Coming Up at the March 23, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting
Here you go:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning April 1, 2026 and ending March 31, 2027. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Deputy City Manager Kathy Watkins, Nolan, Mark Gallagher (Water Dept.), Flaherty; Orders Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)
Water & Sewer Block Rates: FY17 – FY27
Water & Sewer Rate Increases: FY17-FY27
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $900,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund and the rescission of funds from two grants in the amount of $2,000,000 and $400,000 respectively to support a new off-road bridge over the Fitchburg Rail Line. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Brooke McKenna (Transportation), Nolan; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)
“Funds will be used to support the design costs toward a new off-road bridge over the Fitchburg Rail Line that will connect Danehy Park to the Rindge Avenue neighborhood…”
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a BUEDO Review Board Appointment. [text of report]
Appointment Confirmed 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to classification of the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (BEUDO) Review Board as special municipal employees. [text of report]
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $5,234,379 from Free Cash to support snow operations. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, John Nardone (DPW), Sobrinho-Wheeler, TJ Shea (DPW), Flaherty, McGovern, Kathy Watkins, George Heinz (DHSP), Zusy, Siddiqui; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $700,000 from Free Cash to support road repairs related to snow operations. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan (taken up with Mgr #5); Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to AR26-21 regarding exploration of a potential Snow Corps program. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler (taken up with Mgr #5); Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the 2025 Town Gown Reports and Presentations discussed by the Planning Board in February. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Nolan, Melissa Peters (CDD), Al-Zubi, City Manager Yi-An Huang; Placed on File 9-0
Order #2. City Council support of H.91 and S.2556, An Act to modernize funding for community media programming. Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Flaherty
pulled by McGovern for comments; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department and the Transportation Department to meet with Harvard’s Office of Community Relations and the Longwood Collective (MASCO) to harmonize institutional bus protocols with public-facing commitments. Councillor Al-Zubi, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct relevant City departments and staff to examine and report back on whether the city can require single-stall public bathrooms to be gender-neutral. Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Al-Zubi, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem [attachment]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern (w/amendments), Flaherty, Zusy, Nolan, Siddiqui; Amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
On The Table #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to raise the fee of the parking permit program for all residents to $75, consider how to include a self-identified check off option so as not to increase administrative costs for a subsidized fee of $25 for residents who live in affordable housing, are enrolled in a program such as SNAP or are low income, remove the senior exemption for the residential parking permit program and lower the number of cars that individual residents are allowed to get a residential parking permit for from four to two. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 9, 2026; Tabled Mar 2, 2026] (PO26#32)
No Action Taken
There seemed to be some movement three weeks ago toward not eliminating the senior exemption – before Mayor Siddiqui intervened by tabling the matter so that any possible amendments could instead be discussed out of public view. We could also use a more honest accounting of the actual costs of administering the permit parking program. As someone comment at last week’s meeting, the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) charges a registration fee of $50 every two years. How can the City’s Department of Congestion, Obstruction, and Aggravation (a.k.a. Transportation Department) justify triple that cost? Why can’t the fact that a motor vehicle is registered to a Cambridge address suffice? We do, after all, have access to the RMV database. Why must renewal be done every year rather than every two years?
Unfinished Business #2. Amend section 4.50 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance as follows with the intent of permitting the use of land for the following purposes as-of-right in all zoning districts: religious purposes; educational purposes on land owned or leased by the Commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; and for a child care center, school-aged child care program, family child care home, or large family child care home as defined in section 1a of Chapter 15d of Massachusetts General Laws. [Passed to 2nd Reading Mar 2, 2026; may be ordained on or after Mar 23, 2026] (ORD26#1)
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan; Ordained 8-1 (Flaherty – No)
Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Feb 25, 2026 to receive a status update on Federal Grants (including ARPA) and the Federal Grant Stabilization Fund, as well as a discussion on establishing future Budget Priorities. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Late Order #5. Support A Federal Earmark to Take Plans for the Boston-Cambridge Riverwalk Construction at Science Park to 25% Design. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Nolan (PO26#63)
Comments by Zusy, Flaherty, Nolan; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
After several mild winters, we’re getting a taste this week of what we’ve been missing. Having migrated to Cambridge 48 years ago as soon as the roads were reopened after the Blizzard of ’78, this is for me a mixture of nostalgia and terror. That said, life goes on at City Hall and the Peoples Republic of Cambridge. There’s even a new system for public meeting notices (complete with the expected glitches). Here’s what’s on tap this week:
In Cambridge we like to tout our Proportional Representation (PR) election system as superior to other systems, and in many ways this is true. There is one question, however, that has been nagging at me for some time: “Proportional to what?” During the heyday of Cambridge rent control, it was pretty clearly the case that the City Council was in a similar proportion to the tenant-dominated electorate and that many, perhaps most, voters at that time were guided by that one dominant issue before considering any other issues or candidate traits. After the demise of rent control after Question 9 in 1994, the dominance of the rent control issue faded quickly and we entered a prolonged period where individual personalities and legacy affiliations guided local electoral choices. The notion of proportionality became more of a relic than anything else. In recent years, we have seen the rise of single-issue politics (density, subsidized housing, bike lanes, preservation), but identity politics is as much of a factor as any polarized issue. The question of “Proportional to what?” could not be muddier. What I find most aggravating is how single-issue advocates quote municipal election results to argue why their single issue is somehow reflective of the will of the electorate. There are so many confounding factors involved in voter choice that it is simply never valid to draw conclusions on issues that were not explicitly on the ballot.
This week’s agenda is dominated by several City Council Orders meant to address (or navigate around) the contentious issue of whether the proposed separated bicycle lanes, removal of most of the existing parking, and loss of curb access should proceed on Broadway as currently mandated by the Cycling Safety Ordinance. This is not really a matter of safety so much as political clout. Some straightforward analysis using the current registered voter list indicates that those who want the street reconfiguration to proceed as planned are approximately 25 years younger than those who have signed the petition opposing the reconfiguration. It is also anecdotally clear that there is also a large gap in socioeconomic status. Basically, young professionals are well-represented among those wanting to remove the parking, and those in opposition include far more seniors, people with mobility issues, and people who need their motor vehicles for work and chores.
