Council Updates, FY26 Budget, and More

City Budget
The last two weeks were marked by our annual budget hearings. As the chair of the Finance Committee I have worked with City staff over the last number of months to hold a number of targeted meetings, coordinate budget questions, and work through individual budget requests. As of this Thursday, all department budgets within the FY26 City budget were forwarded to the full City Council after discussion in the Finance Committee. I expect the budget to be voted on during our June 2 Council meeting. This budget process, which although formally began a few weeks ago with the budget submission, has really been an almost year-long process. As Finance chair, I have held meetings throughout the last fiscal year on ARPA, Participatory Budgeting, public investment planning, council budget priorities, the police department budget, large project planning, as well as four days of individual department hearings. By holding so many different kinds of meetings, we were able to work collaboratively with the City Manager to improve transparency within the budget and discuss important long term planning. Over my tenure as Finance chair and Finance co-chair, I have worked to improve transparency and accountability – one prominent example of that is the inclusion of SMART goals within dozens of department budgets. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound goals allow the public to understand the purpose of budget allocations and hold us all accountable.

The budget hearings were marked by a nearly constant refrain of fiscal restraint in the wake of economic uncertainty. Given our huge increase in staffing over the last few years, and the current economic state, relatively level staffing is appropriate, year to year. The budget grew at more than 7% per year for the last few years, and we need to halve that growth factor to stay within our financial bounds. If the worst case happens with federal funding and the economy, there may be further steps we will need to take, which is why we need to keep our financial flexibility in terms of an unallocated fund balance (“free cash”) intact. As we continue to navigate economic uncertainty and federal government upheaval, it remains essential to be transparent and honest about our municipal financial strategies. My priorities in the coming year in terms of budget allocations are to keep budget flexibility in the case of additional federal and state funding cuts, continue to explore ways to reduce spending where appropriate, and continue to focus discretionary spending on low-income residents with housing support and sustainable living. I encourage all residents to read through the budget book – it is a refreshingly accessible document (if long) and provides great insight into the work of individual departments and ongoing capital investments.

Inclusionary Zoning
I recently cosponsored a policy order asking the City Manager to study the effect of the inclusionary zoning policy on the creation of affordable housing and multifamily housing. The goal of the policy order was to better understand housing production under the inclusionary zoning policy and work to address barriers to production of both affordable and market rate housing – both important goals of the City. The inclusionary zoning rate is not the only question asked in the policy order (it also asks about tax abatements, expedited permitting processes, and funding for additional affordable units), but it is a large lever that has seemed to impact the creation of housing of all kinds in recent years. The reality is that as a city, we are struggling to build multifamily housing due to economic factors and to the 20% inclusionary requirement which exacerbates that challenge. In fact, as noted by the most recent report from Housing staff, almost no projects have been built at 20% inclusionary due to the ordinance, as opposed to other factors like a lab development. The request to consider lowering the inclusionary housing rate is not to dilute affordable housing production, but to ensure we continue to get affordable housing in market rate buildings. Many affordable housing experts across the state agree that 20% may be a significant barrier to affordable housing production in market rate development under current – and likely future – economic conditions. There are several large multifamily projects under development throughout the city – good projects with significant numbers of affordable units – that are not able to start construction due to the inclusionary zoning rate. I want to consider the total number of units we could create (affordable and market rate) with a lower, or perhaps scaled, inclusionary rate. If we can create more housing under a lower rate or a scaled rate, we need to consider that as an option. And if we can find ways to build at 20% through other incentives, I am open to supporting that. The bottom line for me is the need to create housing of all types, especially multifamily housing, and per the figures provided by City staff, that is not currently happening. I also want to continue to press to find ways to fund other social housing means, through tax abatements, the affordable housing trust, or other state funding. It will take some time to study the impact of inclusionary housing, but I believe it’s something we should consider as a way to develop more affordable and market rate housing than is currently being created.

Resident Access at City Owned Parking Lots
Protected bike lanes provide essential transportation safety for residents getting around town, commuters getting to work, and children traveling to school, and bike lanes, and pedestrian safety improvements, but also lead to a loss of resident and business parking that some residents rely on for mobility, access, and convenience. We need to work towards net zero transportation options and we have a responsibility to residents to help that transition by providing alternative parking options. To better utilize existing parking facilities. In December, the Council passed ordinance changes that would allow businesses to open up their existing parking spaces to residents or other businesses, and the commercial spot aspect of the change is being worked out. I have filed two policy orders (here and here) that ask the City to take action with existing city-owned parking lots. The City responded to indicate it would initiate conversations with the School Department to look into the feasibility. This is not a novel solution: many in the community asked for such a program when the KO/CSUS complex was built, and Boston allows residents to utilize parking in many municipal lots, including at schools. There are several feasible options to both make existing parking more widely available and manage its use effectively. By collaborating and creating these kinds of shared solutions, I hope we can ease tension created by a dearth of access to parking and lead to more balanced solutions for both residents and businesses in the city.

Transition Wellness Center
For the last several weeks we have been discussing the planned closure of the Transition Wellness Center (TWC), an ARPA supported program that will end in June. I did not support the additional request for $3 million annually to replace previous ARPA funding, since the city did an amazing job this year opening up many permanent housing spots for the unhoused. I did advocate for $1 million in additional housing vouchers to support the remaining TWC residents who have not yet been placed in other supportive housing programs, and I am very happy the City Manager found a way to fund that addition. The TWC was a program that was only possible because of federal ARPA funding, and for the last year, City staff at DHS have been working diligently to place TWC residents in new shelter facilities. The timing of that transition was done purposefully to align with the opening of new housing units and took significant work from dedicated DHS staff. The TWC was never intended as a permanent shelter facility, but recognizing the underlying community needs, additional ARPA funding was allocated to extend the initial one-year contract to three years, ending in June of this year. The reality is that the TWC is an extremely expensive model for supportive housing, at approximately $50,000/person, and at a time of financial uncertainty, we need to commit existing funds to larger shelter programs as well as focusing on rental assistance to prevent evictions and the creation of new housing. In many ways we rely on the state for temporary shelter opportunities and in collaboration with the state, Cambridge hosts more individual adult shelter beds per capita than any other city in the state – that is something to be proud of and something we need to encourage other communities to emulate. I was able to support the additional housing vouchers because I believe that $1 million allocation can stretch the funding further – ensuring that TWC residents have additional transition support while not taking on additional year-to-year operating costs for more temporary housing options. In addition, I am supportive of the City Manager’s recommendation to create a Federal Funding Stabilization Fund of $5 million, which will be used to fund additional housing and homelessness support as we navigate the uncertainty of the slashing of essential benefits by the federal government.