Weekly Transcript Round-up for 05/15/26
tahir h
Weekly Transcript Round-up for 05/15/26BPI first noted vote no effort that prompted Wu letter; BPI has context for week full of Council & City Hall news; BPI looks at how City Hall did answering 12 budget hearing questions
Before getting into a review of this week’s hearings and news, last night news broke from both the Herald and Globe that Mayor Wu sent a letter to Councilors about the FY27 budget. The letter’s apparent goal was described by the Herald’s headline: “Boston Mayor Wu tries to quell rebellion, as City Council mobilizes to reject her $4.9B budget due to cuts.” Neither paper published the letter and BPI does not have a copy. However, BPI was the first organization to publicly note this brewing rebellion: BPI wrote about Councilor Worrell’s pitch for the Council to vote down the FY27 budget 2 weeks ago in our liveblog of the Council’s first - and so only - budget working session. Read a live account of the working session in this posts comments
At that working session Worrell laid out the prior budget process, where mayors submitted 2 budgets:
This press release provides an excellent look at how that prior budget process worked. It was published in June 2018 - Mayor Walsh’s 5th year in office - lays out how the re-submitted budget worked. Here is how Walsh’s June 2018 budget differed from the April 2018 version:
Compare that $139M or 4.4% worth of changes to a $3.3B budget in 2018 to the changes obtained by the Council in 2025: $9M or 0.19% worth of changes to a $4.8B budget. This week the Council and City Hall were in the news a lot, so BPI has links to those pieces, plus additional context like transcripts and past action on the same issues. Also in this issue of WTR: a review of City officials’ response to BPI’s 12 questions at this week’s 6 budget hearings. This week saw a number of combative exchanges between Councilors and City staff, with the Environment Cabinet Chief telling Councilor Flynn his question wasn’t “germane” (Question #2) to the budget hearing, and the interim Parks & Recreational director dodging Council President Breadon’s question about capital spending (Question #6). CITY COUNCIL IN THE NEWS Ways & Means Chair Ben Weber suggested moving money from the Fire Department to plug the $724k cut to the Veterans Department, which elicited significant opposition both inside and outside the Council - read more from the Boston Herald. The proposal also prompted yet another Murphy vs Durkan clash at Wednesday’s Council meeting, with Durkan’s blockade of late files keeping Murphy’s hearing order about budget cuts to BFD off the Council floor - read Murphy’s statement on Instagram & the exchange last from the 3:23:44 to the 3:26:24 mark. The whole episode highlighted a point BPI has made frequently: the Council’s rudimentary understanding of City Hall’s budget means its new amendment power is wasted, since the body is incapable of making these sort of fine-grained spending changes. Governor Healey has new legislation out to create state-wide regulations for mopeds, scooters, and e-bikes and Boston’s third party app delivery regulations, passed by the Council last year, along with Councilor Flynn’s call for a complete ban those vehicles use by delivery app drivers, are playing an outsized role in the state-wide debate - read more from the Boston Globe.
At Wednesday’s regular meeting, several Councilors appeared to change their position on White Stadium. Those changes came to light thanks to a resolution from Councilor Mejia - Docket #1005 on p. 93 - which urged City Hall to pause construction at the site until the Supreme Judicial Court rules on a lawsuit seeking to stop the project. Discussion of the resolution was messy: there was an effort to re-write the resolution and a 37 minute recess before Councilor Mejia objected to her own resolution - read more from the Boston Herald and find the Council discussion starting at the 1:55:21 mark & ending at the 2:50:27 mark. Several councilors invoked “economic development” as a reason to support White Stadium, but to date no study has been released examining how the renovated arena will affect real estate development and business in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is unusual: nearly every other modern pro-sports stadium is the centerpiece of a real estate development plan, a model that the ownership groups which control Boston’s 2 pro-sports stadiums - Fenway and the Garden - have heartily embraced.  On the left is the map of White Stadium’s “no parking” zone also shows where real estate development for dining and entertainment may occur. Compare that to the Canal District on the right, the district improvement financing (DIF) zone created in Worcester to use the new tax revenue generated by private sector investments around Polar Park to pay down the debt that City incurred to build it. This week the frequently broken elevator at the Ruth Batson Apartments - a subject at Boston City Council meetings since 2024 thanks to the letters, resolutions, 17F requests, and hearing orders filed by Councilor Ed Flynn - earned the Boston Housing Authority a rare fine from the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board - read more from the Boston Herald and WBUR. Flynn’s public advocacy about the elevator has sparked a public battle between the South Boston Councilor and his former Council colleague Kenzie Bok - who left the Council in 2023 to become the Boston Housing Authority Administrator - most memorably the Boston Herald’s “Fowl Play” headline after each accused the other of lying about whether the Ruth Batson elevator was broken last Thanksgiving - read more from the Boston Herald. This week the Boston Globe published a deeply reported piece from City Hall reporter Niki Griswold titled “‘We have had enough’: Black Bostonians are directing ire about Wu at her allies on the City Council” detailing a wide range of complaints about the relationship between Boston’s 6 Councilors of color and Mayor Wu. This article shines a light on a dynamic that has been playing a major role in activity seen on the Council, in City Hall, and in neighborhoods and is worth reading. It also prompted a response by Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker titled “Just how angry is Black Boston at Mayor Michelle Wu?” CITY HALL IN THE NEWS On Monday a Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled a class action lawsuit could proceed. The plantiff alleges City Hall retaliated against at least 60 commercial property owners who appealed their property assessment to the state’s Appellate Tax Board by illegal increasing the assessed value of their property - read more from the Boston Herald, Boston Globe, and Banker & Tradesman. The lawsuit is made even more important because it got its own paragraph in Moody’s recent credit rating report, which wrote that losing “could be a credit negative event” for Boston. That is bad news for City Hall, because the City’s top attorney appears to have acknoweledged that what the plaintiff is alleging did happen, according to an email exchange reported by the Boston Herald. BPI’s Executive Director broke down the lawsuit this week - check out the video on Instagram, Facebook, & TikTok as well.  The Boston Globe Editorial Board expressed its disagreement with City Hall after the official in charge of public records ruled that Mayor Wu’s texts with developers - which the Mayor offered to show the editorial board during an interview - are not public record. City Hall and the Commonwealth are putting $10.5M - from Wu’s Housing Accelerator Fund and Healey’s Momentum Fund - into a 110 unit project at 20 Malcolm X Blvd in Roxbury - read more from the Boston Herald, the state’s press release, and the BPDA Article 80 project website. This is just the 2nd project that the Accelerator Fund has funded, after announcing a few weeks ago it was backing a project at a Charlestown public housing complex - read more from the Banker & Tradesman. The big question coming out of these recent announcements is: how were these projects chosen? The closest the City got to answering this question was in January 2025 - before the Housing Accelerator Fund was even approved - when Reuben Kantor, a Planning Department staffer listed as “Senior Policy Advisor” who appears to run at least part of the Housing Accelerator Fund told the Council - he is Speaker 4 & starts at the 22:27 mark:
The Boston Globe has provided a much more detailed and colorful answer thanks to columnist Shirley Leung. In an article published May 5 Leung reported how Alex Shing, who runs the Los Angles-based private equity real estate firm Cottonwood Group, drew up the idea on a napkin during a South End coffee meeting in early 2024 with Mayor Michelle Wu and Boston Housing Authority administrator Kenzie Bok. With so much reporting about slowing pace of real estate development in Boston and City Hall’s insistence that the slowdown is being caused by the high cost of borrowing - not City Hall policy - how the Accelerator Fund picks projects needs to be explained to the Council and public. CITY HALL ANSWERS BPI’S BUDGET HEARING QUESTIONS This week BPI had 12 questions for this week’s 6 budget hearings and City officials answered just 5 of them. 1. Is Fernandez Bibeau’s level of involvement in White Stadium typical for a senior Planning Department staffer? Other examples? This question was not asked or answered. 2. What formal role will Fernandez Bibeau play in enforcing the White Stadium transportation plan? This question was not addressed and no one discussed Fernandez Bibeau’s specific enforcement role going forward. However, the transportation access plan was discussed in a sharp 2 minute exchange between Flynn on one hand and Franklin Park Executive Director Luis Perez Demorizi Luis Perez and Environment, Energy, and Open Space Cabinet Chief Brian Swett on the other - starts at 41:23 and ends at 43:35 mark. At one point Swett told Flynn: “that’s not a question that’s germane to this budget hearing. This is the park department, that’s not a park department cost.” 3. Has there been discussion about White Stadium driving real estate development in surrounding neighborhoods? This question was not asked or answered. 4. Has Wildlife Hospitality Group or Able Company been consulted about entertainment district planning? Has the City considered impacts on recently issued liquor licenses? This question was not asked or answered. 5. Does the City have a plan for privately operated parking lots around White Stadium? This question was not asked or answered. 6. Parks & Rec spent only $29M of $81M budgeted for capital in FY26, and the FY27–31 capital budget is $37M less than FY26–30. How were those decisions made? Council President Breadon asked this question - this starts at the 2:15:08 mark:
Baker-Eclipse appears to be claiming that the $81M figure was the amount of capital spending Parks & Rec would do over the entire 5 year period, but that is wrong. The FY26-30 capital budget for Parks and Recreation called for spending $81M in FY26, part of a plan to spend $282M over that 5 year period. According to the FY27-31 budget, just $29M of that planned $81M was spent, just as Breadon said. Check out those numbers in the budgets below.
This sort of exchange, where a City official claims a Councilor is wrong about budget figures in order to not answer a question, has been deployed by enough different City officials this budget season to be called a tactic. It is something to watch in the coming weeks. 7. Is the administration planning on offering new legislation for the Human Rights Commission? A number of Councilors mentioned the Human Rights Commission at Tuesday morning’s Equity & Inclusion Cabinet hearing: Councilor Worrell asked about FTE positions at HRC at the 53:30 mark and Councilor Breadon mentioned the ordinance at the 1:34:36 mark. Councilor Flynn spent all of his 2nd round time on HRC-related questions - this starts at the 2:05:14 mark - and it produced some sharp exchanges between the Councilor and Chief Solis Cervera. During that exchange Solis Cervera made the case that the Human Rights Commission was an outdated ordinance, and that her Cabinet was doing the work without the HRC - 2:08:12 mark:
8. Does the Wu administration feel bound to follow ordinances like the LGBTQIA2S+ one, given the decision to zero out the HRC? Flynn’s first question about HRC was this, asking - 2:05:14 mark:
Chief Solis Cervera said that was a question for Corporation Counsel Mike Firestone. Councilor Worrell then reiterated the question at the end of the hearing - 2:55:15 mark:
He did not get an answer to the question. 9. What is the status of hiring a director for Fair Housing & Equity? In the morning hearing, Deputy Chief Maya Geder said they were - 39:04 mark - “planning to hire, hopefully, this spring” and “look forward to filling the role hopefully by the fall.” In the afternoon second round, Chief Solis Cervera confirmed to Councilor Culpepper that no director has been hired and said they are - 2:38:34 mark - “very close to posting the position finally.” Councilor Culpepper pushed for a 90-day hiring commitment. Culpepper desire for a firm time table is likely because Solis Cervera told the Council last year that a director would be hired soon. That wasn’t true, and now the position has been vacant since Robert Terrell’s death in January 2025, more than a year ago. 10. Can Solis Cervera walk through what happened between the BMA annual report calling for level funding and the $500k cut? This question was asked by Council President Breadon and Black Male Advancement director Frank Farrow acknowledged the commission requested level funding, then said “after we submitted our request, there were additional conversations between the mayor, cabinet chiefs, OBM, and finance leadership, and they ultimately made the decision on what the cuts were gonna be” - this exchange starts at the 2:27:23 mark. Solis Cervera provided a broader view of the budget process, telling Councilors that the choice was “personnel or grants” and she prioritized keeping staff - this starts at the answer at 57:08. 11. How will the $757k cut to “non-personnel services” affect need-based financial aid to low-income veterans and their surviving spouses? Commissioner Santiago told the Council that state-mandated financial assistance program for low-income veterans were not part of the cut - this answer occurs around the 51:30 mark. What is being cut is the Bridge the Gap mini-grant program - grants of $2,500–$9,999 to community organizations serving veterans who don’t qualify for Chapter 115 - the Heroes Banners program and some contracted services - this answer starts around the 1:07:33 mark. Councilor Flynn pressed Santiago and Chief Masso about the budget, with Santiago confirming that the department submitted only a 2% cut proposal, and that the the decision to eliminate community grants came from above the department level, not from the department’s own recommendation - this answer occurs around the 3:23:05 mark. 12. Where is the $1 million federal earmark for transportation services in the budget? Council President Breadon asked this question, and Commissioner Shea told her the reason it doesn’t appear to show up prominently in the external funds budget is that the money has not yet been drawn down — they’re still in the waiting/application stage with the federal government, which would explain why it isn’t reflected as received funding in FY27 - this answer occurs around the 3:02:13 mark. Boston Policy Institute, Inc is working to improve the public conversation - help us by following BPI on YouTube, TikTok, |
