wells yields the floor. Deputy Superintendent Vellucci, do you want to add anything? DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: Through you, Madam Mayor. I think it's important that we consider all the community's input that they've being given us in 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 -- concerned with federal agencies and concerned 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. I yield, Madam Mayor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- Vellucci yields the floor. And before we just go back to Councillor Toner, Deputy Super- -- Super -- whoever you are back there, John Boyle. Anything to add? Very good. Councillor Toner, do you want to -- the floor is back to you. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: 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 what I'm -- you know, 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: -- other than the emails I've been getting. And if it's -- what I'm hearing is LPR technology is a good technology for us to use, and it can be used well and thoughtfully. I -- you know, living in the neighborhood where that shooting happened on Clifton Street a year ago, if we had LPRs put up on Rindge Avenue to capture the license plate of the fleeing car, we would be able to solve that crime much more quickly. And I know there are other instances we've had in the city. You know, in addition, it's my understanding that most cities and towns, our surrounding cities and towns, already use LPR technology. So, you know, 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, you know, trust and faith in Flock, I'd rather that we have that conversation, and give the Police Department and our Solicitor's office some time to really investigate the accusations that are being made about Flock because, again, 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 get 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 uh provides these services. So, I'd like to make that motion Madam Mayor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Toner moves that this -- is it ALPR or LPR? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ALPR.

30 MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: The conversation of ALPRs and Flock? -- Flock 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. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Thank you. Yes, so on the motion, I guess I would say a couple of things. One is I would like to -- 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 put somewhere. And then the other thing, and Councillor Wilson and I are the Co-Chairs of the Public Safety Department (sic). I do want to -- when we did the Surveillance Ordinance -- so, I was Mayor at the time, and when we did that, we -- 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 necessarily, 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 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. Because, you know, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- I don't trust this government at all. So, thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- Mr. Vice Mayor, a few things. Let's find out if they're being -- 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 - -. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: We can't amend Councillor Toner's motion? (MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS CONFERS WITH INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Her recommendation is, if it's going to be referred -- well, let me go back. Let's first find out, are -- is -- are the cameras currently being deployed? So, Superintendent Wells, are the cameras currently being deployed? SUPERINTENDENT PAULINE WELLS: Through you, Madam Mayor. Yes. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay, thank you. So, now that we know they're in operation, according to what my Clerk -- our Clerk is saying, what we may want to do is, you can certainly -- INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Take it up in Committee. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: No, that wasn't what I was going to say.

31 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, in the -- before the end -- he 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 we --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: I’ll do a Late Order, Madam Mayor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Very good. Are you yielding the floor? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. Councillor Nolan and then Councillor Wilson. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: 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 was -- 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 the Commissioner, and I think both Superintendents, are a willingness to say, we still believe -- whether that's the will of 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 fully support that. In the referral motion by Councillor 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 -- 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 Mayor McGovern. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Are you yielding the floor? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: I do, Mayor Simmons. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan yields the floor. Councillor Azeem, the floor is yours. COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: 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 initially introduced, it was said that we were going to get a grant to pay for this. And then

32 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Commissioner Elow, are you still available? POLICE COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE ELOW: Yes, Madam Mayor. Through you. I'm going to give that to Deputy Vellucci. Can you talk about how we paid for the cameras, please, Deputy Vellucci (INDISCERNIBLE 3:06:33)? DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: Absolutely, Commissioner. Through you, Madam Mayor. So, the first eight cameras were UASI funded of $24,000 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: U-R- --. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: URASI. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: URC stand for? DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: Urban Areas Security Initiative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. Okay. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: And it was for $24,000 for the first year. The Police Department also did eight cameras for another $24,000. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, part of it came out of the Urban Area -- DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: Security Initiative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- Security Initiative. And that was six? DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: Eight cameras. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Eight. And the others? DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: A total of 16 cameras. Eight were UASI funded. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PETER VELLUCCI: Eight were City of Cambridge funded. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Back to you, Councillor. Councillor Azeem. COUNCILLOR BURHAN 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? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Commissioner, do you want to respond? POLICE COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE ELOW: Yeah. 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN 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 on -- 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 like expectations of what the concerns, are as much as possible. And

33 who has access to it? I think specifically we 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. Second, you know, I think it would be helpful to just invite Flock to this Committee hearing if they are willing. 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? Obviously, it looks like we've already purchased a number of cameras, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: -- and so, that might not be an option, but that would be very interesting to hear. 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 Councillor McGovern 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Azeem yields the floor. Councillor Zusy, the floor is yours. Councillor? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I support both the motion and Councillor McGovern's additional motion, or moving this to the committee -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: -- and the additional motion. And building on what Councillor Azeem was saying, so, I just -- 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 would be good to understand sort of overall costs, and which would be -- and who would be paying for them. Thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, we are talking -- so are you -- relative to the motion, are you -- we were -- that's what's before us now. Did you have any questions to the motion? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I think the motion is excellent. Adding to what Councillor 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. They 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Are you yielding the floor? Councillor Zusy yields the floor. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler and then Councillor Siddiqui. COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Thanks, Madam Mayor, through you, and thanks to the City staff for this response. You know, when we discussed this back in February, I had voted against approving the Flock Safety technology, along with Councillors 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 Flock 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 the 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 was being -- that search was being used nationwide through Flock cameras. That is one of the ways this technology is being used.

34 I continue to be opposed to this technology, and you know, and I'll be the co-sponsor in the 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 in cities the rest of 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, you know, vigilant and, you know, really precise about what we are doing with these, and who has access to them. So, I hope this -- you know, the 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- yields the floor. Councillor Wilson? I mean, Councillor Siddiqui, I'm sorry. Councillor Siddiqui, the floor is yours. COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Thank you. I agree 100 percent with Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. I did want to bring up that the ACLU did come today with a number of key questions, you know, whether that was, you know, around Flock sharing and, you know, just a lot of other technical questions. And Councillor Nolan had reached out to them and included Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler and I. And so, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: -- I think we'd want some of -- 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 forward this. You know, I think we're living in really different times, and data is being exploited, and there's a lot of fears. And I think in -- when we voted -- 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, you know, I'm happy to have further discussion -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: -- but I wish -- I think, you know, I think we need to really be weighing a lot of the -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: -- potential trade-offs, and whether this is -- it really outweighs the major, major concerns. Thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Siddiqui yields the floor. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And, yeah, I want to just appreciate the amount of conversation, public testimony, and just for our City and City staff for kind of diving into this as well, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: -- and just kind of hearing Councillors 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, you know, making sure that we're protecting all of our citizens with the use of it. So, with the late Policy Order that's going to go in, I think also with the referral to Public Safety, you know, we'll make sure that we can get a conversation, a discussion going, definitely before the end of this term so that we're able to really dive deeper and have our part- -- have partners like those from ACLU, and whoever

35 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 there -- 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, you know, I -- again, I think folks from the Solicitor's office, 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 Councillors, 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? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Is -- Is anyone want to --. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: But just like a mo- -- I think in terms of pro- -- procedurally, because we have Councillor Toner's motion on the table, do we need to -- how -- I guess in terms of procedurally, what would we need to do? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Well, what I was going to recommend is Councillor Toner has a motion on the floor that will influence what we do with this communication from the City Manager. And what I was going to recommend, rather than holding it we could suspend the rule -- if I can have your attention -- we could suspend the rules and bring -- to bring up any other order, so that we can discharge it all at the same time, as opposed to in -- to taking it up later on. So, if there's -- is there any -- thank you. Is there any more discussion on the proposed motion? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Councillor To- -- Madam Mayor, thank you. I appreciate the suggestion from Mayor McGovern. I could -- Mayor, sorry, Vice Mayor McGovern. So, I can support that when it comes forward officially as a Policy Order. I just -- 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've 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, and you know. And then, 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Toner yields the floor. So, my recommendation is Councillor Toner 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 all 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 -- Councillor Nolan, any discussion from you or Councillor Azeem on Councillor Toner's motion? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: No. As long as it is paired with the question that we've raised -- I mean, of us not deploying this technology. I’m (INDISCERNIBLE 3:19:23). MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: We haven't got to that. We haven't gotten that -- to that, Councillor. 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. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem?

36 COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Ye--. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Madam Mayor? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Oh. I went -- I --. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: On referring. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: On referring. I’m sorry. I’m so anxious to go home. I apologize. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: On referring City Manager Number 7 to the Public Safety Committee. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And City Manager's Agenda Item 2025, Number 257, has been referred to the Public Safety Committee on the affirmative vote of nine members. On placing the matter on file. The Vice Mayor moves to place the City Manager's Agenda Item Number 7 on file. Roll call. (MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS CONFERS WITH INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: That’s right. I’m sorry. See -- see what happens. Air deprivation. All right. On suspension of the rules. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes.

37 INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. You have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: The rules are suspended. So, Vice Mayor wants to offer a motion. So, Councillor? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: So, should -- I signed it. There we go. I tried to keep and simple. I didn’t think we needed a lot of whereases. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. Order the City stop using Flock cameras and all ALPR technology currently in use until a policy regarding the use of ALPRs is brought before the Public Safety Committee of the City Council. Is there discussion? Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Mayor Simmons? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Just a clarification. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Hold on, Councillor Nolan. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Sure. 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, you know, protective and confirming with our -- conforming with our values, etcetera? SUPERINTENDENT PAULINE WELLS: Through you, Madam Mayor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Superintendent Wells? SUPERINTENDENT PAULINE WELLS: Yes, we do. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: I didn’t hear the answer. What your respond? SUPERINTENDENT PAULINE WELLS: I said there is a policy in place right now, yes. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: There's a policy in place to do what? Cou- -- somebody? CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: 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, you know, 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 --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: We could say review --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So -- so, Vice Mayor the -- VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: (INDISCERNIBLE 3:23:05) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- the City Manager and the Public Safety Department is saying

38 there is a policy. So, are you clear what -- does that policy speak to what you're saying here? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Okay. No, I understand. I was thinking about some- -- 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 all techno- -- ALPR technology current -- currently in use until a meeting is held by the Public Safety Committee of the City Council. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, let me just -- let that be typed out. So, it reads now, ordered that the City stop using Flock cameras and all -- and all ALPR technology currently in use until a meeting is held by the Public Safety Committee of the City Council. Does that --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yeah. And I guess I would be open to other -- sorry, I was trying to do this quickly, but I’d be -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- but I'd be open to other people --. I also don't want to give the impression that we're going to hold this meeting, then we're going to 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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 L- -- ALPRs. And I guess this speaks to it, without being too narrowing or too oversubscribed. So, let's have some -- let's have a discussion on this -- more discussion? So, this is -- the -- COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I have two remarks on this. One is I would like to be added. And secondly, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: You can. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: -- it may be the order should read that the City stopped using Flock cameras and all ALPR technology currently used until the Council takes an affirmative vote to allow it. Because it -- the way it meets now, you can hold a meeting and even if -- and the day of the meeting, then they could be used. So, I don't think that's the intent. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Vice Mayor, this is your --. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: (INDISCERNIBLE 3:25:30) change it. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. So, can -- Ms. Stephen -- Ms. Stephen, excuse me. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NAOMIE STEPHEN: Councillor Nolan, if you can repeat? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan, can you repeat the amendment? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. Instead of until a meeting, until the City Council votes to allow the use of such devices. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Madam Mayor? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan still has the floor. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: I mean, the fact is, if we're saying we want them not to be used until we have had 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.

39 But otherwise, there's a chance of misinterpretation of when these could start to be deployed again. So, I yield with that. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan deals the floor. Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: And I would like to be added. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: I got that. Councillor Azeem, did you have anything that you wanted to add or --? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: I do not, Madam Mayor. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. 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’s -- that was the vote months ago. And the question that came before us tonight was about our confidence in our partner and using this, and we're suspending use of the technology until we can have this meeting and get those questions answered. So --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, Councillor Toner, to your point, what if we change -- instead of saying stop, to say suspend, and then it gives us wiggle room? That the City -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- suspend using. We’re not using them but -- oh, I guess we are using it. COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Madam Mayor? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Is suspend better than stop? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: I'm just going to 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 want to give approval for it again, we can take another vote to allow it. This -- my understanding of this Policy Order is to say, no, we are revoking the approval of the City to use that. We're auth- -- we’re using our authority as the Council to revoke the previous vote. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. I don't -- 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 full -- a more, -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sure. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- a broader conversation. So, I thought suspend might be a better word. I'm going to go to -- if -- COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Do --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- do you want the floor back, Councillor? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. If I could. And I think we could say it a different way that gets to what Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler is saying, because this way it's saying, allow such use. You could put, until the City Council 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: 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.

40 VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Madam Mayor, just on that? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Let me just go back to Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler for a moment. COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Thank you. Yeah, I'm just trying to make sure I understand. I think you could -- 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Or I think that -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That’s good. COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: -- I’m just thinking of language that -- that, I think makes sense. Yeah, that -- that makes sense to me. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Do you yield the floor? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: I do. Thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Vice Mayor? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yeah, I really think -- you -- I think any of its fi- -. I mean, I do think technically, Councillor Toner is right. We've already allowed it. So, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- and now we're putting a pause on that -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- by this -- passing this, should it pass. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: And then, at some point, we're going to have to take -- we're either going to vote -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Some sort of action. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- to keep going, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- or we're going to vote to take it to stop it altogether. So, I -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- reinstate, revoke, I think it's probably either one, I think, is fine. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Any other discussion? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Madam Mayor? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Wilson and Councillor Zusy. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: 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 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: -- so that all members who are currently on this Body are able to weigh in on that. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: But yeah, I think this is fine as it looks. Thank you.

41 MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Wilson yields the floor. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Through you, Madam Mayor. I just want -- would love confirmation from the -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Public Safety Department? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: -- yeah, either Commissioner Elow, or Wells or Vellucci, about whether we can trust Flock. Because if the story in Illinois is true, 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 going to be telling Flock to turn them off, and we'll be trusting that Flock is turning them off? How can we know that they're really off? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Is Commissioner -- is Commissioner Elow still with us? POLICE COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE ELOW: 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 -- 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. I yell. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Zusy yields the floor. Further discussion? Hearing none. The first item is to amend this Policy Order to add Councillor Nolan. So, roll call on the -- is there any discussion on the amendment of adding Councillor Nolan? Councillor Azeem, any discussion? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: No, thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. On the amendment, roll call. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the

42 affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And the Policy Order is amended by the affirmative vote of nine members. On the Policy Order as amended. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Oh, yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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 9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Wong, City Manager, relative to the Awaiting Report Item Number 2534 regarding curb cut disputes. This was pulled by -- I don't know -- I think it was Councillor Zusy, Vice Mayor? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: No. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: This is your writing. Okay. It was -- it was Zusy. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: It was. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Zusy, the floor is yours. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to thank the Law Department for this report. ` MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: 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 is -- it 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

43 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? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Assistant Solicitor LaBianca, are you going to speak to that? DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: Through you, Madam Mayor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Deputy City Manager. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: 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 that was re- -- 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. 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 the curb cut should be revoked. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: 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. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Madam Mayor? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Are you responding to Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Well, I just want to ask a procedural question to make motion to re- --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, let me see if the Councillor -- COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: I’m sorry. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- wants to yield the floor to you. Are you yielding? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I am happy to yield the floor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Toner. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: 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, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: -- and Councillor Zusy is not on the prevailing side. She and Councillor Nolan voted against it. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Right. So, point of information, Councillor 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. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: You couldn’t do it, anyway. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I am hopeful that a colleague will vote to reconsider the motion, understanding that I do not have that right. Thank you. I yield. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Zusy yields the floor. Who -- Councillor Sobrinho- Wheeler? I think -- I apologize, was -- did Councillor Nolan -- because I can't see. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Nolan had her hand up again.

44 MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. Councillor and Councillor Azeem, and then we'll come to you, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: And I'm going to remind us of the context. It is the Council's responsibility to review all the documentation provided, approvals from the Department, 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, etcetera, 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 think it is seen 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 order to revoke the curb cut, not a reconsideration of the vote taken before. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Madam Mayor, can we get clarification from the solicitor on that? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Deputy Solicitor Veloso, do you want to speak to that? Councillor Nolan argues that reconsideration is not necessary. Could you opine on that, please? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: Certainly, Madam Mayor. Through you to the Chair. Per page two of the memo, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: -- 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 a two-third 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. So, that --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And 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? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: No. I believe per the rules, reconsideration is - - can only be reopened if it's someone that was on the prevailing side. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you.

45 Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: My question is answered. Thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Deputy Solicitor Veloso, we have a little disagreement. CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: Through you, Mayor Simmons. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: We were 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 Franz and Elliot can speak to it, is actually the conversation about notice needing to be given, and that may affect just hearing some Councillors want to take action -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: -- 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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 does -- has the person pulled something up to the sidewalk or not? I mean, is -- has action started to take place? So, it seems to be a little bit more convoluted than just taking a vote. If we -- if this is revoked, and I'm not taking a side, and he's already -- and the curb cut is already made, we're going to go back and seal up his sidewalk. Is that -- is that what I hear? CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: 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's a -- if that is actually a debatable fact, then there is 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?

46 So, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, to the Dep- --. CITY MANAGER YI-AN HUANG: -- defer to you on which of those three you want to start with. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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 like -- is it a secret? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: Madam Mayor? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: I'm just -- or is it -- does it have some -- DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: If I may, through you? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- I don't -- I didn't see it. Maybe I missed it. So, I will turn it over to you, Deputy Solicitor. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: The question itself was --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Speak into your mic, because you’re --. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: Sorry. 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 there. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Stop right there. It says if it's proper noticed to the person that requested it. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: Right. In general, yeah. So, 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: -- you're welcome -- an agenda item. So -- but -- and as the City Manager pointed out, there's -- there are allegations regarding the Hancock curb cut that there were misrepresentations or an incomplete application. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: The notice, of course, would allow the applicant who got the curb cut, or the property owner, to come in 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's seen in other prior curb cut cases, sometimes folks a way at the other end of a street will submit 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Abutters. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: -- abutters, exactly. So, there are allegations here, but that's not what we were asked to look at. We were asked, can the Council revoke? The answer is yes, upon proper notice and with good reason. And I yield. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Further discussion? Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: I just briefly wanted to make the point that I feel like I've been making for two years, is that most -- many -- 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.

47 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 -- can we 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, false -- falsely submitted. And then it just -- it doesn't make sense. Even if we have the 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. I yield back. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler yields the floor. Councillor Azeem, the floor is yours. COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: 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? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Deputy Solicitor, do you want to give it a go? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: 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, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: -- 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. So, --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: But not to suspend the rules. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: Right, but not to suspend the rules. 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 re-present 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Thank you. So, I would say that based on all the information that's presented today, I would make a few different points. So, first is I think I could not agree more with Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler that like I don't think that the City Council needs to be doing this. And I would just have staff do administerial 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

48 particular, who seem interested in this case, I think that there's a fact basis of like 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 like, you know, reasonable, even if I would still agree with it, I like -- I don't want to be in a place of rewarding bad developer behavior in that like you can just come to us with a missing application, and like there's no consequence for that, you know. And so, so I would be -- 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. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Madam Mayor? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. Councillor Azeem, yields the floor. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Again, still in process. Councillor 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: I just wanted to make that clear. Is that -- through you, Madam Mayor. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: To Solicitor LaBianca or Velosa, who wants to take that? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: 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 have a vote on reconsideration. Does that answer? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes, it does. So, I --. Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. You know, I don't really want to call for a vote, but I -- 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 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 curb cut. And even at that time, there were people coming here speaking against it, but we voted to approve it anyway. So, I just want everybody to understand that we still need 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Toner yields the floor. Pleasure of the City Council? Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: 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 Councillor 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

49 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 until next week and see if there is support for rediscuss -- discussing this again. But the reason I'm so persistent about this, and I think Councillor Nolan too, is because we really have been -- we keep hearing from the residents of Hancock Street about the injustice and the -- how problematic the curb cut is. It's only because of that, that we persist. Thank you. I yield. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Are you yielding the floor? Councillor Zusy yields the floor. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Thank you. I would just say that I think where this gets tricky is, you know, 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. And I think we heard from a lot of people. We got a lot -- I mean, it lasted about as long as any conversation on a curb cut could last. So, I don't think people jumped -- you know, 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, you know, when we -- if -- I mean, 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, can -- you know, the going back, once con- -- I mean, construction's already done, people have paid money, now they're going to 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 don't think this was -- I think we gave this a whole lot of time. But certainly, I would agree with my colleagues that if -- you know, if there is more evidence to show that this person cuts -- you know, took -- 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 it would -- yeah, it would be much easier if we just did away with this all together. But I don't know where we go from here. Are people saying -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Well, --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- are people saying they want to Charter it until next week? Or are people saying --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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 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 relitigate, reconsider, reevaluate, re-vote on it, I think that's a whole another 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. Councillor 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. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: That's correct, Madam Mayor. You can place this on file and then vote to suspend the rules relative to, you know, reopening those, so. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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

50 next meeting? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: I believe they would have to suspend the rules first. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: They would still have to suspend the rules. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: Right. Because motion for reconsideration for the procedures, it ha- -- it can only be done by the prevailing side. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Right. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: So, the only way you could countermand that is if you suspend the rules, and therefore can, again, (INDISCERNIBLE 4:00:08). MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, what I'm trying to figure out, and maybe you can help us, is how we get it -- how does 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 the -- what the committee wanted to do? They didn't want to take -- if they don't want to suspend the rules to reconsider it now and go through all those machinations, if I -- if I understand my colleague, Councillor Zusy, 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? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: I think, again, it would have to be a motion to suspend the rules because it cannot be a Policy Order, because -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: right. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: -- again, the Policy Order can only speak as to the generalities, and this is a settled matter. So, it would -- again, it would have to be a motion to suspend the rules. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: Yes. That’s --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Does everyone understand that? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mm-hmm. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. Are there any questions? So, it sounds like to me -- before I go back to Councillor Nolan, I've not heard from Councillor Siddiqui. I don't know if you want to opine on this? Okay. So, you're not wanting to take any -- have any comment on this? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mm--m. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: It seems --. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: Madam Mayor? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: Oh, my apologies. Just one point though. If you are going -- if there is an intent to suspend the rules, we would note that, you know, 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, if I understand, you said prior notice, prior notice to --? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: On the Agenda, so --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, where would you put it? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: I think it would --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Unfinished Business on the Calendar? What? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: Yeah.

51 MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: A communication? DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: I think it would be a Communication. Yeah. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay, very good. Thank you. That's why you get the big dollars, Vice Mayor. So, Councillor 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. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: The City Manager. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. Not unless you’re going to move adjournment, City Manager, you cannot talk. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: Madam Mayor, the only one thing we would just want to add is that we've been talking a lot about the notification process, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: -- so, I think we've sort of dug into that. The other part is really a documentation of good reason to recon- -- 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 or re- -- to reconsider --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, if there was a Communication to ask for reconsideration, we would also have to have documentation for --. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: Of good reasons -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Of good reasons. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: -- to revoke the permit. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And who would come up with that? DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: I think that would need to be part of the submission in terms of revoke -- revocation. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, for the purposes of conversation, Councillor 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. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: That is my understanding. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: Yes. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: There's only one of us that went to law school here. So, go ahead. Or two of us, I'm sorry. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR ELLIOTT VELOSO: There are two. But, yes. I agree. Because there has to be a -- 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, it's important that the Council understands what opening -- reopening this discussion is going to require. Not only it 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, I wouldn't be able to do that. So, someone -- it seems like some -- one of us would have to do that. Or will we come to the Law Department and say, can you provide us a notice of good reason? And then I'll come to you, Councillor Toner. I'm just curious. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: Madam Mayor, through you. The whole idea 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

52 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. DEPUTY CITY SOLICITOR FRANZ LABIANCA: You're welcome. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Comm- -- I was going to call you Commissioner. Deputy City Manager Watkins? DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: And I think people have talked about the -- you know, changing the process, and that the com- -- 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 abutter notification, and sort of having them weigh in, is one of those challenges. Because right now, it goes to City Council and 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I only raise that issue because, again, our fellow Councillors 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 -- excuse me, 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: -- that’s what we're looking at. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I yield. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Toner yields the floor. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. 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 like the crash course. I don't -- I want to call it crash course on like Robert Rules and just really going through this process. Like, I really just want to appreciate the robustness of kind of this whole situation right now. But the other piece here is that this was voted on back in March. March. So, I just want to like 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:08:07) COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: --(INDISCERNIBLE 4:08:07), and then what that would

53 look like -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: -- to reverse it. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: So, I just want to name that respectfully, that that's huge. And I also feel for the neighbors, respectfully, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: -- because this sounds like something not so cool on that street. So, I just want to name that one. The other piece is that -- and this is kind of a -- 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 be removed from this conversation or from this responsibility, if you would. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, let's start with your last query, to either the Deputy City Manager or City Manager, where are we with being released from this duty? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Please release. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: 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 Councillor Toner mentioned, right now, the abutters weigh 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KATHY WATKINS: -- part of the official process. And so, one of the things we've been challenged with is how do we have some level of abutter 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, 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 dele- -- and Council could choose to delegate that authority to City staff. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Thank you. I appreciate that and look forward to that conversation, asap. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: I look forward to the recommendation. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: I look forward to the recommendation -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Well, --. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: -- and the conversation, but, you know. And I think, again, respectfully, because we've had such quite contentious conversations around curb cuts, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: -- 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 have a policy in place so that it's pretty clear. So, with that, I yield. Thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Wilson yields the floor.

54 So, at this point to my colleagues -- COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- if I may, Councillor Nolan, I will come to you. Where I am on this, I, was going to call the question because I think this horse has been beat pretty well. All it's asking for us to do is to place it 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. Councillor Wilson made some very salient points. If it's already done and we were to reverse it, who's going to pay to reverse it? Do we? And the other piece was you -- 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, you -- 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 it's just -- we're just too far down the road with it. But that's my certain -- that's my opinion. Councillor 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. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. 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 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 -- that the Council includes the community in any decision. And the Council, at this point, is the only -- the only the only step in this process that even considers the neighbors, the abutters, and the impact on -- 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, it 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 underpricing this. It should be more like what the value added to the property, which is on the order of $40,000 or $50,000. And secondly, the reason this is hanging around so long, and I put it 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 Councillor 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:14:45) to. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: -- 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

55 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Nolan yields the floor. Councillor Azeem? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Madam Mayor, can I --. COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Thank you, Mayor -- Madam Mayor. I'll keep my comments very brief. I just wanted to say I'm very excited to have options in that I think I could not be further from Councillor Nolan on this specific issue, in that I don't think that having your direct abutters like you enough -- right? It's different than development, where you're going to get new neighbors and it's about the structure even. Like this is about like should you get you a curb cut because your neighbors like you or not? You know, obviously it doesn't 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 will also be an option that is not based on -- you are correct 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Azeem yields the floor. Vice Mayor? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Can I please call the question? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

56 MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: On City Mayor's Agenda Number 9, roll call. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: On placing the matter on file, ma’am? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:17:24) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: On a motion by Councillor Wilson to adopt Policy Orders 1 through 8? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hmm. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Does --. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:17:36) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, Mayor Simons? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mayor --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Well, there’s mo- -- she -- the -- now Councillor Wilson takes back her request -- INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: No, she’s --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- which she does- --. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: No. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Well, the question has been called. You cannot. We have to take the vote. So, on adopting Policy Orders 1 through 8. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes.

57 INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: No. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: No. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: No. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: No. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: No. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: No. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. You have six members recorded in the affirmative, and three recorded in the negative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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 -- COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Mayor -- Mayor Simmons? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:18:32) force the --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes, well, were -- were you not called? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:18:36) COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: No, I just -- 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, but I really think --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Well, you can't fix it, dear. It's done. So, -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I’m sorry. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- the vote has happened. We are going to move now -- COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: No, then I want to request a unanimous approval to change the vote on that so that -- because they were -- especially Policy Orders that I put in, I want to be voting on the record in favor of. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: You did vote in the record in favor of. They are all approved. They're all voted in the affirmative. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She voted not to approve of them. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: She voted no. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Except for I (INDISCERNIBLE 4:19:11) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Oh, you voted no. Yeah. Okay. So, you're there. You're -- no. I don't know what to tell you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:19:15) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So, Madam Mayor? MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:19:18) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Wait a minute. Councillor Nolan has the floor.

58 INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:19:22) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yeah, I know. Councillor Nolan, please continue, you were saying --. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: I wanted to discuss these, and I don't -- that is why I voted no, not because I don't support them. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: So, I want us to have unanimous consent for those of us, including Vice Mayor McGovern and Councillor Zusy, to be recorded in the affirmative for the prior Policy Orders. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, there's a motion by Councillor Nolan to -- for unanimous consent to be recorded in the affirmative. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:19:48) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hmm. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, I -- I think --. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You can just withdraw my name from (INDISCERNIBLE 4:19:56) --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Hold on. No, you can't. Let's not talk out of turn. Okay. Let's try to follow the procedures as best we can. There was a vote -- INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Six to three. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- on a motion that Councillor Wilson made and passed, six to three. So now one our -- my colleagues, our colleagues, wants unanimous consent to be -- 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. Councillor Zusy, do you want to speak on the motion of voting? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I do. I -- there are some -- I do not want to -- I would rather be a no. So, -- so, it can be eight to one. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. So, Councillor Zusy wants to be recorded. When you vote for the unanimous consent, you vote no. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Madam Mayor? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Except for -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Vice Mayor? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: -- that will hurt me. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Madam Mayor, I -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- I will -- I want to be recorded as the affirmative of all the Policy Orders as well. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. So, if there's no further discussion on --. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Mayor Simmons, if Councillor Zusy votes no, does that mean there's not unanimous consent and she will be preventing the Vice Mayor and I from being recorded?

59 MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: No. It means she doesn't agree with it. It doesn't change the unanimous consent. You still get -- your vote has been changed to the affirmative. It's you need -- COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Okay. As long as my vote (INDISCERNIBLE 4:21:27) -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Right. Yeah, the majority will prevail, -- COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: -- in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- as I understand it. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: I didn't know what unanimous consent meant, if it has to be unanimous. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Well, I think it doesn't have to be unanimous, but if I'm wrong, sue me. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: So, what's the motion, Madam Mayor? I’m so confused. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: It’s on unanimous consent. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: On unanimous con- --. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: For myself and Vice Mayor McGovern? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Stop it. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Well, I think it's important we know what we're voting on, - - MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: We’re voting. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: -- if we want to be (INDISCERNIBLE 4:21:54). MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: The vote has been called. So, I can give you a tutorial afterwards. All right. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: No. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: No. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative, and one recorded in the negative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And so, the unanimous consent passes on the affirmative vote of eight members, one voting in the negative. We now move to the Calendar.

60 There's one Charter right. Let me be bring -- read the following. On Charter Right Number 1, this is a -- more of a housekeeping matter. This Committee Report was before the City Council on September 29, 2025. A Charter right was exercised by Councillor Azeem, and the matter came before the Council at the next Regular Meeting, which was October 6, 2025. On October 6, 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 this -- the Charter right was exercised by Councillor Azeem and the Council on September 29th. I would like a motion to accept the report and place on file. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: So, moved. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: On a motion by the Vice Mayor to accept that report and place on file, roll call. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. There are couple of items on the table. I don't think we -- if we do nothing with them, they just stay on the table. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: They just stay. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, let's -- if there's no -- and no one's against that, then let's do that. Go over, pass over 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. COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Motion to approve. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: On a motion by Councillor Toner to approve the one curb cut. I'll read it. An application was received by Brian Albrecht requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises

61 number 239 Brookline Street. Sub-petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking, and Transportation. The Historical Commission and Public Works response has been received, and the Neighborhood Association. The motion by Councillor Toner is to approve. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, please call the roll. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. You have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And the approval is -- 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 Councillor Wilson to place the Communications on file. Roll call, please. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy?

62 COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Councillor Zusy. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I'd like to pull 6, please. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: I'm sorry, 6? Pleasure of the City Council? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Move adoption, making the unanimous upon adoption. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: On a motion by Councillor Nolan to take 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 9 to adopt and -- and place -- and adopt and make unanimous upon adoption. Roll call. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you, Madam Deputy. We're going to go back to the one -- the non-consent -- INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Resolution. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- resolutions, number -- which is Number 6. Gratitude to Cambridge's own Lewis “Doc” West, musician and mentor, and best wishes for his continued success. This was pulled by Councillor Zusy. Councillor Zusy is the main author. Councillor Zusy the floor is yours. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to remind everyone that Lewis West will be performing at the Zing Cafe at Porter Square

63 this Friday, October 24th, from 5:30 to 6:30. He is one of The Blind Boys of Alabama, and a long time Cambridge resident. So, come hear him on Friday. Thank you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Further discussion? Hearing none, roll call. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: You have to do number two. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Place on file. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:28:14) separately. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: You want me to do --? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Because Number 2, you have to take a vote if you read it. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. So, the Clerk has asked me to take them one at a time. So, on Committee Report Number 1, 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 1979-1980 exemption was eliminated February 10th, 2025, with the passage of the Multifamily Housing Ordinance. On the motion by -- VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: So, moved. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- the Vice Mayor to accept the report and place it on file. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes.

64 INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. The Report has been accepted and placed on file. We’ll go to Number 2. The Ordinance Committee held a Public Hearing on October 7, 2025, on a zoning petition by Martin Bakal et al. to amend the City Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Sections 4.30 and 4.40 with the intent to restrict increasing pavement in open space districts by establishing paved pavement in open space -- paved way greater than 10 inches wide as a principal use 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 establish- -- establishment of paved ways. The Committee moved to forward this Martin Bakal et al. zoning petition to the full City Council with an unfavorable recommendation. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Madam Mayor, I just wanted to mention, I understand that the Bakal petition is restrictive, and even DCR allows for paths to be from 10 to 14 feet, depending upon the need for the path. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: And CDD argued that, you know, sometimes for accessibility reasons, sometimes for shared use paths, there are different reasons why you sometimes need a wider path. For --. 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: -- heavy with pavement and hardscape. And we -- you know, parks serve all different functions, but mostly we want -- you know, 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 -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Mm-hmm. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: -- can connect. I yield. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Zusy yields the floor. Further discussion on this item?

65 VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Madam Mayor, just -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Vice Mayor? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- just to clarify what we're -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Doing two things. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- we’re voting on accepting this, and then when we get to the recommend- -- the unfavorable recommendation, we're voting yes to approve the unfavorable recommendation. Is that correct? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Defeated or accepted? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Well, he’s asking (INDISCERNIBLE 4:32:10) -- VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: I want to make sure we know what we're voting on. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- which -- 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. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Let me think for a minute. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: She’s pondering. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So, we’re taking two votes. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: We can certainly --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: We’re going to take two votes. One to place on file. But with a recommendation -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: It’s two votes. One to accept --. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: -- we're voting yes on the recommendation, the negative recommendation, correct? Okay. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: We're voting, yes. And I believe it -- and the Clerk will come back. If we vote yes, we are voting to accept the unfavorable recommendation, that would then defeat it. I believe that's the -- that was -- that's what we're supposed to do. Yes? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: And just for clarification --. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor, I just want to be sure that the Vice Chair is yielding. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes, I yield. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay. COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Just for clarification, I do believe this petition is too restrictive. So, I will vote for the unfavorable recommendation, but I just want to make it very clear that I think it's got -- in principle, I think it's right on. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Okay, very good. Thank you. Further discussion? So, the first, what we're going to take is to accept the report and place on file. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Motion. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Motion by --? MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:33:27) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Got to stop doing that. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan?

66 COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And the item is accepted and placed on file. The second vote we will take is the Committee moved to forward the Martin Bakal et al zoning petition to the full City Council with the unfavorable recommendation. And I believe from the Clerk it is a -- INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes vote, -- MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- yes vote to -- INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: -- which would defeat it. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: -- to defeat it to defeat it. Discussion? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Sneeze) INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Bless you. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: God bless you. Hearing none. Roll call. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons?

67 MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. The matter has been defeated, it's my understanding, with affirmative vote of nine members. The next item is Communications and Reports from other City Officers. VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Move to place on file. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: On a motion by the Vice Mayor to place on file, is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call, please. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And the communication is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to Late Resolutions. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: 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 Costanza. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Is there any discussion? Well, first of all, we have to suspend the rules. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Suspension, yeah. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: So, on suspension. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes.

68 INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. On the Late Resolution, relative to the -- for the Costanza family, many of you are going to know Paul Costanza works -- 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. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: And the Resolution is adopted on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to Late Policy Orders. Are there any? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: There are none. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Announcements?

69 COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: I have (INDISCERNIBLE 4:36:45). MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Real fast. Yes, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I would like to announce that we have a Human Service and Veterans Committee meeting tomorrow, 12:00 to 2:00, 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. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Announcements? Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: I just -- there's a meeting about the demolition of Riverview on Wednesday, October 22nd from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. And then on Thursday night from 6:00 to 8:00, the Cambridge Historical Society will be having a Culinary Crossroads Fundraiser, which sounds like a lot of fun. Thank you. COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes, Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes. Since it's before our next meeting, next Monday at 11:00 a.m. 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 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Other announcements? We will be having an Italian Heritage Observance this Wednesday, from 11:00 to 1:00, with a light -- light refreshments. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Light? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes, one meatball. MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: (INDISCERNIBLE 4:38:21) MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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. I also, by way of announcements, I just want us to send 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-in-law? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Her mom. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Her mom. Her mom? INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Mm-hmm. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: 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. COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Please adjourn. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: On a motion by Councillor Wilson to adjourn. Is there any discussion? Would like to talk about a curb cut? Roll call, please. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Councillor Azeem? COUNCILLOR BURHAN AZEEM: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? VICE MAYOR MARC MCGOVERN: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Nolan? COUNCILLOR PATRICIA M. NOLAN: Yes.

70 INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? COUNCILLOR SUMBUL SIDDIQUI: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? COUNCILLOR JIVAN SOBRINHO-WHEELER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Toner? COUNCILLOR PAUL F. TONER: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Wilson? COUNCILLOR AYESHA M. WILSON: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Councillor Zusy? COUNCILLOR CATHERINE ZUSY: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. Mayor Simmons? MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Yes. INTERIM CITY CLERK PAULA CRANE: Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. MAYOR E. DENISE SIMMONS: Thank you. The Meeting is adjourned. (Gavel) (The Cambridge City Council Regular Meeting adjourned at approximately 10:09 p.m.)

70

71 C E R T I F I C A T E I, Kanchan Mutreja, a transcriber for Datagain, do hereby certify: That said proceedings were listened to and transcribed by me and were prepared using standard electronic transcription equipment under my direction and supervision; and I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript of the proceedings is a full, true, and accurate transcript to the best of my ability. In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this 7th day of February 2026. Signature of Transcriber