Boston tax hike proposal triggers more fireworks among City Council

A Boston City Council emergency meeting held for the sole purpose of kicking a revised mayoral home rule petition that would hike commercial tax rates to a committee for a hearing and possible vote next week led to unexpected fireworks.

City Council President Ruthzee Louijeune said at the outset of Friday morning’s virtual meeting that she had called the emergency session to “refer the mayor’s proposed home rule petition to a committee for further action” to “prevent further delay and address urgent tax matters being taken up at the city and with the state.”

A unanimous vote was quickly taken to allow the emergency meeting to continue, with Louijeune immediately moving to refer the docket for the mayor’s home rule petition to the Government Operations committee.

Louijeune then called for a vote to adjourn the meeting, about 5 minutes after it began. While the vote was unanimous, questions were raised by several councilors when they were called upon to cast their vote — setting off some confusion later about why the meeting was proceeding after the adjournment vote was taken.

“I just want to make sure I understand the protocols and procedures at this point,” Councilor Julia Mejia said prior to casting a “yes” for adjournment. “Are we adjourning if I say yes, or no we’re not staying,”

Louijeune said that while the Council had voted to adjourn, she had not officially called for adjournment — to allow for further discussion that began with Councilor Ed Flynn’s request to speak, and led to further questions raised by councilors about the process and concerns that the body might opt to bypass a hearing to fast-track the mayor’s petition for a vote next Wednesday without community input.

“The process here seems rushed, in my opinion,” Flynn said, “and that we’re just doing this meeting as a formality, and then we’ll go right to Tuesday and right to the vote on Wednesday. It doesn’t seem like we’re actually doing our due diligence in studying this issue, listening to constituents, listening to residents.

“It’s almost as if we’re a rubber stamp, and we’re just trying to get this out the door by Wednesday afternoon, for whatever reason,” he added.

Flynn went on to state that his remarks represented his opinion, and asked the Council president if they were accurate.

“As you stated, that’s your opinion, and I’m not going to offer an opinion on your opinion,” Louijeune said.

Mayor Michelle Wu told reporters Thursday that she had been “hoping to have a hearing next week and vote next Wednesday,” with the clock ticking before tax rates are set month, meaning that the Council would need to act quickly on the petition, to send it to the Legislature for a vote by late November. The mayor says her plan is aimed at fending off a double-digit tax increase for homeowners.

Flynn, a critic of the mayor’s tax plan who has offered two alternatives, blocked the home rule petition from being added as a late-file matter to Wednesday’s agenda, which required unanimous consent. He later cited concerns with transparency and back-room negotiations that didn’t include the City Council.

The revised petition is the result of a compromise the mayor reached this week with four business leaders who opposed Wu’s initial plan and withdrew their opposition contingent upon a lower shift of the city’s tax burden, beyond what is allowed by state law.

A prior version of the bill, which drew criticism for further burdening a struggling commercial sector dealing with falling values and vacant office buildings, passed the City Council and House of Representatives, but stalled in the Senate by the end of formal legislative sessions in late July.

Negotiations resumed privately late last month between the mayor, Senate President Karen Spilka, Boston senators and business stakeholders involved in this week’s deal — which would reduce the annual property tax increase for the average single-family homeowner from 14% to roughly 9% and January’s quarterly bill from 28% to 18%.

Mejia and Murphy raised concerns about whether a hearing on the home rule petition would be held, prior to a possible vote next Wednesday.

“Is there an expectation that this body is going to have a hearing to discuss this new tax proposal, because it seems like lots of other people in the city have had the, I would say, pleasure (and) opportunity to be really involved in this conversation, but we on the council have not,” Murphy said.

Mejia noted that she had assumed a hearing would be held, per protocols that call for a hearing after a matter is placed in committee, but became concerned that there wouldn’t be after Flynn questioned whether there would be one, and if it would include public testimony.

“If he’s questioning it, then that got me questioning it,” Mejia said.

Councilor John FitzGerald requested that the hearing featured two formal panels that represent both sides of the argument.

Councilor Gabriela Coletta, chair of the Government Operations Committee, assured her colleagues that it was always her intention to hold a hearing — scheduled after the meeting for next Tuesday — with public testimony, but said that in terms of panels, “that’s to be determined.”

“This is an important matter to all of us and to the City of Boston,” Coletta said.

Continued discussion after the day’s adjournment vote led to Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson saying that she would retract her vote to adjourn, after asking why her colleagues voted to end the meeting if they didn’t want to.

The motion was seconded and led to a vote to reconsider the day’s adjournment vote, which failed by a 7-6 margin. Councilors Liz Breadon, Coletta, Sharon Durkan, FitzGerald, Enrique Pepén, Henry Santana and Benjamin Weber were opposed, and Fernandes Anderson, Flynn, Louijeune, Mejia, Murphy and Brian Worrell were in favor. The vote led to Louijeune officially ending the meeting.

Flynn issued a statement Friday afternoon, expressing his disappointment with the way the meeting “was conducted,” in terms of what he sensed as his colleagues desire to “rush” to adjourn the meeting “less than 10 minutes” after it began “without any intent to have a discussion,” or allow the opportunity to answer the questions that had been raised, which he said led to “more confusion.”

“Unfortunately, the actions of the administration and certain members of the City Council of late is indicative of a leadership style that has no room for questions, participation, debate, and never mind dissent,” Flynn said in a statement. “It is important to remember that as a body, our function, no matter how tight deadlines are, is to hold accountable the executive branch and represent our constituents.”