BOSTON — As homeowners brace for yet another punishing property tax hike, the focus is widening beyond how much taxes are rising to a deeper question now circulating across the city: what has City Hall actually been spending money on?

A closer look at Boston’s budgets and spending decisions over the past several years reveals a pattern that is now drawing increased scrutiny. Among the many line items, one stands out for its size and symbolism — roughly $63 million in federal COVID recovery funds allocated to programs labeled “Economic Opportunity & Inclusion.”

A spending choice hidden in plain sight

The $63 million comes from the American Rescue Plan Act, the massive federal COVID relief package meant to help cities stabilize finances, replace lost revenue, and navigate the economic shock of the pandemic. Boston had wide discretion in how the funds could be used, and the allocation was disclosed in public documents.

What’s notable is not secrecy, but timing and priorities. The allocation surfaced during a period when City Hall was expanding programs, growing departments, and committing the city to long-term spending — even as economic warning signs were already flashing.

Budget growth as risks mounted

While federal recovery money flowed in, Boston’s broader financial picture was becoming more fragile. Office vacancies were rising. The commercial tax base was softening. Inflation was pushing costs higher across city government. Despite those pressures, overall spending continued to grow.

The Economic Opportunity & Inclusion allocation funded supplier diversity initiatives, targeted grants, and equity-focused economic programs. Supporters say those initiatives addressed real needs. Critics argue that using temporary federal funds to expand ongoing commitments created future pressure that would eventually land on taxpayers.

The bill comes due

That pressure is now being felt. Boston has imposed one of the largest residential property tax increases in decades, with additional strain already visible on the horizon. At the same time, City Hall is warning residents about “tough choices” ahead and floating modest belt-tightening measures after years of budget expansion.

The $63 million ARPA allocation did not create Boston’s budget challenges on its own. But as residents dig into how the city spent during years of historic federal support, it has become a focal point — a clear example of how priorities were set when money was abundant.

A broader governing philosophy

The spending also reflects a wider political framework popular during the pandemic, where federal relief was viewed not just as emergency aid but as a chance to advance long-term policy goals centered on equity and inclusion. Mayor Michelle Wu embraced that approach, expanding programs while relying on the belief that future growth would absorb the costs.

Now that belief is being tested. As tax bills rise and patience thins, residents are revisiting decisions made when the city had more room to maneuver.

A reckoning over choices, not ideology

None of the spending was hidden. None of it was illegal. But legality isn’t the same as sustainability, and transparency doesn’t guarantee foresight.

For homeowners opening mail they dread, this isn’t an abstract policy debate. It’s a reckoning over choices made during the good times — and whether anyone at City Hall fully grappled with what those choices would mean once the bills came due.