Newsletter Signup
Stay up to date on all the latest news from Boston.com
Wu rejects City Council budget changes that would move money away from police, fire departments
Councilors voted to reallocate some funds away from public safety, prioritizing housing and youth employment. Mayor Michelle Wu vetoed most of the council's changes Monday.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said Monday that she is vetoing a series of budget adjustments that the City Council made last week, which included cutting allocations for the city’s police and fire departments.
By a 10-3 vote, councilors chose to reallocate money away from the Police Department, the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department toward areas like housing assistance and youth jobs. Wu introduced her proposed budget for fiscal year 2025 in April. Councilors had been formulating their amendments to it during more than 30 hearings and working sessions that culminated in the vote last week.
Advertisement:
The City Council reallocated $15.3 million of the proposed $4.6 billion budget. They did not reduce the overall spending level proposed by Wu. Under the council’s amendments, all of the city’s major departments, including those focused on public safety, would still see increases to their individual budgets.
Wu has the power to approve or deny the changes made by councilors, which she exercised Monday.
“Boston is now the safest major city in the country, and we must continue that progress through continued coordination and strong infrastructure for community safety and excellent city services for youth, families, and seniors,” Wu wrote in a letter to councilors. “Our record-low levels of violence are tied to well-resourced public safety efforts, beautiful parks and public spaces, and comprehensive programming to serve every generation of our community.”
Advertisement:
Councilor Brian Worrell, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, defended the process that led to the council’s reallocations.
“The package that 10 councilors agreed on last week took a data-driven approach. And in that vote, the Council showed its commitment to public safety with the largest increases in recent history, adding $47 million to the police budget next year and $27 million to the fire budget. The Council’s final package reflected the voices of the constituents and none of the differences will affect personnel,” Worrell said in a statement.
Councilors John FitzGerald, Ed Flynn, and Erin Murphy voted against the amendments last week. All three expressed satisfaction with Wu’s decision Monday. Wu first announced her veto during the Boston Fire Department’s annual memorial ceremony Sunday, according to Murphy, who was in attendance. Murphy said she was not surprised at the move, since Wu rejected similar proposals to decrease allocations for public safety during last year’s back-and-forth.
The City Council could, with a two-thirds majority, override the mayor’s vetoes. It is unclear when the matter will be taken up. Worell could choose to call for a separate meeting ahead of another vote, Murphy said. In that case, councilors would likely not vote until their meeting on June 26, as next week’s meeting falls on the federal holiday of Juneteenth.
Advertisement:
Murphy expressed optimism that more of her colleagues could come around to agree with her, Flynn, FitzGerald, and Wu.
“[The amendments] would have made a drastic impact on safety in the city, and the mayor agrees. I’m confident that we could get other colleagues to agree,” she said.
FitzGerald said Monday that he is committed to fully funding all “core city services.”
“I think it’s a great thing,” he said of Wu’s veto. “We’ve seen a lot of reduction in crime over the past several years, and I think that’s a result of our investment in our police department and other programs that keep kids active and off the streets.”
Flynn cited a “great deal of uncertainty” in Boston’s economic outlook and emphasized the need to take budgetary responsibilities “seriously” in a statement.
“Now is not the time for the City Council to cut funding from public safety departments and basic city services,” he said.
The Boston Police Patrolman’s Association praised Wu as well.
“We applaud Mayor Wu for, not only prioritizing public safety, but moving to fully restore any irresponsible cuts to the police budget by a City Council seemingly more concerned with playing politics instead of providing the highest levels of public safety to the people of Boston,” the union said in a statement posted to X.
Advertisement:
Wu’s returned budget does accept about $2 million in proposed spending. In her letter, she recognized the council’s focus on housing and youth jobs. Wu kept $500,000 in allocations for down payment assistance, community land trusts, and legal representation for families.
She also accepted funding for council office salaries, inspectional services, trash “containerization,” infant and maternal health programs, and small business support.
Voters gave City Council the power to reallocate funds within the mayor’s proposed budget in 2021. Although she agreed with Wu’s veto decision, Murphy said she would like to see a wider discussion of this process and how much power it really gives to councilors.
“It’s the third year in a row where the mayor has vetoed basically all of the amendments that have been sent over,” Murphy said.
FitzGerald, a first-time councilor, said he was “curious” to see Wu’s response to the council’s amendments and said the overall process has been conducted well.
“Any conversation that looks at options of other ways to do things is worth having. These are things we should be taking a look at,” he said. “Light is being shed on certain topics, understanding where money comes from and where it goes. That’s probably the most important responsibility we have as councilors, being the fiscal stewards of this city. The process was ran well, and at the end of the day the mayor is the mayor and that’s why you get elected to that position.”
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com