[00:00:04]
UH, WE'RE GONNA CALL TODAY'S TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER THE CALL.
TODAY'S MEETING IS TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM, THE ASSOCIATED COSTS AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROGRAM, THE SERVICES IT PROVIDES IN THE GENERAL USE OF THE PUBLIC WAYS IN CAMBRIDGE.
THE HEARING WILL ALSO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF THE POLICY ORDER PASSED AT THE MARCH 30TH, 2026, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, UH, POLICY ORDER 2026 DASH 32.
THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS A ROLL CALL OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT, VICE MAYOR ZI.
PRESENT, PRESENT, COUNCILOR FLAHERTY.
YOU HAVE FOUR MEMBERS RECORDED AS PRESENT AND ONE RECORDED AS ABSENT.
COUNCIL? NO, HE'S NOT ON THE COMMITTEE.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER TWO OF THE ACTS OF 2025, ADOPTED BY MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, AND THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO USE REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.
PLEASE NOTE THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDS.
THIS MEETING MAKES IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR FUTURE VIEWING.
THIRD PARTIES MAY ALSO AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORD, UH, THIS MEETING.
IN ADDITION TO HAVING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY, WE HAVE ALSO SET UP ZOOM TELECONFERENCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE VISIT THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION OF THE CITY WEBPAGE.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED SIGNUP PROCEDURE, YOU'LL RECEIVE A LINK TO THE ZOOM MEETING.
TO WATCH THE MEETING, PLEASE TUNE INTO CHANNEL 22 OR VISIT THE OPEN MEETING PORTAL ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
WITH THAT, UH, ALL OF TODAY'S VOTES, IF ANY, WILL BE BY ROLL CALL.
UH, THE ORDER OF THE MEETING WILL BE STAFF PRESENTATION, FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.
UH, WITH THAT, WE'VE GOT, UH, MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FROM THE CITY HERE TODAY, INCLUDING COMMISSIONER, UH, BROOKE MCKENNA.
AND, UH, I'D LIKE STAFF JUST TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND PLEASE BEGIN THE PRESENTATION.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
I'LL JUST START WITH HAVING STAFF INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
STEPHANIE MCAULIFFE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR PARKING MANAGEMENT.
JEFF PARENT, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR STREET MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
AND I'M BROOKE MCKENNA, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER.
UM, WE CAN GET STARTED WITH THE POWERPOINT.
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RESIDENT PARKING PER PERMIT PROGRAM, UM, AND THE PROPOSED 70 INCREASE TO $75 WITH A, UH, SELF-IDENTIFIED OPTION FOR $25 AS WELL.
UM, GOING BACK TO THE START OF THE PROGRAM, THE COST OF A PERMIT WAS $4 A YEAR, AND IT STAYED THAT WAY FOR QUITE A WHILE UNTIL IT WENT UP TO $8 IN 1992.
IN 2011, UM, IT WAS INCREASED TO $20, UH, PERMIT.
AND I BELIEVE AT THAT TIME IT WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED TO DO A, AN INCREASE OF, UH, TO $20 AND THEN TWO YEARS LATER TO 25.
SO THAT BRINGS US TO WHERE WE HAVE BEEN NOW SINCE 2013.
UM, AND AS I MENTIONED, THE PLAN CHANGES FOR THE UPCOMING 2027 RENEWAL SEASON, WHICH WILL START DECEMBER 1ST OF NEXT YEAR.
UM, THE STANDARD COST FOR A PERMIT WILL BE $75 WITH AN OPTION TO PAY $25.
UM, UH, JUST USING A CHECKOFF BOX ON THE APPLICATION ONLINE OR IN PERSON IF PAYING $75 IS A FINANCIAL BURDEN.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF A PERMIT IS MEANT TO COVER THE COST OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM.
UM, SO WHAT WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING WHAT THOSE COSTS WERE, WERE THE DIRECT COSTS FOR THE PROGRAM, WHICH ARE THINGS LIKE PRINTING OUT THE ACTUAL PERMITS, PRINTING OUT THE, UM, ALL OF THE MAILINGS, THE, UM, MATERIALS, UH, THE BROCHURE THAT WE GIVE OUT.
AND THAT CAME TO, UH, JUST OVER $52,000 LAST YEAR.
UM, THE SYSTEM'S COST IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE COST ITSELF.
[00:05:01]
THE PARKING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT WE USE FOR ALL OF OUR PARKING MANAGEMENT.SO THAT'S THE RESIDENT PARKING PROGRAM, AS WELL AS OUR ENFORCEMENT TICKET, UM, ADJUDICATION AND EVERYTHING RELATED TO PAYING PARKING TICKETS SO THAT THERE IS A FULL COST FOR THAT.
AND THEN WE'VE ALLOCATED A PORTION OF THOSE COSTS TO THE RPP PROGRAM, WHICH IS THE 3 54 THAT YOU SEE HERE.
AND THEN FINALLY, THE LARGEST COST IS OUR STAFF COSTS.
SO THESE, WE CONSIDER FULLY LOADED COSTS, WHICH INCLUDES SALARY, BENEFITS, AND PENSION.
AND AGAIN, FOR EACH PERSON WHO'S INVOLVED IN THE PRO IN THE PROGRAM, WE ALLOCATE A A PERCENTAGE TOWARDS THE RPP PROGRAM.
UM, SO AS I MENTIONED, MOST OF THE STAFF WHO WORK ON THE RESIDENT PARKING PROGRAM ALSO SUPPORT OTHER WORK IN THE DEPARTMENT.
SO FOR EACH POSITION THAT SUPPORTS THE RESIDENT PARKING PROGRAM, WE ALLOCATE A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR EFFORT TO, UH, RESIDENT PARKING.
AND THEN ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED ARE THEN, UM, ALLOCATED ACCORDING TO THAT PERCENTAGE.
SO IT MIGHT BE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE FOR A CASHIER WHO PRIMARILY WORKS ON THIS OR A MUCH LOWER PERCENTAGE FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES JUST A LITTLE BIT OF WORK ON THE PROGRAM.
SO, INCLUDED IN THAT WORK IS OUR PARKING SERVICES UNIT, WHICH IS INCLUDES MANAGERS, CASHIERS, SUPPORT STAFF, AND THE TEMPORARY STAFF THAT WE BRING ON EACH YEAR.
UH, WE BRING ON THREE CLEA, SEASONAL CLERICAL STAFF.
UH, THIS YEAR THEY WORKED FOR 15 WEEKS AT A COST OF $32,000, AND THEY DO SOLELY WORK ON THE RESIDENT PARKING PROGRAM.
UH, IN OUR PARKING ENFORCEMENT UNIT, WE HAVE MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS, OFFICERS AND SUPPORT STAFF WHO WRITE RESIDENT PARKING STICKERS THAT SUPPORT THE PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING.
AGAIN, MANAGER SUPERVISORS, TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE, WORKERS, ENGINEERS, TECHNICIANS AND PERMITTING FOLKS WHO WORK ON, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE ERRORS ARE ASSIGNED AND THOSE SIGNS ARE MAINTAINED.
AND THEN IN, IN ADMINISTRATION, WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM OUR COMMUNICATIONS STAFF, LEADERSHIP, FINANCE, AND HUMAN RESOURCES.
GOING BACK TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM.
AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS A SYSTEM THAT MANAGES EVERYTHING WE DO RELATED TO PARKING IN THE CITY.
AND SO THAT IS AT A SIGNIFICANT COST EACH YEAR.
UM, 1.3 MILLION IS OUR ESTIMATE FOR THIS YEAR THROUGH THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
UM, AND THE WAY WE ALLOCATE THE COST OF THIS SYSTEM IS WE SPREAD THOSE COSTS ACROSS THE 50 USERS OF THE SYSTEM, AND THEN FROM THERE, WE ALLOCATE BASED ON THAT PERCENTAGE OF EFFORT THAT, UH, WE'VE ALLOCATED TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON.
UM, WE HAD SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT ANNUAL PARKING VIOLATION REVENUE LAST YEAR IN FISCAL 25.
IT WAS, UH, JUST 11 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS LAST YEAR.
THAT SAME YEAR WE ISSUED, WELL, THAT CALENDAR YEAR 25, WE ISSUED 278,000 TICKETS.
OF THAT 38,000 WERE RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT TICKETS, WHICH WAS 13.9%.
UH, THE AVERAGE COST OF A VIOLATION IS 42 82 AND APPROXIMATELY 43 TICKETS PER, UH, PARKING CONTROL OFFICER PER SHIFT.
AND THOSE WERE ALL SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD GOTTEN IN ADVANCE.
UM, SO WE ALSO HAVE THE QUESTION ABOUT THE EMERSON TEST.
SO THE EMERSON TEST, UM, BASICALLY SAYS THAT IN ORDER FOR, UH, AND I, I, I WILL TAKE LIBERALLY FROM, FROM MEGAN, UH, THE CITY SOLICITOR'S RESPONSE HERE, BECAUSE I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY MYSELF.
BUT APPLYING THE EMERSON COLLEGE TEST TO THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT FEES, THE COURTS WOULD LIKELY FIND THE CURRENT FEES CHARGED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS VALID.
THE FEES ARE CHARGED IN EXCHANGE FOR A PARTICULAR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE, RESIDENTIAL PARKING, REGISTRATION, AND STICKERS FOR THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY, IT'S PUBLIC WAYS FOR PARKING, WHICH ONLY BENEFITS THE PARTY PAYING FOR THE SERVICE AND IS NOT SHARED BY OTHERS.
RESIDENTS HAVE THE OPTION OF NOT UTILIZING THE SERVICE IF THEY SO DESIRE.
FINALLY, THE FEE CURRENTLY CHARGED IS NOT COLLECTED TO GENERALLY RAISE REVENUE, BUT TO COMPENSATE THE CITY FOR PROVIDING THE SERVICE AND MANAGING THE EXPENSES RELATED TO IT.
UM, SO AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE EMERSON TEST, UM, THE TOTAL REVENUE THAT WILL COME IN FROM THE INCREASE, IF WE ASSUME THAT 0% OF PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE REDUCED FEES, STILL BRINGS IN LESS REVENUE THAN THE COST OF THE PROGRAM, AND THAT WILL LIKELY BE SIGNIFICANT LOWER.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A VERY GOOD IDEA YET OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LOWER
[00:10:01]
COST PERMITS, BUT I IMAGINE IT WILL BE SIGNIFICANT.UM, SO WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT WE PASS THE EMERSON TEST.
SO, A SECOND ISSUE THAT IS, UH, HAS BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL WAS, UH, BOTH THIS YEAR AND IN PRIOR YEARS, WAS ABOUT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN HAVE.
PRIOR TO 2024, THERE WAS NO LIMIT.
AND WE DID HAVE SOME OUTLIERS, UH, FOLKS WHO HAD A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF RESIDENT PARKING STICKERS.
WE HAD A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WERE PARKING UPWARDS OF, YOU KNOW, 10 TO 15 CARS ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND WE HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THAT FROM NEIGHBORS.
SO WE DID PUT, UM, AS A FIRST STEP IN 2024, WE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF PERMITS TO FOUR.
SO THAT WAS A PRETTY HIGH NUMBER.
SO THERE WERE ONLY 20 PEOPLE IMPACTED IN 2023 DISCUSSIONS THIS YEAR.
THE COUNCIL WAS INTERESTED IN LOWERING THAT LIMIT TO, UH, TWO PERMITS PER PERSON.
UM, SO AT THIS POINT, UM, THAT WILL IMPACT, AS YOU CAN SEE, ABOUT 392 PEOPLE, IF I'M DOING MY MATH IN MY HEAD QUICKLY.
UM, SO ANYONE WHO HAD FOUR MORE PERMITS, THREE PERMITS, UH, WILL HAVE TO GO DOWN TO TWO.
SO WE INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION ABOUT THAT TWO PERMIT LIMIT IN ALL OF THE RESIDENT PARKING RENEWAL MATERIALS THAT GO OUT.
UM, BUT WE TAKE THE, UH, ANOTHER STEP AND WE IDENTIFY THOSE 392 PEOPLE WHO WILL BE IMPACTED, AND WE SEND THEM A LETTER IN ADVANCE.
AND THAT'S TO GIVE FOLKS TIME TO MAKE WHATEVER ADJUSTMENTS, UM, THEY HAVE TO HAVE.
I THINK WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHO THE, WHO FOLKS ARE, WHO ARE, WHO HAVE, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE PERMITS UNDER THE SAME NAME, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE DOING THINGS LIKE RUNNING A, UM, YOU KNOW, A CAR, A PEER-TO-PEER CAR RENTAL OUT OF THEIR, YOU KNOW, ON THE CITY STREETS.
AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.
BUT THERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE WHO MAY BE IN MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOMES WHO HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE LIVING THERE AND HA AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD THOSE REGISTERED UNDER ONE, UM, PERSON'S NAME.
SO THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE, UM, TO CHANGE THAT AROUND WITH THESE NEW LIMITS.
SO I THINK IT'S NOT AN INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM FOR MOST PEOPLE, UM, BUT IT IS A GOOD WAY TO KIND OF KEEP THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS IN LINE WITH THE CITY GOALS.
UH, THIS WAS ANOTHER QUESTION WE HAD.
THIS IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE AVERAGE SALARY RANGES IN OUR ENFORCEMENT UNIT, IN OUR PARKING SERVICES UNIT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT MAY BE THE LAST SLIDE.
SO WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS, COMMENT, WE'RE GONNA OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT, OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND NAOMI, OH, NAOMI, COULD YOU PLEASE, OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DENISE BELOT.
DENISE, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I'M A LIFELONG CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT, AND I'VE LIVED AT 43 HARING STREET FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
I DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF A DRIVEWAY AND THEREFORE HAVE TO PARK ON CITY STREETS.
I AM OPPOSED TO ANY PRICE INCREASE OF RESIDENT PARKING PERMITS FOR ALL RESIDENTS, BUT ESPECIALLY SENIOR CITIZENS AND VETERANS.
60% OF PARKING SPACES ARE BEING ELIMINATED ON CAMBRIDGE STREET ALONE TO BUILD BIKE LANES.
THIS WILL DEFINITELY INCREASE THE NEED FOR PARKING ON THE SIDE STREETS.
IN ADDITION, THE CHANGES IN ZONING LAWS THAT DON'T REQUIRE PARKING FOR NEW BUILDINGS WILL ALSO ADD TO THE NEED FOR MORE ON STREET PARKING.
IT IS AB, IT ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO CHARGE MORE MONEY FOR PARKING.
NOW, WHEN THERE ARE LESS PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE.
SENIOR CITIZENS ARE ON FIXED INCOMES AND DON'T NEED THE ADDED BURDEN OF PAYING FOR PARKING PERMITS WHEN THEY ALREADY HAVE TO PAY EXCISE TAX.
AND INSURANCE RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP OR SHOW PROOF OF INCOME TO PARK THEIR CARS WHERE THEY LIVE.
PLEASE CONSIDER CHARGING, CHANGING ANY INCREASE IN PARKING PERMITS FOR ALL CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS, SENIOR CITIZENS AND VETERANS SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM ANY PAYMENT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MAUREEN FOLEY, FOLLOWED BY JOCELYN BERG SARRAJ.
SORRY, MAUREEN, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
[00:15:01]
I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF CAMBRIDGE, AND PRESENTLY LIVED AT 1 0 3 GORE STREET.I WAS APPALLED AND DISAPPOINTED TO LEARN THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO INCLUDE SENIORS TO INCLUDE SENIORS IN THE $75 PARKING PERMIT INCREASE FOR 2027.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, SENIORS ARE ON A FIXED INCOME, AND THIS INCREASE PUTS ANOTHER STRAIN ON THEIR BUDGET.
THE LIFELONG SENIORS OF CAMBRIDGE HAVE PAID FOR THEIR PARKING PERMITS UNTIL AGE 65, AND THEN THEY WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE AN EXEMPTION.
NOW THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THEM.
THE CITY KEEPS ON INCREASING THEIR BUDGETS ON BIKE LANES IN MANY OTHER CAUSES, AND THEN HAS THE NERVE TO TAKE AWAY THE LITTLE THEY PROVIDE TO SENIORS.
PLEASE AMEND THE 2027 PARKING PERMIT INCREASE TO EXCLUDE SENIOR CITIZENS, NOT A REDUCED RATE OF $25, AND NOT HAVING TO PROVE A HARDSHIP.
SO BARAGE, I BELIEVE IS SIGNED UP FOR THE WRONG MEETING.
WE'RE GONNA GO TO LAWRENCE ATKINS, FOLLOWED BY MALIK IBAN, THEN CARL GRAHAM.
LAWRENCE, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE.
I, I AM AS THE SAME APPALLED BY THIS ACTION, WHETHER IT BE THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING DEPARTMENT, SIMPLY JUST NOT SIMPLY AS A SENIOR CITIZEN, FINALLY GRACED TO BE HERE AND FIFTH GENERATION TO EVEN HEAR THE IDEA THAT THIS THING IS GOING TO ESCALATE TO $75.
AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY CLEAR DISTINCTION OF WHY, SIR, THESE INFORMATION PROVIDED TODAY.
I UNDERSTAND STATISTICS FRONTWARDS AND BACKWARDS, AND THEY'RE ALL DESIGNED TO REPRESENT WHAT'S WANT TO BE DONE HERE IS INCREASED.
THEY DO NOT PROVIDE TO THE REGULAR CITIZEN IN CAMBRIDGE TO RATIONALE FOR THE INCREASE.
THESE ARE EXCUSES TO GET WHERE YOU WANT TO GO.
I HAVE YET SEEN FROM 2020 OF WHAT THE ACTUAL ACTIVITY WAS THEN IN THE CITY TO NOW TO INCLUDE THE FACT THAT, THAT WE'VE GOT BIKE LANES THAT THE CITY NOW IS TRYING TO COVER ITS EXPENSE.
AND THERE'S BEEN NOTHING SAID OF GENERATING ANYTHING FROM BIKERS TO BE IN THESE LANES OR EVEN HAVING THEIR PARKING FACILITY OF PAYING THE BIKES ON THE STREET.
BUT YET STILL REGULAR CAMP BRIDGES WOULD BIKE.
THEY GOTTA PAY TAX, EXCISE TAX ON A REGULAR.
LISTEN, A SENIOR CITIZEN HAS DONE ITS TIME IN THIS CITY UP AND DOWN THE PATHWAY.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO GIVE THEM ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED.
AND THIS RIDICULOUS THAT THEY NEED TO PROVE WHY THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP.
I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY, FOR THOSE WHO US WHO HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, WE HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH MANY PROGRAMS THAT HAVE NOT COME TO OUR COMMISSION, BUT WE'VE PAID FOR IT.
AND NOW BECAUSE OF THIS NEW ESCALATION THAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY, LISTEN, LET THOSE CITY COUNSELORS WHO HAVE ONE THING IN MIND OF REMOVING CARS FROM THE CITY, SAY IT FROM THE BEGINNING.
LET'S NOT PICK AT THE FUR FIBER OF THE CITY ONE THIRD AT A TIME.
SAY THAT THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU'RE MOTIVATED TO DO.
NOT THIS INDIVIDUAL HARDSHIP OF HAVING A CAR BY INCREASING PAY ALL THE TIME, TAKING AWAY ALL THE PARKING SPACES AND MAKING FOLKS RECLUSE THEMSELVES TO BE AT HOME ON THEIR STREET IN A SINGLE PARKING LOT IF THEY HAVE ONE TO HAVE.
BUT THIS IS THE BACK DOOR TO THAT EFFORT.
SO WE AS RESIDENTS, WHEN IT COME VOTING TIME, WE KNOW WHO'S IN AND WHO'S OFF.
AND ANY COUNSELOR WHO HAVE ALREADY DECLARED THAT SENIOR CITIZENS DON'T NEED ANY TYPE OF DISCOUNT AND THEY SHOULDN'T GET IT, PLEASE PUT THAT ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR CAMPAIGN SLOGAN SO THAT WE CAN REMEMBER YOU ELECTION DAY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MALIK BIN, FOLLOWED BY CARL GRAHAM.
[00:20:02]
HI.I BEEN LIVING IN CAMBRIDGE THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE.
MY MOTHER SERVED AS A CITY COUNSELOR UP HERE.
I'M PRETTY SURE ALL YOU ALL KNOW HER.
AND IF SHE WAS LIVING TODAY, YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD, YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE PRIVILEGE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS TO HAVE FREE PARKING.
I'M 67, SO I KNOW I'VE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME TO BE ABLE TO GET FREE PARKING IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
OKAY? I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PAY RATE, ABOUT THE HIKE FOR THE $75.
AS LONG AS YOU KEEP IT OUT OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS' HANDS, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY A DIME.
ALL YOU ALL ARE GONNA BE SENIOR CITIZENS SOON, AND IT'S GONNA AFFECT YOU TOO.
IT MIGHT NOT SEEM LIKE A LOT, BUT IT WILL BE.
AND WHOEVER CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA TO CHARGE SENIOR CITIZENS PARKING IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, UH, I DON'T WANT TO SAY HOW THEY SHOULD BE TREATED, BUT
SO WHOEVER HAD THIS PLAN, THEY NEED TO RETHINK IT AND DO IT SOON.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RANDY BROOKS, FOLLOWED BY VALERIE BONDS.
RANDY, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
RANDY BROOKS, UH, I LIVE AT 1 55 WESTERN NAV CAMBRIDGE HERE.
UM, LIKE KYLE, MY COUSIN, I DO KNOW IF SANDRA WAS HERE, THE HELL WOULD BE, HELL WOULD BE PAID RIGHT NOW.
HOWEVER, WE'RE THE NEXT GENERATION TO COME UP AND THEN VOICE OUR OPINIONS ON WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND, UH, LIKE LAWRENCE SAID, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE CHANGES IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR MOST OF THEIR LIVES.
JUST PEOPLE THAT COME IN AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE HERE FOR A SHORT TIME NOW, THEY GET IN CERTAIN POSITIONS AND THEY WANT TO DICTATE WHAT'S WHAT, WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AND NO MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY HAS A VOICE IN WHAT'S BEING SAID.
UM, AS FAR AS THIS MEETING BEING DESIGNATED FOR THREE O'CLOCK SLOT, WHERE NOBODY HERE, UM, NOBODY OF, OF ANY, UH, OF THE RESIDENTS COULD ACTUALLY MAKE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY AT WORK RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY HAVE A NINE TO FIVE.
SO I AM TOTALLY AGAINST WHAT'S GOING ON.
I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THE HIKE FOR SENIOR SENIOR DISTANCE BEING A SENIOR CITIZEN MYSELF.
AND, UH, SURPRISED AT 65 WHEN I DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO GET MY PERMIT.
UM, I'M TOTALLY AGAINST WHAT'S GOING ON.
UH, I THINK THAT IF THE CITY NEEDS TO DESIGN OR, OR, OR TO CREATE MORE REVENUE, UM, I HEARD AN IDEA OF MAYBE LICENSING ALL THESE BICYCLES THAT USED TO BE LICENSED IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
THERE ARE 10,000 MORE BICYCLES THAN VEHICLES IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
PEOPLE WHO OWN A BIKE HAVE 'EM GET A LICENSE PLATE LIKE THEY USED TO WHEN I WAS A KID.
OKAY, CHARGE $10 FOR A LICENSE PLATE, HAVE 'EM REGISTERED, MAKE SURE THE POLICE ARE MAKING THEM FOLLOW THE, THE, THE, THE RULES OF LAW FOR TRAFFIC, OKAY? AS WELL AS THESE DOORDASH PEOPLE ON THESE, UH, MOTOR SCOOTERS.
SO ONCE AGAIN, UM, IF I HAD MY WAY, UM, THIS DISCUSSION WOULD BE DONE RIGHT NOW, AND, YOU KNOW, SENIOR CITIZENS, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED FOR WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, THE TAXES THAT WE'VE PAID, UH, THE PROPERTY THAT WE'VE MAINTAINED TO KEEP NICE FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND ALL.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS VALERIE BONDS, FOLLOWED BY DENISE HAYNES, THEN SHAYLA HEDLEY BURWELL.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR SIDIKI AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I AM DISMAYED AND DISAPPOINTED BY ONCE AGAIN, THE DISRESPECT AND DISREGARD THAT IS DESIGNATED TO ONE DEMOGRAPHIC IN OUR CITY.
SENIORS WHO OWN CARS, PAY EXCISE TAX, SENIORS PAY PROPERTY TAX, SENIORS PAY SALES TAX, AND MANY OF THE TAXES THAT WE
[00:25:01]
PAY DO NOT ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED.THE SENIOR FEE EXEMPTION WAS THERE IN ONE WAY OF RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THOSE OF US WHO ARE 6 65, 75, 85, 95 AND GREATER HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS CITY, WHICH WELCOME MANY OF YOU WHO SIT ON OUR CITY COUNCIL, WHO MOVED TO OUR CITY BECAUSE OF THE FOUNDATION THAT WAS LAID BY THE VERY PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE NOW TREATING.
WITH SO MUCH DISREGARD AND DISMAY, I WOULD LIKE TO CONCENTRATE ON A STRAIGHTFORWARD CONCEPT, A MODEST POLICY ADJUSTMENT WITH SUBSTANTIAL HUMAN IMPLICATIONS.
THIS ENCAPSULATES THE ESSENCE OF A SENIOR POCKET PLUS ASSETS.
FIRSTLY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT MOST SENIORS DO NOT POSSESS SIGNIFICANT WEALTH, AND THOSE WHO DO PAY SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THAT WEALTH IN TAXES, SENIORS TYPICALLY SUBSIST ON FIXED INCOME AND LOW INCOME, WHICH ARE TWO DISTINCT SOURCES OF INCOME IN OUR CITY.
WE MANAGE EXPENSES SUCH AS INCREASING RENT, MEDICATION, HEALTHCARE, GROCERIES, AND COSTS OF EVEN ENTERTAINMENT POLICIES AVAILABLE SUCH AS YOURSELVES, THAT CATERS TO A SMALL SUBSET OF HIGHER INCOME SENIORS, RISK ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE MAJORITY WHO ARE MERELY MAKING ENDS MEET.
THE MAJORITY OF THE SENIORS IN THIS COMMUNITY ARE NOT WEALTHY, AND WEALTH SHOULD NOT BE A REASON
THE 10,000 VOTING SENIORS IN THIS CITY WILL CERTAINLY REMEMBER HOW THIS IMPACT WILL AFFECT US, THE MOST LARGEST VOTING CONSTITUENCY IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
THERE ARE 44,000 VEHICLES OWNED BY MANY PEOPLE IN OUR CITY.
AND THE EXCISE TAX YOU GET A LOAN FROM THAT DEPENDS ON THE VA, THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE.
WHILE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES INVOLVED ARE RELATIVELY MODEST, THE REPERCUSSIONS ON DAILY LIFE ARE CONSIDERABLE.
MANY OF YOU DO NOT WALK IN OUR SHOES.
THE TRADE-OFF INVOLVES A MINOR FISCAL BENEFIT AGAINST REDUCED ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL SERVICES, SUCH AS MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS, CAREGIVING, AND VALERIE CAREGIVER, VALERIE, VALERIE, I'M SORRY, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
PLEASE EMAIL THE REMAINDER OF YOUR COMMENT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DENISE HAYNES.
UM, I'M JUST GONNA ECHO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID THAT, UM, RAISING THE PRICE ON SENIORS, IT'S REALLY JUST, IT'S PITIFUL.
IT'S A PITIFUL THOUGHT, BUT LET'S GO BACK TO THE NUMBERS.
UM, WE'VE ONLY, WE'RE ONLY SEEING NUMBERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025.
IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE HAD SEEN THAT THE NUMBER OF REVENUE BROUGHT IN BY THE PARKING PROGRAM FROM 2022.
JUST WHAT WAS PRESENTED HERE IS SAYING THAT YOU'RE INCREASING THIS FEE, BUT IS IT BASED ON AN INFORMATION SYSTEM? THAT MEANS SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH YOUR LICENSES OR SOMETHING FOR THE COST? THE REVENUES ALSO DO NOT INCLUDE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE PILOT PROGRAM.
WITH TICKETING AND TOWING, WE DON'T EVEN DO THAT ANYMORE.
WHAT'S THE FEE FOR TOWING? WHAT'S THE FEE FOR TICKETING? THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN PAY THAT.
THEY JUST WANNA SIT, LEAVE THEIR CAR OUT, 150, A HUNDRED AND $200 FEE, USE YOUR FEES THAT WAY.
THERE'S ALSO EPASS, WE SAY PART OF THIS PROGRAM, THE COSTS, UH, WHAT, 52,000, WHICH I ESTIMATED IS WHAT? $133 IF YOU'RE INCLUDING YOUR PERSONNEL, PRINTING, ET CETERA, FOR THE COST, GO TO EZPASS.
EZPASS SAYS IT COST THEM 37 CENTS A STICKER, $7 FOR EACH PERSON TO BUY A PASS.
THAT'S A PROGRAM RUNNING FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE, MAINE, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO PENNSYLVANIA.
THERE HAS TO BE A DIFFERENT WAY.
INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT TAXING, THIS IS A TAX, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS AN AUTOMOBILE TAX, RIGHT? THE, THE, THE IMPETUS FOR THE CITY IS TO STOP HAVING SO MANY AUTOMOBILES, BUT SENIORS NEED VEHICLES.
PEOPLE WHO ARE PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED NEED VEHICLES LOOK AT ANOTHER WAY OF BEING OPERATIONALLY, FISCALLY SOUND.
THE LAST THING I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE DIRECT COSTS, YOU'VE INCLUDED SYSTEM AS WELL AS STAFFING COSTS.
MAYBE LOOK AT YOUR STAFFING COSTS, BUT TO SAY YOU'RE GONNA INCREASE A PARKING PERMIT, WHICH OTHER PEOPLE HAVE STATED, THE TAXES COME FROM EXCISE TAX, PROPERTY TAX.
[00:30:01]
OF THESE FEES ARE ACTUALLY BUILDING OUT THESE BIKE LANES AND BUILDING OUT THE ROADS TO MAKE THE ROADS BETTER.WE HAVE TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO THIS.
THE NUMBERS ARE NOT TELLING THE WHOLE STORY.
IT'D BE GREAT IF WE CAN SEE THE NUMBERS FROM A FEW YEARS BACK.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SHEILA HEDLEY BURWELL, FOLLOWED BY CYNTHIA HAYNES, THEN MICHELLE MALTI.
SHEILA, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
MY NAME IS SHEILA HEDLEY BURWELL, AND I'VE LIVED IN THE CITY ALL MY LIFE.
AND, UM, I FIND THIS APPALLING AS WELL.
AND I'M SURE THAT SOME OF THOSE WHO PROPOSED IT, UM, SHOULD BE IN THE SAME MIND FRAME.
THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTING A LOT OF IDEAS IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, AND ONE AMONG MANY OTHERS, THAT IS VERY UPSETTING IS THE PROPOSED LIMITATION OF THE AMOUNT AND THE INCREASE COST OF THE PARKING PERMITS.
THE CITY HAS ALLOWED FOR RECONFIGURATION OF STREETS FOR BIKE LANES, YET HASN'T CONSIDERED FINDING A WAY TO COMPENSATE THE COST.
EXCISE TAX, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CHARGED TAXES TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS COST.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO THINK ABOUT HOW BICYCLING SHOULD CONTRIBUTE THE PILOT OPERATION OF STREET CLEANING? NOW PERMANENT HAS REMOVED REVENUE, AND THE CITY HAS A GREAT NEGLECT, A GREAT NEGLECT OF ISSUING THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS TICKETS.
WE HAVE PITCHES OF CARS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TICKETED WHEN STREET CLEANING HAS COME.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE POWER, UH, BLOW, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE BLOWERS, THE LEAF BLOWERS THAT'S SUPPOSED TO COME BEHIND THE CARS THAT ARE LEFT THAT NEVER COME.
AND SO THE LEAVES GO INTO THE DRAIN AND YOU JUST KEEP PUTTING UNNECESSARY COST ON THE CITY.
SO WHOEVER'S IDEA THAT WAS, THAT'S ANOTHER FAILURE.
UM, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BETTER CONVERSATION ON HOW TO RECOUP REVENUE OTHER THAN HOLDING THE SENIORS.
TAXPAYERS AND EXCISE, UH, EXCISE TAXPAYER IS RESPONSIBLE.
THIS IS AN INSULT TO OUR INTELLIGENCE.
THE EXEMPTION PROGRAM FOR SENIORS NEEDS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED.
A PARKING PERMIT SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN AN INSPECTION STICKER.
AND FOUR IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF, OF, UM, PERMITS.
NOW, I MAY HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING BECAUSE IT MAY BE FOUR PER NAME VERSUS FOUR PER HOUSEHOLD.
I'LL GIVE YOU, YOU KNOW, AN OKAY ON THAT ONE, BUT THE REST OF IT HAS TO GO.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CYNTHIA HAYNES, FOLLOWED BY MICHELLE MALTI.
CYNTHIA, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HI, MY NAME IS CYNTHIA HAYNES, 5 6 1 PUTNAM AVE.
I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF CAMBRIDGE FOR OVER 50 YEARS.
IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION ON FOCUSING ON VISITOR PERMITS? UH, NEIGHBORS HAVE USED THEIR VISITOR PERMITS HOPPING FROM STREET TO STREET AND HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED FOR THOSE PERMITS.
I DON'T FREQUENTLY USE MY PERMIT, AND, UM, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MICHELLE MALTI, FOLLOWED BY HEATHER HOFFMAN, THEN GLENNA WYMAN.
I NOTICE THERE'S A LOT OF EMPTY SEATS HERE TODAY.
UM, THIS BEING DONE AT THREE O'CLOCK DOES PUT A BURDEN ON SHORE ON HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAD SHOWING UP AND PARTICIPATED IN THIS.
I'M A MEMBER OF MASS SENIOR OF ACTION COUNCIL, AND, UM, TO TRY TO RAISE THE FEE AND TO GO AFTER SENIORS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE FEW OF US THAT ARE, UM, NATIVES OF THE CITY LIKE MYSELF, AND WE HELPED PAVE THESE STREETS.
WE MADE THE CITY WHAT IT WAS, AND NOW WE'RE BEING LEFT BEHIND.
AND A LOT OF TIMES, WHEN IT'S TIME TO VOTE, PEOPLE WANNA GET IN THE ROOMS WITH US AND THEY WANNA TALK ABOUT US AND THEY LOVE US.
AND IT'S LIKE, UM, NOW WHEN THINGS ARE DWINDLING AND ELDERLY, PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO AGE OUT WITH HONOR AND DIGNITY, THE PLACE THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS WELCOMING TO YOUR SENIORS,
[00:35:01]
TO THE PEOPLE WHO COME HERE AND THINK THAT IT'S OKAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO BE WELCOMED, BEING CHOKED FINANCIALLY, IT'S JUST WRONG.WHY ALWAYS GO AFTER THE WEAK? WHY ALWAYS GO AFTER THE FEEBLE? WHY NOT HONOR YOUR SENIORS? WHY NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE HONOR AND DIGNITY? WHY DO YOU EXPECT THEM, THE MOST OF THEM THAT ARE ON A FIXED INCOME TO JUST PLUCK 50 BUCKS OUTTA NOWHERE TO GO FROM 25 TO 75 OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS.
WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR SENIORS.
WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR ELDERLY.
THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO DO BETTER ON THAT.
BUT I'M HERE FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, AND I'M TELLING YOU, YOU'RE FAILING YOUR SENIORS.
YOU'RE FAILING THEM, AND YOU'RE SENDING A REALLY HORRIBLE MESSAGE BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE FORGET WHERE THEY COME FROM.
REMEMBER HOW YOUR BREAD IS BUTTED.
THESE SEATS THAT YOU'RE IN CAN BE VERY TEMPORARY.
AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO HAVE A POINT WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF COMPASSION FOR PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THIS CITY TO WHAT IT IS NOW.
THE GENTRIFICATION THAT'S TAKEN PLACE IS HORRIBLE.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR MONEY, GO TO FRESH POND.
GIVE OUT TICKETS TO THE PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP THERE AND DISRESPECT ALL THE RULES THERE AND HELP THEMSELVES TO WHAT LITTLE PIECE OF EARTH THAT WE HAVE.
PEOPLE NEED TO GET TICKETED FOR THEIR, FIND OTHER WAYS TO GET THE MONEY THAT YOU NEED.
DO NOT HUMBLE AND HUMILIATE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON A FIXED INCOME TO MAKE THEM GROVEL, TO MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE LESS, TO MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T MATTER, TO MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE THE JOURNEY THAT THEY'RE ON IS A LONELY ONE, BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY HAS FAMILY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS HEATHER HOFFMAN, FOLLOWED BY GLENNA WYMAN, GARY MELLOW, THEN EVA KANSKY.
HEATHER, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SORRY ABOUT THAT, HEATHER, IF YOU CAN TRY NOW.
HEATHER HOFFMAN, TWO 13 HURLEY STREET.
I, I ECHO THE GENERAL AGEIST PAST OF, OF THIS PROPOSAL.
I HAVE LISTENED TO CITY COUNCILORS CRASHING PEOPLE FOR BEING OLDER.
FOR EXAMPLE, I, I AM NEVER GOING TO FORGET HAVING SOMEONE COME IN AND TALK ABOUT WALKING INTO AN EAST CAMBRIDGE PLANNING TEAM MEETING AND SEEING NOBODY THERE UNDER 50.
SO SHE FELT UNWELCOME AND LEFT.
AND THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ONLY DID NOT COUNTER THAT, BUT SEVERAL CITY COUNSELORS, INCLUDING CITY COUNSELORS WHO WERE OVER 50 AT THE TIME, UM, PRAISED IT AND PROCEEDED TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE NEEDED TO TELL NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS WHO COULD BE IN THEM AND HOW THEY HAD TO RUN THEMSELVES.
THAT IS HOW THIS CITY COMES ACROSS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING ATTENTION.
NOW, I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT WHO CAN AFFORD THINGS OR OTHERWISE, BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN TO THAT, AND I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD ON THAT SCORE, BUT I SURE AS HECK DO HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD ABOUT ANIMUS AND THE ANIMUS THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED TOWARDS NOT JUST OLDER PEOPLE, BUT UM, PEOPLE WHO OWN CARS.
AND SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE EXPRESSING ANIMUS ARE ONES WHO OWN CARS, BUT THEY DO NOT INCLUDE THEMSELVES IN THIS EVIL GROUP.
IT'S, YOU TALK ABOUT OUR STORAGE OR ON STREET PARKING, AND YET YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT E-BIKE STORAGE.
WHEN PEOPLE BLOCK OUR SIDEWALKS WITH THEIR E-BIKES, WHERE THEY LIVE ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC WAY.
[00:40:01]
ABOUT THE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH WE SHARE THIS CITY.AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF THINGS THAT I AM HAPPY TO PAY FOR BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THEY BENEFIT MY SOCIETY, EVEN IF THEY DON'T BENEFIT ME SPECIFICALLY IN WAYS THAT ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTING ME.
DOG PARKS CREATE BETTER COMMUNITY, FOR EXAMPLE, I STRONGLY SUPPORT THEM, AND YET I DON'T HAVE A DOG.
I WILL NEVER HAVE A DOG MOST LIKELY.
BUT IT'S ALL A PART OF LIVING TOGETHER.
SO I WANT TO WANT YOU TO BE HONEST ABOUT WHY YOU'RE DOING THIS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GLENNA WYMAN.
UH, AS SOMEONE WHO IS OVER 70, UM, I AM SPEAKING FOR SENIORS, UH, OF MODEST MEANS AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE WHO, FOR WHATEVER REASONS FEELS CHALLENGED BY, UH, THEIR FINANCES.
BUT I, I WOULD SAY THE ANIMUS, THE BIGGEST ANIMUS IN THIS CITY IS TOWARD LOW INCOME PEOPLE.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE POLICY ALLOW ANYONE WHO SELF IDENTIFIES AS CHALLENGED TO PAY THE $75, BE THEY LOW INCOME OR A SENIOR, BE ABLE TO CHECK THAT BOX.
AND, UH, I THINK IT SHOULD BE, UH, NOT 25, BUT THAT, THAT THOSE TWO GROUPS THAT FEEL CHALLENGED AND CHECK THAT BOX SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY A FEE.
AND I WOULD ALSO CHALLENGE, UH, THE, THE COST FIGURES THAT WE HEARD FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
I THINK ANYONE WHO STOOD IN LINE WHILE THE STAFF CHAT WITH EACH OTHER AS LINES GROW TO, TO PAY THESE ANNUAL PERMITS, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF INEFFICIENCIES IN THAT TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND ALSO, I HEARD ROBERT WINTERS MAKE A VERY REASONABLE SUGGESTION, WHICH IS THAT THE CITY COULD GET ALL THE PEOPLE WHO THE INFORMATION FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CARS, THE SAME WAY AS THE EXCISE TAX FOLKS DO STRAIGHT FROM THE REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
THEY COULD BE BILLED, UM, PEOPLE COULD BE BILLED WITH THIS FORM THAT GIVES THAT OPT-OUT OPTION.
UM, AND LET'S JUST KIND OF CUT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT BUREAUCRACY OUT OF THE, OUT OF THE FORMULA.
UM, SO YES, UH, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THIS QUESTION ABOUT MEETING THEIR, THEIR REAL COSTS.
UH, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THOSE WERE THEIR REAL COSTS, THERE'S SO MANY THINGS IN THE CITY THAT SOME SEGMENT OF THE CITY GETS THE BENEFIT OF, LIKE THE SCHOOLS, UM, VARIOUS OTHER SERVICES THAT NOT EVERYONE GETS THE BENEFIT OF.
YOU KNOW, THE CITY PAYS FOR NOT INDIVIDUALS.
UM, SO THAT ARGUMENT ALSO, UH, DOESN'T SEEM, UH, A REASONABLE ARGUMENT.
I, I WANNA QUICKLY POINT OUT THAT ARLINGTON ALLOWS FREE METERS IN ARLINGTON FOR SENIORS.
UM, THEY DON'T EXPIRE AND THEY ALLOW THEM TO PARK AT METERS IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS FOR UP TO FOUR HOURS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GARY MEOW, FOLLOWED BY EVA KANSKY.
MY NAME IS GARY MEOW AND I LIVE ON FRANKLIN STREET.
I'D LIKE TO START WITH A JOKE.
WHEN SUSAN CLIPPINGER LEFT THE POST, I APPLIED FOR THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING DIRECTOR'S JOB.
I NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM THE CITY.
OF COURSE, OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDDY JOE BARR, WAS GONNA GET THE GIG, BUT THE CITY MANAGER HAD TO MAKE THE PROCESS LOOK LEGIT.
SO HE BROUGHT IN THE COLLINS CENTER OUT OF UMASS BOSTON TO SCREEN APPLICANTS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO CHOOSE JOE.
I NEVER HEARD FROM THE COLLIN CENTER EITHER.
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, YEAR AND A HALF OR SO LATER, I GOT A COMMUNICATION FROM THE COLLINS CENTER.
THE CITY OF WORCESTER WAS LOOKING TO HIRE A DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION.
SINCE I'D PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED INTEREST IN A SIMILAR POSITION, WOULD I BE INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CANDIDATE? I'M STILL LAUGHING AT THAT ONE.
SERIOUSLY, FOLKS, IF I'D BECOME DIRECTOR HERE THOSE YEARS AGO, WE WOULD, WE WOULDN'T
[00:45:01]
BE HERE TODAY.DISCUSSING THE INSTANT IDIOCY, THE CI CITY WOULD'VE SAVED MILLIONS AND RESIDENTS WOULDN'T HAVE WASTED COUNTLESS DOLLARS IN HOURS RENEWING THEIR PARKING PERMITS.
WHEN A RESIDENT VISITS 3 44 BROADWAY WITH PROPER PAPERWORK, A FILE IS OPENED, PREVIOUS TENANTS STICKERS VOIDED, AND THE PRIZE IS HANDED OVER THAT FILE'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO PREVENT DOUBLE DIPPING, AND THAT'S THE END OF THE ISSUANCE BUSINESS.
THE TRANSACTIONS ACTUAL COST IS NICKELS AND DIMES.
ANY FURTHER REGISTRATION ISSUES PROCESSED THROUGH THE STATE RMV DATABASE.
50 YEARS AGO, CAMBRIDGE INSTITUTED A RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT.
ADDITIONALLY, A NEW INCOME STREAM RES RESIDENT PARKING VIOLATIONS WAS CREATED.
THAT'S A GOLD MINE, WHICH ITSELF SHOULD FUND THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.
POOR MANAGEMENT HAS TURNED A MONEY MAKER INTO AN ANNUAL DEFICIT IN 10 YEARS.
TRANSPORTATION IS PARKING HAS GONE FROM 81 TO THE PRESENT.
DO YOU REALLY WANNA KNOW WHERE THE MONEY'S GOING? IN MY YEARS OBSERVING COUNSELORS, I'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A VICIOUS VENOMOUS, VINDICTIVE ATTACK ON RESIDENTS AS THIS SENSELESS POINTLESS JACKING OF PERMIT FEES ACCOMPLISHES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
BE A HERO AND DROP THE RENEWALS.
IT'LL BUY YOU VOTES INSTEAD OF LOSING YOUR SEAT.
I'VE BEEN PUBLISHED ON THIS SUBJECT AS LONG AS 12 YEARS AGO.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE CHAIR TO BE IMP PANELED TODAY.
I EXPECT TO HEAR PLENTY OF GROUP THINK IN THIS FORUM, AND AN OPEN MIND TO CHALLENGE DUMB SUGGESTIONS IS WORTH INCLUSION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS EVA KANSKY.
HELLO, MY NAME IS EVA CHANSKY.
I LIVE AT 360 6 WINDSOR STREET.
I'VE LIVED IN CAMBRIDGE FOR OVER 40 YEARS.
DURING THAT TIME, THE FREE SENIOR PARKING PERMIT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF WHAT THE CITY OFFERED ITS RESIDENTS.
A SMALL BUT MEANINGFUL BENEFIT THAT RECOGNIZED LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY.
IT'S SOMETHING MANY OF US COUNTED ON AND LOOKED FORWARD TO AS WE GOT OLDER.
TO HAVE THAT BENEFIT NOW TAKEN AWAY FEELS LIKE A PROMISE BEING BROKEN.
A CARROT THAT WAS HELD OUT FOR DECADES IS NOW BEING PULLED BACK.
JUST WHEN PEOPLE FINALLY REACHED THE POINT OF NEEDING IT, TAKING AWAY THE SENIOR BENEFIT SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE.
COMMUNITIES OFTEN SAY THEY WANT TO SUPPORT AGING IN PLACE AND REMOVING PRACTICAL SUPPORTS LIKE, LIKE FREE PARKING DOES THE OPPOSITE.
IT SIGNALS THAT OLDER RESIDENTS ARE LESS OF A PRIORITY.
SENIORS OFTEN HAVE REDUCED MOBILITY BUT DON'T QUALIFY FOR DISABILITY PERMITS.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MIGHT NOT BE REALISTIC FOR THEM.
THE DISTANCE, THE SAFETY, OR THE PHYSICAL STRAIN.
REMOVING THE FREE PERMIT DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS A VULNERABLE GROUP.
FOR MANY SENIORS, THIS PERMIT ISN'T ABOUT CONVENIENCE.
IT'S WHAT ALLOWS THEM TO GET TO DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS, TO SHOP LOCALLY FOR GROCERIES, AND TO REMAIN INDEPENDENT.
LOSING IT DOESN'T CREATE INCONVENIENCE, IT CREATES REAL HARDSHIP AND INCREASES THE RISK OF ISOLATION.
I ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE BROADER IMPACT.
IF SENIORS LOSE THIS BENEFIT, THEY MAY RELY MORE ON CITY SUPPORTED TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICES, WHICH COULD END UP COSTING MORE IN THE LONG RUN.
AT THE SAME TIME, LOCAL BUSINESSES MAY LOSE REGULAR CUSTOMERS WHO NO LONGER FIND IT EASY TO PARK AND SHOP.
MANY OLDER RESIDENTS ARE ALSO LIVING ON A FIXED INCOME.
EVEN MODEST NEW FIT COSTS CAN HAVE A REAL IMPACT, ESPECIALLY WHEN COMBINED WITH THE RISING HOUSING COSTS.
FOOD AND HEALTHCARE EXPENSES TO GO FROM ZERO TO 70 IS SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS.
I UNDERSTAND THE CITY FACES FINANCIAL PRESSURES, BUT AFTER DECADES OF CONTRIBUTING TO THIS COMMUNITY, SENIORS SHOULD NOT FEEL THAT SOMETHING THEY COUNTED ON IS BEING TAKEN AWAY AT THE VERY MO MOMENT.
THAT IS ALL THAT WE'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
AND ON A MOTION BY, UH, COUNCILOR ZUI, UH, TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL.
ON THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE MEMBERS AS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
SO WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR, UM, QUESTIONS AND COMMENT.
UH, I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, THERE'S NO, THE IDEAS OF THIS WAS THAT IT WOULD BE $75 FOR THOSE THAT COULD PAY AND
[00:50:01]
THERE WOULD BE NO, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO NOTE WHY YOU HAD A HARDSHIP, BUT ANYBODY COULD CHECK A BOX AND PAY $25 IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE $75 TO PAY.SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ABOUT THAT.
UM, UM, OUR COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION CAN CLARIFY AND ALSO I I WANTED TO ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
I I DON'T THINK WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE DISABILITY EXEMPTION.
AND I ALSO, I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT PEOPLE THAT JUST NEED A VISITOR PERMIT THAT DON'T HAVE A CAR.
SO I GUESS THOSE ARE MY TWO QUESTIONS, BUT I I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS TOO.
UM, SO, UH, CORRECT, WE ARE NOT DOING, MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE DISABILITY, UM, EXEMPTION THAT WILL REMAIN.
UM, YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT THERE WILL BE NO, UH, FOR ANYONE OPTING FOR THE $25 REDUCED FEE THERE, IT WILL BE A CHECKBOX.
IT IT WILL BE, THERE WON'T BE ANY, UM, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.
AND, UM, OH, ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT CAME UP DURING PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, THE LIMIT OF TWO PERMITS IS PER PERSON, NOT PER HOUSEHOLD.
AND I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION FOR, FOR MULTI UM, GENERATIONAL HOUSEHOLDS ESPECIALLY.
SO IT IS THE LIMIT OF TWO PER PERSON, NOT PER HOUSEHOLD.
SO THROUGH YOU, UH, CHAIR FLAHERTY AGAIN, SO IF, IF SOMEONE DIDN'T HAVE A CAR BUT WANTED A VISITOR PERMIT, I'M SORRY.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD THEY PAY? UM, THAT IS NOT CHANGING, THAT CONTINUE TO BE $25.
UM, AND THEN I WANTED TO ASK, UM, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY SENIORS, UM, CURRENTLY RECEIVE PARKING PERMITS? SO, UH, I MEAN, WHAT SORT OF INFLUX IN PAYMENTS WOULD THEIR BE TO THE CITY IF, IF SENIORS WHO ARE NOW PAYING ZERO WOULD BE PAYING $25? SO THE ONE DISTINCTION THAT WE DON'T HAVE IS HOW MANY WITHIN THIS GROUP IS HOW MANY ARE FOLKS WITH DISABILITY PLACARDS OR PLATES? AND HOW MANY ARE SENIORS? SO THE NUMBER FOR 25, WHICH IS THE LAST FULL YEAR WAS 7,669.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS SENIORS RATHER THAN FOLKS WITH DISABILITY PLACARDS.
BUT WE, IT, THERE HASN'T BEEN A DISTINCTION IN THE PAST, SO WE CAN'T PULL APART THOSE NUMBERS.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE, UM, YEAH.
SO DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE MAYBE, UH, A FIFTH OF OUR, SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE A GREAT FINANCIAL IMPACT ON INCOME? AND THAT WAS THE OTHER THING.
SO YOU'VE SAID THAT THE COSTS OF THE PROGRAM ARE 2.7 MILLION, BUT WHAT SORT OF INCOME COMES IN FROM THE PROGRAM? UM, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO, COULD WE PUT THE POWERPOINT UP AGAIN? NAOMI, COULD YOU PUT THE POWERPOINT UP PLEASE? YES.
WHAT PAGE? UM, THIRD FROM FINAL, I THINK.
AND FOR THE RECORD, WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THAT COUNCILOR MCGOVERN'S PRESENT, COUNCILOR SIMMONS IS ON THE ZOOM AND MAYOR SIDIKI IS PRESENT AS WELL.
UH, B IF YOU CAN KEEP GOING, KEEP GOING, KEEP GOING.
UM, SO IN THIS, UM, THIS TABLE SHOWS KIND OF, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE REDUCED FEE.
UM, THE TOP LINE IS IF EVERYONE PAID THE FULL $75 DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, WHICH IS IF IT WAS SPLIT EVENLY BETWEEN 75 AND 25.
I WANT, I HAD WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THIS, SO I, SO, UH, WHY WOULD PEOPLE GET, HOW, HOW DO YOU QUALIFY 10%, 20%, 25, 50% REDUCED? WHAT ARE THOSE CATEGORIES FOR? THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES.
'CAUSE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW, SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD A, A REDUCED FEE OPTION BEFORE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
SO THOSE ARE JUST DIFFERENT ESTIMATES.
SO IF WE HAD A HUNDRED PERCENT PEOPLE PAYING, YOU KNOW, NOBODY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE REDUCED FEE PERMIT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, VERY UNLIKELY, UM, DOWN TO IF HALF, HALF OF THE FOLKS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE, UM, THE LOWER FEE AND HALF OF THE PEOPLE PAY THE FULL RIDE.
UM, THAT'S THE, THE BOTTOM NUMBER, THE 1.7 MILLION.
AND THEN I'M JUST, I JUST DID A LITTLE BIT OF MATH WITH THE HELP OF MY PHONE.
SO IF THERE ARE, SO IT SEEMS LIKE A FIFTH OF OUR, UM, THE POPULATION THAT GETS PERMITS MAY QUALIFY AS SENIORS, RIGHT?
[00:55:01]
'CAUSE WE HAVE ABOUT 39 THOU THOUSAND PERMITS AND MM-HMM.YOU SAID ABOUT 7,300 OF THEM ARE SENIORS.
SO CURRENTLY, SO EVEN IF WE CHARGE THEM $25 A PIECE, WE WOULD ONLY INCREASE OUR REVENUE BY $175,000.
IT'S, IT ACTUALLY WOULDN'T BE A HUGE DIFFERENCE FOR THIS CITY.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT.
AND I ALSO WANTED TO ASK, SO I DON'T THINK YOU PROVIDE, YOU PROVIDED US WITH LOTS OF NUMBERS.
YOU PROVIDED US WITH THE ANNUAL PARKING VIOLATION.
UM, BUT DO WE HAVE A, DO WE HAVE A NUMBER FOR HOW MUCH MONEY COMES IN CURRENTLY FROM, OH, I'M SORRY.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASSUMING IT'S 2.7 AND YOU'RE THINKING IT COULD BE, IT'LL BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THESE NUMBERS.
UM, SO I, I GUESS I JUST WANNA POINT OUT TO THE GROUP THAT WE'RE REALLY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $175,000, WHICH ISN'T, WHICH IS SOMETHING.
BUT, UH, USUALLY IN THIS CHAMBER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS ACTUALLY, RATHER THAN THOUSANDS.
I YIELD COUNCIL SABRINA WHEELER.
THANKS, UH, MR. CHAIR THROUGH YOU.
I HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS AND THEN A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR, FOR CITY STAFF.
UM, THE SIMILAR TO COUNCILLOR SUZI FIRST JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE MISCONCEPTIONS, UH, THAT FOLKS WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF INCOME OR HAVE TO DOCUMENT A HARDSHIP IN ORDER NOT TO PAY THE $75.
UH, I WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT MISINFORMATION IS COMING FROM.
IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE PROOF OF INCOME WOULD NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE A HARDSHIP.
THIS WOULD JUST BE A CHECK BOX.
IT WOULD BE AN OPT-OUT OPTION.
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO, UH, COULD OPT OUT.
AND THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNCIL.
THE COUNCIL WAS NOT TRYING TO FORCE SENIORS OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THIS WOULD BE A HARDSHIP TO PAY $75 CHECK A BOX, THAT'S IT.
THAT WAS A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE, I THINK FOR ALL EVERYONE ON THE COUNCIL.
AND SO, JUST WANNA BE A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
TRY TO DISPEL ANY OF THE MISINFORMATION THAT'S OUT THERE.
'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S REALLY PREVALENT AND IT'S 100% FALSE CHECKBOX.
NO PROOF, NO DEMONSTRATION OF INCOME, CHECK A BOX.
THIS IS, UH, ALSO NOT TRYING TO, UH, GOAL OF THIS, NOT TRYING TO DISCOURAGE ANYONE FROM HAVING A CAR.
UM, THAT'S NOT THE GOAL OF THE PROGRAM.
IT'S NOT THE, THE PIECE, NOT EVEN ABOUT THE REVENUE.
THIS IS ABOUT TRYING TO ENSURE THAT THE PARKING PROGRAM COVERS THE COST OF THE PARKING PROGRAM.
SO RIGHT NOW, AS WE SAW IN THE SLIDES, THE PARKING PROGRAM COSTS $2 MILLION MORE PER YEAR FOR THE CITY THAN IT, THAN IT RAISES.
THE CITY, CITY IS SPENDING $2 MILLION PER YEAR ON A PARKING PROGRAM.
'CAUSE THE RESIDENT PERMIT DOES NOT RAISE THE COST OF THAT.
WHERE IS THAT $2 MILLION COMING FROM? WHO IS IT PAYING FOR? AND THE ANSWER IS, UH, TAXES THAT EVERYBODY IS HAVING TO PAY FOR IT, WHETHER YOU HAVE A CAR OR NOT, UH, HAVING TO PAY FOR IT.
AND SOME OF THE LOWEST INCOME FOLKS IN THE CITY ARE HAVING TO PAY FOR THIS, AND THEY DO NOT HAVE A CAR.
UM, CARS COST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
A NEW CAR COSTS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
UH, IF YOU DON'T, AND MANY OF OUR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS CANNOT HAVE, HAVE, UH, AFFORD ONE.
UM, YOU KNOW, ANY SENIOR WHO CAN'T AFFORD $75 SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
ANY RESIDENT AT ALL WHO CANNOT AFFORD $75 SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
I WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
THE THING THAT THIS IS ABOUT IS THAT THE INCOME EXEMPTION SHOULD BE BY INCOME AND NOT BY, BY AGE.
AN EXAMPLE FOR THAT, UH, ALAN GARBER, THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY IS 71 YEARS OLD.
UH, PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY MAKES MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
JUST BECAUSE HE'S, UH, 71 YEARS OLD DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE SHOULD, SHOULD GET, YOU KNOW, A TOTAL EXEMPTION FROM THIS.
AND THAT'S TRUE FOR A NUMBER OF FOLKS IN, IN CAMBRIDGE.
THEY ARE OLDER, BUT THEY CAN, COULD AFFORD TO DO THAT.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, A MOTHER WITH KIDS IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHO DOESN'T HAVE A CAR, SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS COST AND SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR A PARKING PERMIT AT ALL.
AND THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD GETS IT FOR FREE.
THIS IS WHAT THE, THIS CHANGE TO THE PROGRAM IS ABOUT, IS ABOUT, UH, MAKING THE COST MORE EQUITABLE AND THINKING ABOUT THE, THE PERSON REGARDLESS OF AGE, WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO AFFORD THIS.
UM, THE QUESTION I HAD FOR CITY STAFF WAS I WAS REALLY, UM, INTERESTED IN THIS DATA AROUND HOW MANY RESIDENTS HAVE, UH, THREE PERMITS OR MORE FOR PERMITS OR MORE IN 2025.
UM, IT'S SAID 337 RESIDENTS HAVE THREE CARS WITH PARKING PERMITS IN CAMBRIDGE.
UH, 55 RESIDENTS HAVE FOUR OR MORE CARS WITH PARKING PERMITS IN CAMBRIDGE.
I WAS SURPRISED AT HOW BIG THOSE NUMBERS WERE.
I THOUGHT MAYBE THIS WOULD BE A SMALL HANDFUL OF FOLKS, MAYBE A COUPLE PEOPLE RUNNING A BUSINESS WITH MULTIPLE CARS.
[01:00:01]
WITH THREE OR MORE CARS IN CAMBRIDGE ARE JUST LIKE FASCINATED BY WHO, WHO ARE THE FOLKS, UH, WITH MULTIPLE CARS.JUST CURIOUS IF WE'VE GOT ANY MORE INFO BACK FROM FOLKS.
IF IT IS, IF THIS IS 350 PEOPLE WITH BUSINESSES, IS IT THE MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSEHOLDS? I WAS JUST WONDER IF, LIKE, HOW, HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD, THERE COULD BE 350 PEOPLE WITH THREE OR MORE CARS REGISTERED IN CAMBRIDGE, UH, LIKE ON THE, ON THE STREETS.
UM, CURIOUS, ANY MORE, MORE DETAIL ON THAT THROUGH YOU CHAIR? UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE DETAILS ON ALL OF THEM.
I THINK THAT, UM, WHAT WE, WE DEFINITELY HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH FOLKS AFTER THE LAST LIMIT LIMITATION.
AND THERE ARE A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO I THINK WHEN YOU GET BACK TO DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, FOUR OR FIVE CARS, THERE'S A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE THOSE FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE.
UM, YOU MAY HAVE A FEW PEOPLE DOING DOING CAR SERVICES, UM, BUT I THINK PRIMARILY IT IS LIKELY TO BE MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSEHOLDS WHERE ALL OF THE CARS ARE REGISTERED IN ONE NAME, UM, FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT MIGHT COME WITH A, I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU WOULD DO IT THAT WAY, BUT, UM, I THINK THAT'S THE MOST LIKELY REASON FOR THE MAJORITY OF THEM.
SO WHILE THERE ARE MULTIPLE USERS OF THE CARS, THEY'RE REGISTERED UNDER ONE NAME.
THAT'S HELPFUL TO THINK THROUGH A LITTLE BIT.
UM, YEAH, I COULDN'T COULD SEE THAT.
OR I'M THINKING OF THE, THE CARS.
I LIVE IN CAMBRIDGEPORT, I HAVE A CAR MYSELF.
UM, THINKING OF OTHER CARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S ONE WITH FOUR FLAT TIRES, YOU KNOW, HASN'T MOVED FOR A WHILE, HAS A PERMIT THERE LEGALLY, RIGHT? BUT IS IT'S BEING SORT OF LONG TERM STORED ON CAMBRIDGE STREET.
IT'S NOT A CAR THAT SOMEONE'S DRIVING.
THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER CARS LIKE THAT.
I THINK THAT'S THE, THE PIECE TO THINK ABOUT HERE.
MAYBE THIS, MAYBE THAT PERSON HAS ANOTHER CAR THEY'RE DRIVING AND THEN THIS IS JUST A SORT OF CAR THEY'RE STORING ON THE STREETS AND THEY GET A PERMIT FOR IT.
BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT MOVING ANYWHERE.
IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR A WHILE.
AND SO, UM, THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE 350 FOLKS WITH THREE OR MORE CARS, YEAH, THESE ARE TAKING UP PARKING SPOTS AND THAT PERSON IS NOT DRIVING ALL, ALL THREE OF THEIR CARS ARE FULL FOUR OF THEIR CARS.
LIKE THIS IS A, A CHANGE THAT MAKES A TON OF SENSE, LIMITING IT TO TWO CARS PER PERSON, UH, AS A, UH, I THINK A VERY COMMON SENSE CHANGE AND MAKES SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
UH, ARE YOU BACK COUNCIL MCGOVERN? UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
AS YOU POINTED OUT, I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, SO I CAN'T VOTE ON ANYTHING TONIGHT OR IF ANY MOTIONS COME FORWARD, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
UH, AND I THINK OTHER COUNSELORS HAVE POINTED OUT SOME OF THE, UM, CONFUSING INFORMATION THAT THAT'S OUT THERE, UH, AROUND, YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE NO PROOF OF HARDSHIP REQUIRED AND WE'RE GOING FROM ZERO FOR SENIORS TO 25 PROVIDED THEY CHECK THE BOX NOT TO 75.
UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT IT, WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU ARE GETTING A BENEFIT OR YOU'RE, YOU'RE GETTING A SUPPORT AND THAT SUPPORT IS THREATENED, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT AN EASY THING TO DO.
AND SO I DO, UM, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE PUSHBACK AND, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ASKED ABOUT, I I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF.
I WON'T, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE.
UM, FOR ME, IT'S NOT ABOUT A WAR ON CARS.
I DRIVE, I DON'T CYCLE MUCH TO THE CHAGRIN OF MY WIFE.
OKAY? UM, AND SO THIS IS NOT A WAR ON CARS, ALL RIGHT? THIS IS NOT ABOUT BIKE LANES.
THE MONEY THAT GETS GENERATED FROM PARKING STICKERS DOES NOT GO TO BIKE LANES.
THIS IS NOT TRYING TO GENERATE MONEY FOR BIKE LANES.
LET'S, THIS IS COMPLICATED AND EMOTIONAL ENOUGH WITHOUT CONFLATING IT WITH OTHER THINGS THAT IT'S NOT A PART OF.
UM, THE PROBLEM THAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AND, AND WE HEARD FROM ONE PERSON IN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT MAYBE THE CHECKOFF BOX IS MAYBE INSTEAD OF $25, IT'S STILL ZERO, RIGHT? AND, YOU KNOW, I'D CER I WOULDN'T, I'D BE OPEN TO LOOKING AT THAT AND LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE WHAT I'M TRYING, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S WHAT I STRUGGLE WITH IS SORT OF WHAT COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER POINTED OUT, THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE, I WANT, AND THIS GOES FOR TAXES AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS TOO.
I WANT THE PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY TO PAY.
AND I WANT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOWER INCOME TO GET A SUBSIDY TO GET HELP, TO GET SUPPORT.
AND THE SYSTEM WE HAVE SET UP NOW IS THAT THERE ARE FOLKS THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR AGE, WHO HAVE WEALTH WILL GET A FREE STICKER.
BUT A 30-YEAR-OLD MOTHER WHO OF TWO WHO'S LIVING IN NEWTOWN COURT GETS, IS FORCED TO PAY.
THAT DOESN'T SIT RIGHT WITH ME.
[01:05:01]
I WANT THAT 30-YEAR-OLD MOTHER TO GET A BENEFIT TOO.AND SO HOW DO WE MAKE IT A SYSTEM WHERE THOSE WHO HAVE MORE, AND I MEAN THAT IN TERMS OF FINANCES, PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE, AND THOSE WHO HAVE LESS REGARDLESS OF HOW LONG THEY'VE LIVED HERE OR WHAT THEIR AGE IS, GET THE BENEFIT.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SORT OF STRUGGLING WITH.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT IS, I MEAN, I SUPPOSE BY LOOKING AT THAT CHART, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE DID A CHECKBOX THAT SAID, ANYBODY WHO CHECKS OFF THIS BOX THAT SAYS THEY'RE, THAT $75 IS A BURDEN AND THEY HAVE TO PAY ZERO, THEY GET, THEY PAY ZERO.
SO THAT WOULD MEAN ANY SENIOR COULD CHECK THAT BOX AND THEY WOULD PAY ZERO.
SO THEY WOULD STILL GET THE EXEMPTION.
IT WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT ANYONE WHO'S NOT A SENIOR COULD CHECK THAT BOX AND PAY ZERO.
IF EVERYBODY PAID ZERO, UM, WE WOULD BE RUNNING A MUCH BIGGER DEFICIT.
RIGHT? UM, NOW I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY WOULD DO THAT? I HOPE NOT.
I HOPE PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE DISHONEST.
UM, I'M SURE SOME PEOPLE WILL.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK FOR THIS COMMITTEE AND, AND IT WILL EVENTUALLY COME BACK TO US, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANNA LOOK AT SAYING THAT INSTEAD OF $25, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A NUMBER THAT'S, IS ZERO, THE, IS IT ZERO AND 25? THE TWO OPTIONS? I DUNNO IF IT'S $15.
I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS AN, IS THERE A NUMBER THAT WOULDN'T, THAT PEOPLE WOULDN'T FEEL IS TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN TO PAY? UM, BUT I, MY, THIS IS NOT ABOUT, I'M NOT, THIS IS NOT ABOUT, FOR ME, IT'S NOT ABOUT TARGETING.
I THINK FOR ANYBODY, IT'S ABOUT TARGET.
IT'S NOT ABOUT TARGETING SENIORS.
I KNOW IT FEELS THAT WAY AND I RESPECT THAT.
UM, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS MEANS GET THE HELP REGARDLESS OF THEIR AGE, AND THAT INCLUDES SENIORS.
UM, IN TERMS OF TWO THINGS THAT WE CAN THINK ABOUT, MR. CHAIR, SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY MOTIONS ARE GONNA COME OUTTA, COME OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE.
AND AGAIN, I CAN'T VOTE ON ANY OF THEM, BUT WE COULD THINK OF, UM, A PHASE IN, IN GENERAL, RIGHT? THIS DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE SENIOR ISSUE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER GOING TO $50 FOR 27, 28, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT TWO YEARS, AND THEN TO $75 AFTER THAT SO THAT IT'S NOT SUCH A BIG JUMP FOR PEOPLE.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT.
UM, THINK ABOUT MAKING THE EXEMPTION $0 INSTEAD OF 25, WHICH I THINK WOULD SATISFY A LOT OF FOLKS.
UM, AND THEN ON THE NUMBER OF CARS, UM, I THINK A REASON THAT PEOPLE MIGHT REGISTER A NUMBER OF CARS UNDER ONE PERSON'S NAME, I COULD THINK OF, OF HAVING KIDS WITH CARS, RIGHT? LIKE, I WOULD WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S INSUR HIGHER INSURANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT IF YOU REGISTER TO A KID WHO'S UNDER, YOU KNOW, 25 YEARS OLD OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER IT IS.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO, THERE MIGHT BE SOME LEGITIMATE REASONS THAT PEOPLE NEED MORE THAN, THAN TWO CARS REGISTERED.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO THINK ABOUT SOME WAY TO HAVE SOME KIND OF APPEAL PROCESS FOR PEOPLE OR SOME KIND OF SYSTEM WHERE SOMEONE CAN SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, CAN EXPLAIN WHY THEY, WHY THEY HAVE MORE THAN TWO CARS REGISTERED.
BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD BE TWO CARS PER PERSON.
SO IF YOU WERE TWO PEOPLE, TWO ADULTS, YOU COULD HAVE FOUR CARS REGISTERED, UM, TO YOUR HOME.
UM, SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME THOUGHTS.
I I, YOU KNOW, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A NUMBER THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD SOME WAY TO KIND OF SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE.
IT WOULD WHERE PEOPLE COULD BE CHIPPING IN SOMETHING, BUT CERTAINLY NOT THE WHOLE PRICE.
UM, I'D BE OPEN TO LOOKING AT NUMBERS IF WE JUST DID $0.
UM, BUT FOR ME, THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS I WANT ANYONE WHO'S ON LOW INCOME TO GET A BENEFIT.
AND I WANT ANYBODY WHO'S WEALTHIER TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.
UM, AND I FEEL THAT WAY, NOT JUST ABOUT PARKING STATE.
I FEEL THAT ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.
UM, AND SO I HOPE WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT.
UM, I'M OPEN TO ANY SOLUTIONS TO TRY AND FIGURE THAT OUT.
UM, AS FAR AS THE STREET CLEANING, I VOTED AGAINST IT.
UM, AND THOSE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS ON TODAY.
I HOPE WE CAN COME UP TO SOME RESOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY.
[01:10:01]
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.COUNCIL SIMMONS, UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UH, APPRECIATE YOU HAVING THIS HEARING TODAY TO GIVE US ALL AN OPPORTUNITY.
FIRST OF ALL, GET MORE INFORMATION, BUT TO ALSO GIVE, GIVE YOU OUR INPUT ON THIS.
SO, I WANNA BEGIN BY SAYING I AGREE WITH MANY OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE SENIORS WHO SPOKE UP TODAY DURING PUBLIC COMMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL.
AND YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY THIS AGAIN, BUT IT'S WORTH SAYING AGAIN ON THE RECORD.
I WANT TO REITERATE THE CONCERN THAT THEY RAISE.
AND I WANT TO REITERATE THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE RAISED PREVIOUSLY IN THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL.
THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD AS IT'S WRITTEN.
AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN, UH, ANOTHER ITERATION THAT CHANGED THE, UH, REGISTER THE RESIDENT PERMIT FEE FROM 75 TO 25.
I, I DO HAVE A FEE THAT I THINK SENIORS SHOULD PAY.
UM, BUT THINK OF IT THIS WAY, A $75 FEE OR A $25 FEE MAY SEEM MODEST TO SOME PEOPLE, BUT FOR MANY SENIORS LIVING ON FIXED INCOME, IT IS NOT MODEST.
IT'S A DECISION THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE WHEN YOU HAVE TO PAY THIS FEE.
WHETHER DO I GET GROCERIES OR AS MANY GROCERIES OR MEDICATION OR THAT A PARTICULAR MEDICATION? DO I PAY MY FULL UTILITY BILL OR PART OF MY UTILITY BILL? IT'S JUST ONE MORE EXPENSE THAT THE CITY THAT THE CITY HAS IS LEVYING.
THAT'S MAKING IT HARDER AND HARDER FOR SENIORS, FOR SENIORS IN PARTICULAR TO AFFORD.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SENIORS WHO'VE LIVED IN CAMBRIDGE FOR DECADES.
AND, AND SOME OF THEM ARE HERE THAT TESTIFIED.
AND I WANNA THANK THEM FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COME HERE TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT.
SENIORS WHO HAVE STAYED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT, DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES, RISING TAXES, RISING RENTS, AND THE RISING COST OF EVERYDAY LIFE.
THE SENIOR PARKING EXEMPTION IS A SMALL BUT MEANINGFUL ACCOMMODATION.
A ZERO COST IS A SMALL BUT MEANINGFUL ACCOMMODATION.
TAKING IT AWAY SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE ABOUT HOW WE VALUE, IN PARTICULAR SENIORS WHO HAVE BUILT THE, THIS CITY AND SUSTAINED THIS CITY.
I ALSO WANNA STRESS THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE TO SENIORS WITHOUT FIRST TALKING TO THE SENIORS.
YES, WE'RE HAVING THIS MEETING, BUT HAVE WE TAKEN THE SHOW ON THE ROAD? HAVE WE GONE TO OUR SENIOR BUILDINGS, OUR SENIOR CENTERS? HAVE WE CALLED A NEIGHBORHOOD BASED MEETING THAT ENGAGED SENIORS, EVERYBODY FOR THAT MATTER, BUT SENIORS IN PARTICULAR TO SAY THAT THIS IS HAPPENING.
SO MANY SENIORS DON'T KNOW AND WON'T KNOW UNTIL IT'S IMPLEMENTED.
SO WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOB AROUND EVEN LETTING PEOPLE KNOW, SENIORS IN PARTICULAR, THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS.
YOU KNOW, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT REAL OUTREACH.
SO LET ME JUST STOP THERE AND ASK A QUESTION, IF I MAY, TO, UH, THE HEAD OF TRAFFICKING TRAFFIC AND PARKING.
HAVE WE SENT, HOW HAVE WE INFORMED PEOPLE ABOUT THESE CHANGES THROUGH YOUR CHAIR? UM, AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY SORT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH, BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS STILL, WE'RE WAITING FOR DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL ON, ON WHERE WE WILL END UP.
UM, WE DO EACH YEAR DO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OUTREACH FOR THE RESIDENT PARKING RENEWAL PROCESS.
AND THAT WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPREAD THE WORD, UM, AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.
IN ADDITION TO, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO DO OTHER FORMS OF OUTREACH, UM, YOU KNOW, THROUGH CITY CHANNELS AND, UM, INFORMATION SESSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN SETTLED YET, WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THAT OUTREACH.
AND, UH, THROUGH YOU, MR. CHAIR, WHAT WOULD THAT OUTREACH LOOK LIKE? I THINK IT COULD BE TWOFOLD.
IT COULD BE BOTH THE TYPICAL OUTREACH THAT WE DO FOR A RENEWAL SEASON, WHICH INCLUDES POSTCARDS, SEVERAL POSTCARDS TO EVERYONE WHO HAS A PERMIT FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AS WELL AS A LOT OF, UM, INFORMATION ONLINE, SOCIAL MEDIA, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF THE COUNCIL THINKS IT'S APPROPRIATE, WE CAN EXPAND THAT TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF INFORMATIONAL OPEN HOUSES, PERHAPS AT THE SENIOR CENTER OR, UM, OTHER SENIOR LOCATIONS.
IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S DESIRABLE.
AND THROUGH YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND, AND THESE NOTICES, ARE THEY MONOLINGUAL OR BILINGUAL? MONOLINGUAL, MONOLINGUAL, THE, OKAY.
SO, BUT WE CAN WORK ON EXPANDING THAT FOR THIS YEAR.
WE'VE ALREADY ISSUED THE 2026, UM, PERMITS, AND AT NO TIME, WE'VE
[01:15:01]
NOT TOLD ANYBODY WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS.I THINK YOU, YOU HAVE FAILED ABYSMALLY THROUGH YOU CHAIR.
THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS AT THE CITY COUNCIL CHAIR.
IF I HAVEN'T NAILED THE FLOOR, I DON'T WANNA HEAR ANYBODY TALKING.
I FEEL, ALTHOUGH I'M TELLING YOU HOW I FEEL, I DON'T NEED A LECTURE OR ANYTHING.
YOU GAVE ME AN ANSWER AND I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I THINK ABOUT, YOU MAY NOT SHARE THAT SAME, UM, OPINION, BUT I DIDN'T ASK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION.
AS I WAS SAYING, YOU'VE DONE AN ABYSMAL JOB.
YOU KNOW, SOME SENIORS KNOW ABOUT IT 'CAUSE THEY'RE HERE TESTIFYING.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, IF IT'S OUT THERE IN THE STREET, PEOPLE ARE GONNA TAKE THE INFORMATION THAT THEY GET BY WORD OF MOUTH AND NOT FROM THE CITY THAT'S THINKING ABOUT IMPLEMENTING IT WITH SHAME ON YOU.
IF THIS PROPOSAL IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AT ALL, THEN IT MUST BE PRECEDED BY REAL OUTREACH POSTCARDS, IN-PERSON MEETINGS, TABLING ALL THE THINGS THAT GET PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE TO LET THEM KNOW THE FARMER'S MARKET WE KNOW, WELL, I DON'T THINK WE KNOW HOW TO DO, 'CAUSE CLEARLY WHAT YOU TOLD ME YOU DO ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
SO YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
SO WE DO HAVE AN OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, SO MAYBE WE SHOULD USE THAT OFFICE SO THAT WE CAN DO WHAT I CALL AUTHENTIC OUTREACH.
NOT JUST A HEARING AT CITY HALL, NOT JUST A NOTICE TUCK SOMEWHERE.
NOT JUST THE POSTCARD, NOT JUST EMAIL, NOT JUST TEXT MESSAGES.
AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW, THERE ARE NINE PEOPLE THAT RUN EVERY OTHER YEAR TO GET ELECTED, THEY CAN SHOW YOU HOW.
'CAUSE THAT'S HOW WE GET ELECTED EVERY YEAR.
THIS THAT MEANS HOLDING MEETINGS ACROSS THE CITY WITH SENIORS WHERE THEY ALREADY GATHER THE SENIOR CENTER THROUGH THE COUNCIL ON AGING AND THE SENIOR HOUSING BUILDINGS IN COMMUNITY ROOMS, IN NEIGHBORHOOD SETTINGS AT THE SUPERMARKET.
I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL YOU, LOOKING AT THE SALARIES, PEOPLE WHO EARN ENOUGH TO HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB, SENIORS SHOULD BE CLEARLY NOTIFIED ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, WHAT IT WOULD COST THEM, WHEN IT WOULD TAKE EFFECT, AND WHAT ALTERNATIVES WERE BEING CONSIDERED.
AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, SENIORS NEED TO BE GIVEN A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
WE NEED TO HEAR WHETHER THIS FEE WOULD BE A HARDSHIP, WHETHER THE EXCEPTIONS MATTER TO THEM, AND WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM THEY WOULD CONSIDER FAIR.
THE BURDEN SHOULD NOT BE ON THE SENIOR CITIZEN TO FIND OUT WHETHER AFTER THE FACT THAT A PROTECTION HAS BEEN REMOVED.
AND THIS THING ABOUT, WELL, YOU CAN CHECK A BOX.
YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THIS ONCE BEFORE.
WHY DO POOR PEOPLE HAVE TO PROVE THEY'RE POOR, RICH PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO PICK.
WHY ARE WE CONSTANTLY PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THOSE THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED AS OPPOSED TO TAKING ON THE BURDEN SAYING, WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA, THE BEST THING SINCE, YOU KNOW, TIC-TACS AND POTATO CHIPS.
SO LET'S TELL EVERYBODY ABOUT IT.
WE SHOULD NOT STRIP AWAY ANY EXISTING PROTECTION SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT YET CREATED A BETTER INCOME BASED SYSTEM.
AND BY THE WAY, THE CITY OF BOSTON DOESN'T CHARGE FOR PARKING AT ALL.
AND THE PERMIT FOR TWO YEARS, YOU MIGHT WANNA THINK ABOUT THAT, NOT STRIP AWAY ANY EXISTING PROTECTION SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT CREATED A BETTER INCOME BASED SYSTEM.
MY POSITION IS CLEAR, IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.
BUT IF MY COLLEAGUES BELIEVE IT MUST HAPPEN, THEN IT MUST COME ONLY AFTER WE HAVE DONE DIRECT CITYWIDE OUTREACH TO OUR SENIORS WITH MEETINGS ACROSS CAMPUS TIMES OF THE DAY AT AS MANY PLACES AS POSSIBLE.
THE OTHER THING I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, YOU, YOU, UM, PEOPLE, AND IT'S BEEN SAID BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT TESTIFIED, PEOPLE ARE ALREADY ENCUMBERED AND MAKE CONCESSIONS WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING.
IN PARTICULAR, WE HAVE FOUR TO SIX ROAD RACES THAT UPEND PEOPLE'S LIVES.
THE ABILITY TO COME TO A MEETING LIKE THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR SENIORS.
IT INTERFER BECAUSE WE'VE REMOVED SO MUCH PARKING.
WE HAVE SENIORS THAT CAN'T GET VNA SERVICES, MEALS ON WHEELS, CAN'T GET TO THEIR LOCALLY BASED PHARMACY.
AND WE ALWAYS WANNA TALK ABOUT GOING TO LOCAL BASED BUSINESS AND THEN MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO, TO, TO GET THERE.
AGAIN, MOST SENIOR DO NOT KNOW.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD HALT THIS AND START OVER AND REALLY DO A ROBUST OUTREACH PROCESS SO THAT WE ARE GETTING TO AS MANY SENIORS IF WE HAVE AN IDEA.
AND IF WE DON'T, LET'S FIGURE THAT OUT.
WE'VE GOT THE RESOURCES, WE HAVE THE ABILITY, WE HAVE THE PEOPLE TO FIND OUT HOW MANY SENIORS HAVE A CARD, HAVE A PERMIT, AND FIND A WAY TO REACH OUT TO THEM.
LASTLY, A A QUESTION, UH, TO MY COLLEAGUE, UM, UH, THROUGH YOU MADAM MR. CHAIR, UH, COUNCILOR SABRINA.
WE MENTIONED SOMEBODY AT HARVARD THAT HE SPOKE TO AND I DIDN'T OR, OR SOMETHING ABOUT SOMEONE FROM HARVARD.
COULD I HAVE THAT NAME AGAIN? YEP.
UH, DO I, ARE YOU YIELDING THE FLOOR COUNCILOR SUMS? YEAH, I'M NOT YIELDING THE FLOOR.
[01:20:01]
THOUGH.IF YOU COULD RESPOND, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU MENTIONED, I THINK FOR, FOR ME TO SPEAK, I, YOU HAVE TO YIELD THE FLOOR.
NO, I DON'T HAVE TO YIELD THE FLOOR TO HAVE YOU SPEAK.
I CAN RECOGNIZE YOUR COMMITTEE COUNCIL.
NO, YOU, YOU RECOGNIZE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION.
UM, THE PERSON AT HARVARD'S NAME WAS, UH, ALAN GARBER.
HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
UH, HE MAKES A A MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR, UH, WAS THE NAME.
AND THEN JUST THE PIECE ON, UH, UH, HAVING TO PROVE THEY'RE LOW INCOME, UH, NOT JUST WANT TO AGAIN, MIS CLEAR UP THAT MISCONCEPTION.
NO ONE WOULD HAVE TO, TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE LOW INCOME.
NO ONE WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THEIR RESOURCES.
UM, I ALSO JUST DO WANT TO, TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT FOR THE, UH, GET IT CLEAR FOR THE, OH, SORRY.
I BELIEVE I'M, I BELIEVE THE CHAIR RECOGNIZED ME.
I JUST, SO THE CHAIR, THAT'S THE QUESTION.
I I DON'T WANT ALL THE OTHER STUFF.
MR. CHA, DO I STILL HAVE THE FLOOR? OR YOU, YOU CAN EVEN GO BACK.
I'M RECOGNIZING COUNCIL SIMMONS.
AND THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR THAT INFORMATION.
I DON'T, I THINK IT'S, UH, I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN I HEAR, WELL, SOANDSO OFF THE STREET DOES SUCH AND SUCH, AND THEY HAVE A PARKING PERMIT.
I DON'T CARE WHAT ALAN GARBER DOES.
ALAN, YOU KNOW, ALAN GARBER DOESN'T DO ANY DIRECT SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF CAMBRIDGE.
AND, AND IT'S JUST INAPPROPRIATE, I BELIEVE, TO EVOKE HIS NAME.
HE'S NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
MAYBE HE DOES HAVE A PARKING PERMIT.
THE POINT IS THAT, YEAH, WELL, AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, SENIORS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THEIR PARKING PERMITS FREE AT THE AGE OF 65.
AND IF WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THAT, WE WANNA HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT CHANGING THAT WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO IT AT ALL.
SO IF THERE WERE SOME MOTIONS, AND I CANNOT MAKE IT, BUT I THANK THE CHAIR FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE, UM, THIS OPPORTUNITY TO, TO TALK ON THE FLOOR AT A COMMITTEE THAT I DO NOT SERVE ON, THEN I, THE MOTION THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO EXEMPT SENIOR CITIZENS.
AND ON THE ISSUE OF MEANS TESTING, IF I'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING TO PROVE OR TO SAY, OR TO STATE THAT I AM WORTHY OF A $25, UH, OR $0 RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT, THEN YOU ARE PUTTING THE BURDEN ON ME, THE RECIPIENT OF THAT SERVICE TO PROVE THAT I AM WORTHY.
WE CAN DISAGREE, BUT THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT.
MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK AT A COMMITTEE HEARING THAT WHERE I'M NOT A MEMBER.
I RESPECTFULLY FEEL THE FLOOR.
ONE QUESTION, COUNCIL SUZUKI, JUST ONE QUESTION, THEN WE'LL MOVE ALONG IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
YEAH, I, WELL, I, I WANTED TO ASK, UH, ONE QUESTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, AND THEN I WANTED TO INTRODUCE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT I, I, I'VE, I'VE SHARED BY EMAIL WITH THE CLERK AND WITH OUR, UM, THE COUNCIL, UH, ORGANIZER, NAOMI.
UM, I WANTED TO ASK WHETHER THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAD IDEAS, UH, FOR HOW, IF WE WERE GOING TO RESTRUCTURE THINGS, HOW WE MIGHT DO THAT.
UH, AND, AND I, I REALIZE THAT I FEEL LIKE LAST NIGHT YOU PUT US IN THE HOT SEAT AND I FEEL LIKE TONIGHT YOU'VE BEEN PUT IN THE HOT SEAT.
UM, BUT DO, DO YOU HAVE OTHER IDEAS? AND THEN I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AND THEN I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE POLICY ORDER FOR YOU CHAIR.
UM, I MEAN, THERE ARE MANY WAYS THAT THIS COULD BE DONE.
IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY A POLICY DECISION ON, ON HOW, UM, ON WHERE WE END UP.
IT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY I THINK THAT WE FOLLOW THE POLICY SET BY THE COUNCIL.
WHERE WE SEE OBSTACLES AT TIMES IS IN THE, UM, KIND OF THE SYSTEM THAT WE USE TO MANAGE THIS, THIS VERY LARGE PROGRAM.
BUT WE, UM, I FEEL LIKE MOST OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT, VARIOUS, UM, OPTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP TODAY ARE ALL MANAGEABLE FROM A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE.
UM, SO IF THE COUNCIL IS HEADING DOWN A ROAD THAT WE COULD NOT IMPLEMENT, WE WILL CERTAINLY, UM, STAND UP AND SAY THAT.
BUT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY A DECISION THAT COMES DOWN TO, UM, HOW THE COUNCIL WANTS TO PROCEED.
I I, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR AND I APOLOGIZE THAT, UM, I, I, I JUST HAVE A PHONE, SO THEY'RE PRETTY SCANT, BUT I GUESS I'M CONVINCED IF WE'RE ONLY TALKING ZUZI, WHY DON'T WE DO THIS FOR THE MOMENT.
[01:25:01]
UH, I'VE JUST GOT A COUPLE OF POINTS TO MAKE AND THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH THE AMENDMENTS, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.BUT PLEASE REMIND ME SO I DON'T FORGET.
AND, AND I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER AND THE MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THIS IS NOT YOUR POLICY ORDER.
THIS IS A POLICY THAT'S BROUGHT BY THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUT I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND SORT OF THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE POLICY.
SO I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS, IF I MAY.
AND I, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO NOTE THAT I FULLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND, AND, UH, I FULLY APPRECIATE IT FROM A PERSONAL LEVEL.
UM, HAVING BEEN A PERSON WHO'S LIVED AND DRIVEN THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, PRETTY MUCH MY ENTIRE LIFE, OR AT LEAST SINCE I WAS LAWFULLY LICENSED TO DRIVE IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
AND, UH, AND I'VE ENCOUNTERED MANY OF THE DIFFICULTIES THEY'VE ENCOUNTERED.
AND MY PARENTS ARE SENIORS AND, UH, AND THIS IS A, UH, DIRECT BENEFIT TO THEM.
SO, UM, IF I'M CORRECT, AND TELL ME IF I'M NOT, BECAUSE I'VE REVIEWED SOME DOCUMENTS, AND I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THIS RIGHT, BUT THE, UH, TOTAL REVENUE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE PARKING SORT OF WRIT LODGE, THAT DEPARTMENT IS ABOUT $11.6 MILLION.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT NUMBER IS THE, UH, THE, THE REVENUE FROM PARKING VIOLATIONS.
IN TOTAL, WE BRING IN APPROXIMATELY $22 MILLION A YEAR, 22 MILLION.
BUT THE PARKING VIOLATIONS IN AND OF THEMSELVES ARE 11.6 MILLION MM-HMM
AND THE UP TO 22, LIKE ANOTHER 11 MILLION, THAT AMOUNT COMES FROM THE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH PARKING, INCLUDING, UM, I GUESS, UM, PARKING GARAGES, SHORT TERM PERMITS, PARKING GARAGES, ET CETERA.
AND THOSE ARE LISTED IN THE BUDGET BOOK, WHICH I'M LOOKING AT AT THE MOMENT.
ALRIGHT, SO OF THAT 11.6 MILLION OF PARKING VIOLATIONS, I THINK IN YOUR HANDOUT IT ATTRIBUTED 14% OF THAT TO THE RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING VIOLATIONS, OR, UH, 1.6 MILLION, IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT? 7 38, I THINK I'M JUST GONNA, IS IT FIVE OR 30? JUST ONE SECOND.
IT'S, UH, APPROXIMATELY 1000001.1.
AND THEN IN THE BUDGET BOOK THAT WE GOT LAST NIGHT, UM, THERE'S A FISCAL YEAR 25 RED REVENUE ACTUALS FOR RESIDENTS TICKETS.
SORRY, IF YOU CAN JUST TALK DIRECTLY INTO THE MIC, PLEASE.
IN THE BUDGET BOOK WE GOT LAST NIGHT, UM, AND I APOLOGIZE, I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU NOW, BUT I'LL JUST REFERENCE, UH, IN THE PARKING SECTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 25 REVENUE ACTUALS, THERE'S A LINE ITEM THAT SAYS, RESIDENT STICKERS 669,367.
AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS RAISED BY SENDING OUT RESIDENT STICKERS AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY PAYING FOR THEM, RIGHT? MM-HMM
SO WE'VE GOT 1.1 PLUS THE 6 69, SO WE'RE AT 1.7 AND CHANGE, RIGHT? SO THE REVENUE THAT COMES IN FROM THE RESIDENT PARKING VIOLATIONS YEP.
IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE COSTS THAT ARE PAID BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TAKING PART IN THE RESIDENT PARKING PROGRAM, BECAUSE THOSE VIOLATIONS GO TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE RESIDENT PARKING STICKERS.
SO THAT MONEY WHICH IS COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS MONEY THAT ARE, THAT ARE PAID, IS MONEY THAT IS PAID BY PEOPLE NOT PART OF THE PROGRAM, BUT COLLECTED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
AND THAT'S MONEY THAT'S RAISED BY PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO ARE ATTRIBUTING SOME OF THEIR TIME TO THE RESIDENT PARKING, UH, ENFORCEMENT ASPECT.
BUT THE REASON WHY THIS DOESN'T GO INTO THE BUCKET OF WHAT PAYS FOR THE RESIDENT PARKING PROGRAM IS THAT WE CONSIDER THOSE FEES TO BE THE FEES PAID BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TAKING PART IN THE PROGRAM.
AND THOSE, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING VIOLATIONS, 'CAUSE THEY CANNOT TAKE PART IN THE PROGRAM, ARE NOT, DON'T FALL UNDER THAT UMBRELLA.
[01:30:02]
LEADS ME TO THE QUESTION OF THEN HOW DO WE ATTRIBUTE PERCENTAGE OF EFFORT TO PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IF THEY'RE WRITING TICKETS TO PEOPLE WHO AREN'T PART OF THE PROGRAM? I THINK BECAUSE IT CONTINUE, IT'S WHAT SUPPORTS THE PROGRAM TO ACTUALLY BE FUNCTIONAL.BECAUSE IF WE DIDN'T, UH, ACTUALLY HAVE OFFICERS OUT THERE DOING ENFORCEMENT, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO VALUE IN THE RESIDENT PARKING STICKER.
AND THOSE SPACES WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TAKING PART IN, ARE PAYING TO PICK, TAKE PART IN THE PROGRAM.
AND SO THE 11.6 MILLION THAT'S RAISED FROM THE PARKING VIOLATIONS FROM THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MM-HMM
WRITING TICKETS IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, IS IT COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
AND THEN THAT MONEY GOES WHERE ALL OF THE MONEY THAT COMES IN THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UM, THE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH WE HAVE REVENUE THAT COMES IN, GOES INTO A PARKING FUND, AND THEN THAT PARKING FUND FULLY FUNDS EVERY ACTIVITY WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT AND, UH, SOME, UM, TRANSPORTATION RELATED ACTIVITIES IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS, BUT A VERY LIMITED NUMBER THESE DAYS.
SO OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS MAYBE 22 MILLION, I THINK YOU MENTIONED MM-HMM
AND THE COST OF THE ENTIRE TRAFFIC AND PARKING DEPARTMENT OR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS A PERCENTAGE OF THAT.
AND THEN THERE'S A PERCENTAGE OF THAT 22 MILLION THAT GOES TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY.
AND I THINK IN THE, IN THE BUDGET BOOK, THERE'S ALSO SECTIONS CALLED FINES AND FORFEITS.
UM, AND THAT'S, IS THAT INCLUDING THE PARKING TICKET VIOLATION MONEY THAT WE RECEIVE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OR IS THAT OTHER MONIES? I BELIEVE SO, BUT IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS WITHOUT HAVING THE BUDGET BOOK IN FRONT OF ME.
I, I'LL JUST TELL YOU WHAT IT READS BECAUSE I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR ABOUT IT AS, AS THIS WITH MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER COUNSELORS.
BUT THERE'S A TOTAL OF, UH, 10,844,900, UH, WHICH HAS TO INCLUDE, UH, A MAJORITY OF THAT IS, IS PARKING VIOLATIONS.
TRUTHFULLY, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITHOUT IT IN FRONT OF ME TO, TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A NUMBER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OR ACROSS THE CITY, BECAUSE I DO KNOW THAT MANY OF THOSE CATEGORIES HAVE SIMILAR THINGS IN EACH DEPARTMENT.
SO YOU HAVE FUNDS COMING IN THROUGH THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT, YOU HAVE FUNDS COMING IN THROUGH ISD OR WHEREVER IT, WHEREVER IT ELSE MIGHT BE.
SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG MM-HMM
THAT SEVEN SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR THAT'S RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE FORM OF PARKING VIOLATION PAYMENTS IS THEN SENT TO THE GENERAL FUND OF THE CITY, WHICH THEN FUNDS OTHER DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CITY? NO, THE, THE PARKING, ANY MONEY THAT COMES INTO THE PARKING FUND NEVER GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND.
UM, THERE ARE LINE ITEMS FOR THE FEW THINGS THAT WE FUND OUTSIDE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOW, AND IT'S SHIFTING A LOT THIS YEAR BECAUSE LAST YEAR WE BROUGHT IN, UM, THE, UH, THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GROUP FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS HISTORICALLY, UM, FUNDED BY THE TAX LEVY, WHICH IS NOW BEING FUNDED BY THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENTS, BY THE PARKING FUNDS.
SO THAT IS SHIFTING WHAT WE CAN GIVE TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS, BUT THAT MONEY NEVER GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND.
IT'S ALWAYS GOING LINE ITEM, UH, YOU KNOW, PAYING OUT OF THE TRAFFIC FUND.
FROM, FROM THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT LINE ITEM TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS MM-HMM
AND SO, AND THEN THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT OR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAINTAINS A PARKING FUND FUND BALANCE, RIGHT? MM-HMM
AND HOW MUCH IS THAT CURRENTLY? CURRENTLY, I BELIEVE IT'S SOMEWHERE AROUND $6 MILLION.
IT WAS MUCH HIGHER DURING COVID.
IT WENT DOWN TO PRETTY MUCH ZERO BECAUSE WE WEREN'T BRINGING IN ANY REVENUE.
AND WE'VE BUILT IT UP LITTLE BY LITTLE EACH YEAR SINCE.
AND THAT'S THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT THAT THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING DEPARTMENT, I'M SORRY I KEEP USING THAT TERM.
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS, RIGHT? YES.
SO WHEN WE THINK OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS ELEMENT, THIS PROGRAM WITH WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OPERATES AT A UH, DEFICIT, THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE USING THE MONEY FOR OTHER SOURCES FOR OTHER THINGS, RIGHT? YES.
WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AT A PROGRAMMATIC LEVEL.
SO IN ESSENCE, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS PLENTY OF MONEY TO PAY FOR ANY INCREASE IN THE RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM.
UH, BUT PROGRAMMATICALLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, DECIDES TO SPEND THAT MONEY ELSEWHERE.
IS THAT RIGHT? I WOULD SAY THERE
[01:35:01]
ARE ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE DECISIONS ON WHERE FUNDING GOES, SO, YES.AND I WENT BACK AND I LOOKED AT THE EMERSON COLLEGE TEST, AND I, I THINK I SAW, AND I KNOW YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER, AND I DON'T MEAN TO ASK YOU, UH, ANYTHING THAT IS BEYOND YOUR EXPERTISE OR THE SCOPE, BUT I SAW SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY INTERESTING IN THERE THAT, UM, CAUSED ME TO, TO THINK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT.
AND WHAT I SAW WAS, LET ME SEE IF I CAN PULL THIS UP.
THE DIFFERENCE, THE, THE MEMO DESCRIBES THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN, UH, FEES AND TAXES.
AND THIS IS, UH, OR AT LEAST THE CITY'S POSITION, IS THIS IS A FEE, NOT A TAX.
UM, AND ONE OF THE, UM, CRITERIA THAT THE SJC AND THE COURTS LOOK AT, THE SJC BEING THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FEE IS VALID, IS THE FEE, UM, CHARGED, IS NOT BEING COLLECTED TO GENERALLY RAISE REVENUE, BUT TO COMPENSATE THE CITY FOR THE SERVICE AND MANAGING THE EXPENSES RELATED TO IT.
BUT IN OUR CASE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE FEES THAT WE ARE RAISING FROM PARKING VIOLATIONS GO TO PAY OTHER THINGS IN OTHER PROGRAMS. THAT TO ME, AT LEAST SEEMS PROBLEMATIC WHEN WE ASSESS THIS OR, OR PUT THIS IN THE CATEGORY OF A FEE OR A TAX.
DOES THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? UM, NO, I MEAN, NOT TO ME.
I, I THINK, AND HONESTLY, I WOULDN'T THE EXTENT OF, UM, WHAT I'M COMFORTABLE SAYING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IS ME, IS THE, UM, THE, UH, CITY SOLICITOR'S COMMENT THAT I HAD IN THE POWERPOINT.
UM, SO I THINK IF, IF YOU WANNA GO DEEPER INTO A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE EMERSON TEST, IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO HAVE THAT WITH THE CITY SOLICITOR.
AND I GUESS THE AMAZON TEST TALKS ABOUT, AND THIS IS WHAT ALLOWS CITIES TO IMPOSE FEES FOR THINGS LIKE RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING AS NOT, NOT A, NOT AS A TAX, BUT AS A FEE BECAUSE THE CITY IS ALLOWING THE PERSON TO MAKE USE OF THE PUBLIC WAY BY PARKING THE CAR THERE.
AND THAT'S A LOGIC BEHIND IT, RIGHT? YES.
MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE.
AND, UM, AGAIN, AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT, MAYBE I HAVE THIS WRONG, BUT AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT, AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC WAYS, IT SEEMS TO ME, AND SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MENTIONED THIS TODAY, THAT, UH, THERE'S A, THERE'S A DECREASE IN PARKING AVAILABLE WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF THE INSTALLATION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SEPARATED BICYCLE LANES.
WE'RE LOSING PARKING, WE'RE LOSING METERED PARKING, WE'RE LOSING RESIDENT PARKING, AND IT'S THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SO IT MAKES IT MORE COMPETITIVE TO FIND A PARKING SPACE.
AND THE INCREASE IN A RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING, UH, STICKER IS VERY FRUSTRATING FOR RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY CAN'T FIND IT.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT, AND SOME PEOPLE I GUESS MENTIONED IT TO WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A COST OR WHAT IS THERE IS NO COST PRESENTLY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO REGISTER A BICYCLE IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
BICYCLES ARE NOT REGISTERED IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND OR ANYWHERE IN THE COMMONWEALTH, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
BICYCLES AREN'T REGISTERED AND NEITHER ARE E-BIKES OR, UM, ANY OTHER MOTOR TRANSPORT.
THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? YOU'RE CORRECT.
I THINK IT IS SOMETHING, UM, THAT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO DISCUSS MORE WHEN, IN OUR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICRO MOBILITY RIGHT.
AND THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT JUST WAS PASSED AT THE STATE HOUSE ABOUT MICRO MOBILITY, AND THERE'S A BIG, UH, REPORT THAT WAS, UM, AND I THINK FORMER COUNSELOR, CRAIG KELLY, WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE CONTRIBUTED TO THE REPORT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
AND I, I LOOKED AT IT AND IT'S LENGTHY.
IS THERE A CONFLICT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S PERSPECTIVE OF CHARGING, UM, RESIDENTS A PARKING, A RESIDENT PERMIT, PARKING FEE, UM, FOR USE OF THE PUBLIC WAY? UH, BUT THERE'S NO FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF THE PUBLIC WAY, UH, FOR BICYCLISTS WHO USE THE SEPARATED BIKE LANES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
IS THAT NO, I DON'T SEE ANY CONFLICT THERE.
AND, UM, I WANT TO, FOR THE RECORD, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT COUNSELOR, UH, NOLAN IS PRESENT AND, UM,
[01:40:02]
VICE HAS HIS HAND AND VICE MAYOR AZI HAS HIS HAND UP, SO I'LL RECOGNIZE HIM.AND IT'S, AND I'LL NOTE THAT IT'S 4 41 AND WE'VE GONNA WRAP THIS UP SHORTLY.
UM, I WANNA JUST THANK EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE.
UM, I THINK THAT THIS IS A, UH, BEEN A VERY EMOTIONAL, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, COMMITTEE HEARING.
I THINK BOTH, LIKE EVERYONE FEELS AFFORDABILITY, UM, VERY DIRECTLY RIGHT NOW, WHERE THE FEE INCREASE IS SIGNIFICANT.
AND I THINK PEOPLE DO FEEL THAT.
AND OF COURSE, PARKING HAS BEEN VERY SENSITIVE, AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO STREET DESIGN, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ALL OF THAT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, UM, VERY EMOTIONAL.
'CAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES AND A LOT OF THINGS TO ADAPT TO.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY, I UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR EVERYONE, AND THEN ALSO FOR CITY STAFF, WHERE I THINK SOMETIMES, LIKE BOTH ARE TRYING TO DO THEIR BEST, BUT GET IN THE MIDDLE OF POLITICAL CONVERSATIONS AS WELL AMONG CITY COUNCIL WHERE THERE IS NOT AN OBJECTIVELY A RIGHT ANSWER.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, LIKE, I WAS NEVER LIKE PARTICULARLY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THE PARKING PERMIT FEE RAISE.
UM, AND I ALSO WISH THAT WE DID HAVE A COMMITTEE HEARING BEFORE WE, UH, PASSED IT.
UM, BUT ALSO HERE WE ARE, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY FOR TODAY AT LEAST, UH, MY HOPE IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S LATE.
UM, IT'S BEEN LIKE HIGH EMOTION AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, ALL, ANY VOTES THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE TONIGHT ANYWAYS WILL GO TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL.
AND SO MY STRONG, STRONG, STRONG PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE WORK TOGETHER.
UM, IF THERE'S COMPROMISES OR WAYS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE, UH, WE HANDLE THAT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING LEVEL.
I THINK THAT WE WILL BOTH WILL HAVE NO DELAYS BECAUSE EVERYTHING WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL ANYWAYS.
AND I THINK WITH THE EXTRA SPACE AND TIME OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, FROM THURSDAY TO MONDAY TO THINK ABOUT IT, UM, HAVING ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES WHO WILL ULTIMATELY VOTE, UH, FOR IT AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION, I THINK WE'LL HAVE BETTER RESULTS THAT WAY.
AND SO, JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I THINK THE DISCUSSION TODAY HAS BEEN, UM, INFORMATIVE.
UM, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR TODAY.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, UH, COUNSEL NO LONGER HAS A HAND UP.
COUNCIL, COUNCIL NOLAN? YEAH, THANK YOU.
I, UM, HAD A CONFLICTING MEETING, UH, CHAIR FLAHERTY.
I'M REALLY SORRY I WAS LATE TO THIS.
I TRIED TO COME IN AS SOON AS I COULD FOR, UM, A NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES COUNCIL THAT I'M PART OF.
IT HAD BEEN SET UP, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION AND ALSO WANNA APPRECIATE THE, UM, TRANSPORTATION STAFF.
UH, I DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH THEM AS IS KNOWN, FOR INSTANCE, SOME OF THE
I APPRECIATE AND HONOR AND RESPECT THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I AM STILL HOPING THAT WE MOVE FORWARD ON, SIMPLY BECAUSE I DON'T, I KEEP COMING BACK TO IT IS NOT FAIR FOR NON-CAR OWNERS, UH, TO SUBSIDIZE CAR OWNERS ACROSS THE CITY.
AND I'M PARTICULARLY GLAD THAT WE HAVE HOPEFULLY BEEN MOVING FORWARD ON THE IDEA THAT THERE WILL BE A LOW INCOME CHECKOFF FOR ALL, NOT JUST SENIORS.
UM, AND I, I THINK WE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT.
AND WE'VE HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEARLY TODAY FROM EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN AND PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO.
BUT AGAIN, MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE COVERING OUR FEES.
AS YOU NOTED, AS THE CHAIR FLAHERTY NOTED, THERE MAY BE SOME OF THE FEES FOR OUR PARKING VIOLATIONS DON'T EVEN, AREN'T EVEN COVERED BY THE FEES WE CHARGE, IN WHICH CASE MAYBE WE SHOULD RAISE THEM.
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A CONCERN WHEN THOSE WERE RAISED TO $40.
WE JUST NEED TO KEEP UP AND MAKE SURE THAT THE GENERAL TAX BURDEN DOES NOT FALL ON RESIDENTS ACROSS THE CITY AND WHEREVER POSSIBLE, WE DO NOT SUBSIDIZE THOSE PEOPLE IN THE CITY WHO DO NOT NEED IT.
SO I I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION.
I ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCILOR AZIM THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS.
MY UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, IS WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
IT WAS RECOMMENDED TWO YEARS AGO BY CITY STAFF.
AND I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW IT IS THAT WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE WE COMMUNICATE IT AND MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE THE CHECKOFF TO BE LOW INCOME FOR THE $25 OPTION.
SO THANK YOU CHAIR FLAHERTY COUNCIL.
SABRINA WILLER, THANKS FOR CHAIR.
YEAH, I JUST WANNA ECHO COUNCILOR NOLAN AND SAYING, UH, THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATION TO CITY STAFF FOR, FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON THIS.
I THINK THIS IS A, A REAL CHALLENGING ISSUE AND, AND ONE SORT OF GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF COUNCIL AND, UH, COMMUNITY ON.
BUT THANK YOU FOR, UH, ALL YOUR WORK ON, ON THIS.
[01:45:01]
AND, UH, ALSO JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UH, PARKING AND, AND, UH, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES ARE ALWAYS CHALLENGING.I ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT WHEN I AM DRIVING MY CAR AROUND AND TRYING TO FIND A SPOT AND GET HOW FRUSTRATED IT CAN BE WHEN YOU CAN'T FIND ONE, ESPECIALLY ON A STREET CLEANING DAY.
AND, UH, AND HOW, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THAT YOU ALL DID DEAL WITH THE BRUNT OF THAT.
AND SO JUST WANTED TO APPRECIATE, UH, ALL THE WORK YOU DO FOR THAT.
UM, AND THEN TO COUNSELOR EM'S POINT, I, UH, WOULD AGREE.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT, UH, JUST A LITTLE UNDER, UNDER 15 MINUTES LEFT.
I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO, TO WORK ON AMENDMENTS OR POLICY LANGUAGE ON THIS WITH, UH, INCLUDING WITH COUNSELORS WHO SEE AND OTHERS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, POLICY IS AN ITERATIVE THING.
THERE ARE ALWAYS IMPROVEMENTS WE CAN MAKE AND HAPPY TO, TO SIT DOWN, UH, AND DO THAT.
UM, BUT I, UH, I THINK WE CAN, WE SHOULD DO THAT AFTER THE MEETING RATHER THAN TRYING TO, TO WORKSHOP IT IN THIS LAST 10 MINUTES OR SO.
UM, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL AS WELL.
COUNCILOR NOLAN, MYSELF AND, AND COUNCILOR ZE IN TERMS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP.
SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN, CAN, UH, ADJOURN THE MEETING AND THEN TRY TO, UH, FIGURE ANYTHING OUT.
AND HAPPY TO, TO SET UP A CONVERSATION WITH DOING THAT.
I HAD, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF AN AMENDMENT IS EVEN POSSIBLE AT THIS POINT, BUT I GUESS THIS IS WHAT I THINK, I THINK OVERALL, I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR MOST PEOPLE TO BE PAYING MORE FOR A PARKING PERMIT.
THOSE THAT CAN, SHOULD AND THOSE THAT CAN'T, SHOULD CHECK OFF THE BOX AND, UM, PAY THE SUBSIDIZED FEE OF $25.
BUT I GUESS NOW THAT I'VE DONE THE NUMBERS AND, AND YOU REVEALED MORE NUMBERS TODAY THAN WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, LIKE IF THEY'RE, LIKE, I'VE BEEN SURPRISED BY THE BLOWBACK FROM SENIORS ABOUT THEIR LOSING THEIR EXEMPTION.
UM, AND I, I THINK IT'S, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 175 TO $185,000 FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND SENIORS IF THEY ARE NOT PAYING FOR PARKING.
SO I GUESS I WOULD RECOMMEND ARE INCREASING THE PARKING PERMIT FEE FOR THOSE THAT CAN PAY IT, LETTING THERE BE A CHECKOFF, UH, FOR PEOPLE THAT, UH, CAN'T AFFORD THAT AND HAVE THEM PAY $25.
I WOULD LEAVE IN THE SENIOR IN DISABILITY EXEMPTION.
THAT IS THE AMENDMENT THAT I'M PROPOSING BECAUSE IT'S ONLY, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY $5,000 HERE, WHICH IN, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT OUR BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET IS PEANUTS.
AND, AND THEN I THINK WE, WE DO WANNA CONTINUE TO LOWER THE NUMBER OF CARS PER INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT.
SO I, I THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING TO DO.
I I DO WONDER WHERE PEOPLE WILL MOVE THEIR CARS IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN TWO, AND MAYBE THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CAN TIP US OFF TO THAT.
BUT THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT THAT I WAS PROPOSING IS, UH, THEY'RE RIGHT HERE.
SO AGAIN, MOST RESIDENTS WOULD PAY 75.
THOSE THAT CAN'T, WOULD PAY A SUBSIDIZED FEE OF $25.
UM, THE, WE WOULD KEEP THE SENIOR EXEMPTION, THAT'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO.
IT WE'RE, WE WANNA KEEP THE SENIOR AND DISABILITY EXEMPTION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM.
IT'S, IT'S NOT STRIKING OUT, REMOVE THE SENIOR EXEMPTION.
IT'S KEEP THE SENIOR AND DISABILITY EXEMPTION FOR THE PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM.
SO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, THIS IS THE ORDERED AND THE ORDERED SAID TO REMOVE IT.
SO YOU NOW HAVE STRUCK THROUGH THAT INSTRUCTION TO REMOVE IT.
I JUST FORMATTED WHAT YOU SENT ME BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME THE TEXT EARLIER.
SO DO YOU, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I, I KNOW 'CAUSE I ONLY HAD MY PHONE, BUT I, BUT I THINK, I THINK THE POINT OF INFORMATION, YES.
I THINK THIS IS YOUR, I THINK THIS IS THE ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL POLICY ORDER BECAUSE IN THE, IN THE ONE WE VOTED ON THAT WE SUBSTITUTED THAT WHAT THAT LANGUAGE WASN'T IN THERE.
SO JUST WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE AMENDING THE PROPER POLICY.
WELL, AND ANOTHER POINT OF INFORMATION, THIS POLICY ORDER WAS ALREADY ADOPTED, SO WE CAN'T AMEND A POLICY ORDER THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT FORWARD A NEW POLICY ORDER.
OKAY, WELL I THEN, I THEN I WILL, BECAUSE I GUESS I'M CONVINCED THAT IT'S LIKE THIS IS NOT WORTH $175,000, UM, UH, OR $185,000.
I THINK, UH, WE WILL RECEIVE MORE REVENUE FROM THIS, UM, POLICY ORDER FROM THE HIGHER FEE FOR MOST PEOPLE, AND WE WILL HAVE FEWER CARS ON THE ROAD.
'CAUSE WE'LL BE ISSUING FEWER PERMITS PER PERSON.
SO I THINK THAT WILL MOVE THINGS IN THE PROPER
[01:50:01]
DIRECTION.I'LL INTRODUCE, UH, I GUESS AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY ORDER SUGGESTING THAT WE LEAVE THE SENIOR EXEMPTION IN BECAUSE I, I JUST THINK, UH, THERE'S, I I, I'VE BEEN SHOCKED AT THE PUSHBACK, BUT I, I THINK IT IS BECAUSE WE KEEP TAKING PARKING PLACES AWAY.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.
WE'RE MAKING IT HARDER AND HARDER TO PARK ON THE STREET.
UM, AND THEN WE'RE POSSIBLY CHARGING MORE MONEY.
UM, AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE ON THIS.
I, I CAN'T VOTE ON THIS IN COMMITTEE ANYWAY.
UM, I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT, BUT I, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THERE'S SOME EXEMPTION OR SUBSIDY FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS REGARDLESS OF AGE.
AS HARD AS IT IS TO LOOK AT SOMEONE WHO'S A SENIOR AND SAY, YOU HAVE TO, WE'RE RECOMMENDING YOU PAY $25.
I DON'T WANNA LOOK AT THE FACE OF A 30-YEAR-OLD SINGLE PARENT LIVING IN PUBLIC HOUSING AND SAY, NOW YOU HAVE TO PAY $75.
THAT'S MORE OF A BURDEN FOR THEM.
SO, SO HOWEVER WE DO THAT, SO I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT, THAT IT WOULD BE TWO CHECK BOXES OR SOMETHING.
RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE TO CHECK OFF THE BOX TO SAY YOU'RE A SENIOR.
THERE'S A BOX YOU HAVE TO CHECK.
SO THERE WOULD BE A BOX TO CHECK OFF IF YOU'RE A SENIOR.
THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER BOX THAT YOU WOULD CHECK OFF TO SAY $75, 25 IS, IS TOO MUCH.
SO IF, IF I COULD GET BEHIND THAT, I THINK THAT'S FINE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SENIORS WHO ARE LOW INCOME ARE ALSO BEING TAKEN CARE OF.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN ARGUE WITH THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I WANNA MAKE SURE SENIORS ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF AND I WANNA MAKE SURE LOW INCOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SENIORS ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF AND, YOU KNOW, SO IF WE CAN DO THAT, I'M FINE.
COUNCIL SIMMONS, COUNCIL SIMMONS.
I JUST WANTED TO, UH, TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TIME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME THIS MEETING WAS, WAS SCHEDULED FOR, BUT IT'S GONNA BE OVER IN SEVEN MINUTES IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND THE MEETING SO THAT YOU CAN GET TO WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU WANNA DO BEFORE THE MEETING ENDS.
SO YOU HAVE SEVEN MINUTES TO FINISH EVERYTHING OR EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ANOTHER 10 MINUTES.
I THINK FOR THE RECORD, WE WON'T EXTEND THE MEETING, BUT WE'LL HAVE, UH, ADDITIONAL MEANS IF REQUIRED.
AND I DO HAVE A REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GOING FORWARD.
AND I THINK COUNCIL SUSIE'S, UH, POINTS ARE WELL MADE THAT MAYBE THERE IS, UH, A POLICY ORDER THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT, A SUBSTITUTE POLICY ORDER OR AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR AT THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE VOTED BY THE BODY AND AT, AT WRIT LODGE.
THE WHOLE, UH, TO DETERMINE HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
BECAUSE I THINK, UH, AT LEAST FROM THE CHAIR'S PERSPECTIVE, LISTENING TO COUNCIL, UH, AND LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE'S UH, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT CONSTERNATION WITH THIS AT THE MOMENT.
UM, AND FOR PURPOSES OF, FOR PURPOSES OF TIMING, I THINK IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO RUSH FORWARD TODAY.
WE SHOULD TAKE OUR TIME AND TRY AND GET THIS RIGHT.
THIS IS A 300% INCREASE IN THE, UH, PRICE OF THE RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM.
AND, UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOR PURPOSES AT LEAST OF, OF MY OWN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENTIRE PROGRAM, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, UH, MORE SPECIFICALLY HOW THE, UH, PERCENTAGE OF OF EFFORT FOR STAFF PERSONS IS ATTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE, UH, RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM AS OPPOSED TO OTHER DUTIES THAT THEY, UM, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
AND THEN SECONDLY, I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW, UM, WHICH LINE ITEM SPECIFICALLY THE MONEY IS, UH, SENT TO WITHIN THE CITY BUDGET AFTER THE $22 MILLION OR SO, OR 11.6 MILLION OF PARKING VIOLATIONS IS, UH, UH, APPROPRIATED OUT OF THE, UH, DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC, UH, OR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR TO EVERYONE HERE THAT, UM, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THIS DEPARTMENT IS A, UH, MONEY MAKING OPERATION.
UM, WE PROBABLY ALL KNOW THAT FROM OUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE AUTOMOBILES, AND IT SEEMS, I THINK INCONGRUOUS AT BEST TO PASS ALONG COSTS, UH, TO RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY SENIORS WHO ARE ON FIXED, FIXED INCOME 65 AND ABOVE, UH, WHO MAY NOT BE IN AN ABILITY OR, OR HAVE THE, UH, CAPACITY TO PAY $75 TO HAVE A CAR, WHICH, UH, IN, YOU KNOW, MOST PEOPLE'S LIVES AT THAT AGE IS AN ESSENTIAL TOOL
[01:55:01]
FOR GETTING AROUND.UM, SO I THINK WITH THAT, UM, SEEING COUNCILOR SUSIE'S MOTION TO ADJOIN, MAYBE WE'LL ADJOIN AND WE'LL REVISIT ALL THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES LATER ON.
UM, ROLL CALL ON THE MOTION TO ADJOIN VICE MAYOR ZE.
COUNCILOR NOLO, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
AND YOU HAVE FIVE MEMBERS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
I WANNA THANK THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR COMING AND MAKING A, UH, VERY INFORMATIVE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR EFFORTS.