Stephanie Smith

At the Everett City Council Budget Hearing on Admin and Finance on May 27, 2026, Councilor Stephanie Smith was active throughout the discussion and focused on budget structure, staffing, revenue, procurement, and transparency.

She began by pressing for clarity on rising dues, asking, “I noticed that all the dues are going up,” and whether the listed figures were the actual amounts paid to national municipal and mayoral organizations. She also questioned how to interpret the multicultural department budget and whether DEI would be folded into the mayor’s office next year for financial presentation. Smith said the budget still appeared to show two departments: “Because right now, it still looks like it is its own department.”

Smith then moved through commission and board staffing, asking about open positions across commissions, specifically the Election Commission and the licensing board. She said she wanted to go page by page through the budget book so no boards were missed. She also raised a point of procedure about whether fixed costs would be reviewed. On staffing, she asked for clarification on full-time versus part-time positions, the number of full-time resources, and the role formerly held by Kevin O’Donnell, including how work was being split between 311 and ECTV.

In transportation-related discussion, Smith supported bringing work in-house to reduce consultant spending and said, “I love bringing things in-house.” She asked about the senior planner role, questioned the grant writer’s responsibilities and results, and raised concerns about traffic congestion, Dexter Street signal issues, and the possible impact of the Silver Line on Broadway.

Smith also asked detailed questions about the wreck revolving account, wellness center revenue, and expenses, including salaries, maintenance, and equipment. She said the city appeared to be losing money and asked whether additional revenue would be pursued. On procurement, she questioned why professional services were being cut, whether work was being brought in-house, and whether the procurement analyst would help departments set up purchase orders correctly and provide training.

She voted yes on motions to excuse the guest(s) and to accept the budget as presented. Later, she supported a motion to cut $105,000 from the salary line item. She also asked whether a transparency portal was a reporting tool, whether it would show real-time financials, and questioned the cost of a digital budget book. She described herself as a former auditor and said she favored keeping audit functions separate.

City Council President Stephanie Smith presided over the Everett City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, opening with “Good evening,” calling for the roll, and noting, “10 members present, we do have a quorum.” She led the Pledge of Allegiance and repeatedly managed the meeting’s order, including motions to suspend the rules, take items out of order, close public participation, and recess briefly so a family could take photos. Each of those procedural motions passed.

Smith also handled several appointment and committee matters. She moved items involving reappointments and committee reports, including motions for favorable action on multiple items and a referral of one matter to the Committee of Legislative Affairs and Elections. When discussing renewals, she explained the procedural options: “I believe if you’re paid, that you can be referred to legislative affairs. If not, you can suspend the rules and do favorable action,” adding, “So it’s up to the pleasure of the board.” She later rescinded a prior motion so the body could proceed with favorable action.

On the MSBA-related school feasibility study, Smith spoke from the chair to explain that the study was required if the city wanted to move forward with a new school or rehabilitation project. She said the work would support future reimbursement and clarified that the item was specifically for a new high school study, not the middle school. She told councilors the issue had been discussed in committee and urged them to vote as they saw fit.

Smith also questioned the Encore representative, asking for an update on transportation and whether the shuttle service from the host agreement was still in place. Later, on the Everett Square update, she said her “biggest concern was the right-hand turn,” praised keeping it to reduce traffic on Broadway, and said she did not think Everett Square revitalization could happen without the referenced building. She also supported outdoor dining and broader access for nearby food businesses.

Smith took a clear position on the data center proposal. She said she had researched the issue, found the definitions of “data center” and “server room” unclear, and argued, “There needs to be more guardrails.” She cited direct impacts in Ward 1, describing train, equipment, and truck noise, and said the proposal was “too broad.” She requested that the matter go back to committee for more restrictive language.

At the close, Smith announced the legal basis for an executive session concerning the federal civil rights lawsuit Phil Colameta v. City of Everett et al., moved the council into executive session, and presided over the roll call vote to do so.

Stephanie Smith, as City Council President, played a central role throughout the Everett City Council Budget Hearing on Small Departments. She repeatedly questioned department representatives on staffing, salaries, service levels, and budget changes, while also chairing and managing several motions.

Early in the hearing, Smith asked about a departing employee’s salary, saying, “You answered my question when I was wanting to ask about the salary if your salary was $82,400,” and followed up, “I just want to make sure that we were not planning on cutting your salary while you were in the position.” She thanked the department for its work for veterans and city events and told the departing staffer, “It’s unfortunate that we’re losing you, but I wish you the best of luck.” She also asked detailed questions about library staffing, including where a new library aid would be placed, whether the increase reflected staffing shortages or higher foot traffic, whether the change was tied to extended hours, and what the current Saturday and weekday hours were at the Shute and Parlin libraries. She further asked whether both libraries would continue serving children, teens, and adults, and whether rooms were available for cardholders to use as offices for the day.

Smith also praised city staff, saying of a legal department hire, “I actually called the mayor last night after we talked and said, Jacqueline was such a great hire.” She seconded the motion to bring the interim director up and later thanked Neil for answering her questions. She then asked about the technology budget, the DESE certification incentive, web-based programming costs, and the rollout of new agenda software, including whether it would be used by all boards, improve resident access, and be implemented by next summer.

On elections, Smith raised a conflict-of-interest concern about the city clerk serving on the Elections Commission and signing off on results while also chairing the board. She said, “I still believe it’s a conflict of interest,” and pressed on whether removing the clerk would require another Home Rule petition.

Her votes and motions included: voting yes to bring the interim director up; voting yes to excuse the guest; voting yes to accept the technology budget as is; voting yes to a favorable recommendation on the city clerk’s budget as presented; voting yes to reduce reimbursable expenses by $11,000 to $33,000; and voting yes to accept the budget as presented. She also proposed that council unspent funds be returned, explained a proposed cut to an unfunded open position, and argued for clear job duties tied to taxpayer dollars.

At the Everett City Council meeting on Monday, April 27, 2026, Councilor Stephanie Smith presided over major portions of the agenda, opening the meeting by saying, “Good evening,” then directing, “It is now 7:00. Will the clerk please call the roll?” After the roll call confirmed a quorum, she led the Pledge of Allegiance and opened the first public hearing.

During the hearing on Item 1, Smith managed the proceedings by recognizing the petitioner and asking three times whether anyone wished to speak in favor of the petition, then three times whether anyone was opposed. After the public hearing closed, she announced, “The ayes have it,” and stated that the item passed. She also told attendees, “You can connect with a representative from National Grid, and then we’ll come back again in two weeks,” and acknowledged uncertainty on a technical question, saying, “I do not know the answer for this, but I’m sure that we can talk with National Grid to find that out for the next meeting about is there an easement or what needs to be done?”

Smith continued to guide the council through another public hearing, again asking for support and opposition three times, then noting, “We have to close the public hearing first,” before the council moved to favorable action. The recorded votes associated with her presiding role included: opening the public hearing on Item 1, inviting the petitioner up, closing the hearing, postponing the matter to the next meeting, opening and closing later hearings, and approving favorable action on the National Grid petition for underground facilities on Chalton Street and Broadway, as well as favorable action on the petition pending conditions.

She later handled public participation and asked a procedural question about councilor travel expenses, stating that councilors who attended could email individuals directly about their expenses, but “we can’t address that” on the floor. She also described items 12 through 17 as appointments, thanked the appointees for attending the committee meeting, and explained that the council had already voted on them collectively. Smith announced the roll call result on the appointments as “Nine yeas, one nay,” and said, “The items have passed.”

At the Everett City Council meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026, Stephanie Smith served as council president and opened the session by saying, “Good evening. Today is April 13, and this is the regular meeting of our city council.” She also announced a citation before the meeting, then called a five-minute recess “so we can take some photos just for the public that’s watching on TV,” and later brought the meeting “back in order.”

Smith managed the meeting flow throughout the evening. She asked the petitioner to give “an overview,” recognized council members by name, and called for votes on procedural matters. Early in the meeting, she moved the body through public-hearing items, including inviting petitioners from National Grid, postponing a public hearing, and taking the public hearings for items 3 and 4 collectively. She also asked the clerk to call the roll.

During discussion of later agenda items, Smith explained that the matters before the council were orders offered by her and answered questions about staffing and title changes in the administrative code. She stated that “that change was just a title change,” and also clarified that another position was new. On a procedural issue, she said, “These are not questions,” and redirected the matter into the proper process, explaining that comments should go through the relevant committee or commission. She also emphasized that item 11 was “just a communication” that would be placed on file and that “there’s no cross debate.”

Smith took votes and announced outcomes on a number of motions, including:

• invite the petitioner before the council — approved
• invite up the petitioners from National Grid — approved
• postpone the public hearing — approved
• take the public hearings for items 3 and 4 collectively — approved
• close the public hearing — approved
• open public participation — approved
• close public participation — approved
• take item 32 from the calendar — approved
• favorably act on items 26 and 27 — approved
• suspend the rules and take items 12 through 17 collectively and out of order — approved
• refer items to legislative affairs with information about open positions — approved
• take items 22 through 25 collectively — approved
• refer the matter to the respective parties — approved
• adjourn — approved

She ended the meeting by calling the adjournment vote and announcing, “The ayes have it.”

At the Everett Special City Council meeting on Thursday, April 9, 2026, Councilor Stephanie Smith called the meeting to order with the opening, “Good evening,” and formally announced, “Today is Thursday, April 9. It’s a special meeting of the city council, now come to order.” She confirmed a quorum, asked members to stand and salute the flag, and noted that Councilor Martins was absent because she was out of state.

Smith then addressed the public and explained the process for the appointment under discussion, saying, “If I may before we start, I just wanna give the public, so there’s transparency in this process.” She stated that the city clerk, the council president, and the clerk of committees, Mr. Burley, had reviewed all resumes, and emphasized, “Every resume was reviewed, and we went through more than just these two interviewees.” She also noted that the meeting was being conducted with transparency and that the council had considered the full set of applicants.

During the interview portion, Smith asked the candidate to state her name for the record and asked, “Did any of the members have questions for Mrs. Antonelli that they would like to ask?” No vote is recorded in the extracted activity.

Before the appointment was finalized, Smith laid out her position on the selection process. She said, “So I’d just like to state, this is not a political vote for me.” She explained that she had been approached by some candidates when Assistant City Clerk Napolitano’s retirement became known, but declined to commit early because she wanted to choose “the best person.” Smith said she could not determine the outcome without seeing all candidates and reviewing qualifications. She added, “You may be a great person and you may be qualified, but there might be someone else that is more qualified.”

After the interviews, Smith reported that “We had a bunch of great candidates” and that “Both candidates performed well in the interview process.” She said they both had strengths that would make them successful in the role. She singled out Michael Mangan, stating, “Mr. Mangan had an excellent interview. He was well prepared.” She then directed, “Alright. Bring him up to do the oath,” indicating the appointment was moving forward.

At the Everett Committee on Ways and Means meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, Stephanie Smith took an active role in the discussion of the proposed $2,000,000 expenditure related to the high school project. She began by suggesting that the committee invite staff forward, saying, “I do see the procurement and the chief administrative financial officer, in the back if we want to invite them forward.”

Her questions centered on what would happen to the $2,000,000 if the city did not proceed with a new high school. From the chair, she asked, “what happens to the 2,000,000 if we do not go forward with a new high school?” She then pressed further, asking, “Do we lose the 2,000,000?” and noting that in her understanding it would be “just kind of written off.” She also referenced prior work, saying, “Because we did a feasibility studies in the past and nothing happened of it,” and asked, “So are we going to lose this 2,000,000?”

Smith also questioned whether spending the money would commit the administration to moving ahead: “Is the administration going to go forward with a new high school if we spend $2,000,000?” She raised implementation questions about the Office of the Project Manager, noting, “we already hired the OPM,” and asking whether the OPM had been hired without funds, and, “So how are they getting paid today? How are we paying the OPM today? Or are we not?”

She then sought detail on the scope of the feasibility study, asking whether it would include “traffic studies,” “design,” “infrastructure,” “vocational” considerations, and impacts at each site. She also asked whether the study would include community meetings and whether it would cover “building onto the new Everett High School.” Finally, she asked whether the Massachusetts School Building Authority would reimburse part of the $2,000,000, and then restated her understanding that “a portion of this 2,000,000 should be allowed to be reimbursed.”

No recorded votes were taken by Smith. The meeting record notes motions to excuse the customary thanks and to adjourn, both made and seconded.

At the Everett Ways and Means Committee meeting on Monday, April 27, 2026, Councilor Stephanie Smith presided and opened the session by stating, “Three members present, we have a quorum.” She then asked members to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, saying, “Will you please stand and salute the flag?”

Smith handled the committee’s procedural business throughout the meeting. She restated a motion to “refer out to the next city council meeting with a recommendation that the planning board comes back to us with the completed master plan.” This motion concerned the park renovation appropriation and tied further consideration of the item to completion of the master plan. After the motion was made and seconded, Smith called the roll and then announced the result. When a member asked, “Opposed?”, she responded, “The ayes have it,” indicating the referral motion passed.

No individual roll-call vote breakdown was provided in the extracted record, but Smith’s statement confirms the committee approved the referral. Her role in the exchange was procedural rather than substantive: she did not present policy arguments or express a position on the merits of the appropriation beyond restating the motion before putting it to a vote.

Smith then moved the meeting to its conclusion. She restated the motion to adjourn, after which the committee approved the motion, and she declared, “Meeting adjourned.”

Across the meeting, Smith’s actions were limited to chairing duties: confirming quorum, leading the flag salute, restating and putting the referral motion before the committee, announcing that the motion carried, and ending the meeting. The only notable exchange captured in the record was the brief “Opposed?” question during the vote, followed by Smith’s declaration that “The ayes have it.”

At the Everett Ways and Means Committee meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026, City Councilor Stephanie Smith called the meeting to order, confirmed a quorum, and asked members to stand for the flag salute. She then handled several finance items and repeatedly pressed for clarification before voting.

On an amendment related to an appropriation, Smith announced, “We have received a communication for amendment,” and moved to reduce the amount to $107,000. The committee voted yes on that amendment. She then moved to invite the chief administrative financial officer before the committee, and that motion also passed. Smith said, “I’m 100% in favor of an internal controls audit,” but she did not want to approve the full requested amount, stating that doing so “will then put $205,000 into this account.” She said she would have to vote against the request and moved a further amendment reducing the amount from $107,000 to $12,000 so the account would be brought up to $110,000 to pay for the audit. She also said the administration should come back for additional money if needed and noted the committee wanted to see the invoice and appropriate the money that way. The motion on the table was identified as the $12,000 amendment.

Smith then questioned the funding source, asking whether the money came from free cash or the water and sewer enterprise account, and whether unused funds would return to retained earnings or free cash. She said, “I would like clarification before I vote on this,” and added that if the money returned to retained earnings, “I would be in favor.” If it returned to free cash, she said she was not in favor. She also asked about the emergency repair figures, questioned whether the total was $303,000, and confirmed that $150,000 had already been used from other accounts. When asked if there was a motion on the floor, she said she would vote no for lack of information, though she might change her vote if the information arrived shortly. The recorded vote on favorable action for the $150,000 was no.

Later, Smith asked whether a proposed advertising item covered only legally required notices or broader city events, and moved to strike “legally required” and change the language to “fund city wide advertising.” That amendment passed. She also asked about planning board requirements and the recommendation for referring the item out versus leaving it in committee. The committee then voted yes on favorable action for the $40,000 advertising appropriation. Smith closed the meeting by asking for a motion to adjourn and then announcing adjournment.

At the Everett Legislative Affairs meeting on Monday, April 27, 2026, City Councilor Stephanie Smith participated in discussion of board and commission appointments, speaking in support of adding new members and asking questions about relevant experience.

Smith seconded motions on appointments during the meeting. In one exchange, she said, “Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is really about the importance of the board. I’m actually happy because I think it’s the first time we might actually have a woman on the board.” Her remarks framed the appointment as important both for the board’s work and for representation.

Smith also addressed an appointee directly, saying, “We welcome your perspective and, it’s also long term.” She then asked a substantive question about background and fit for the role: “Do you have any prior experience in business or understanding about their licenses and serving alcohol, entertainment, the impact of neighborhoods, and also the impact to the business owners themselves, especially in a diverse community like Everett?” This indicated her interest in how the appointee’s experience might relate to the practical responsibilities of the position.

Later in the meeting, Smith again seconded a motion and spoke in favor of advancing the Disability Commission appointment. She said, “And if I can on the motion, we’re happy to add new voices because we need the disability commission to really get moving. So welcome.” Her statement supported both the appointment and the broader goal of strengthening the commission’s work.

Smith voted yes on the motion for favorable action on the appointment of Laura Evans to the Everett Disability Commission. Her comments during the meeting consistently supported moving appointments forward while also emphasizing the importance of experience, diversity, and the need for the commission to become active and effective.