Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has shared some exciting personal news: she’s expecting.

Wu is pregnant with her third child, she said in an interview with The Boston Globe Monday. A campaign representative confirmed the news in an email statement to the USA Today Network Tuesday.

The 39-year-old, who is already a mom to two sons, is due in January. Wu, who has been the city’s mayor since 2021, told the Globe she’s expecting a girl.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu pregnancy announcement

In her statement, Wu said that the demands of motherhood motivate her career.

“I’ve been a mom and caregiver as long as I have been in public service,” Wu said. “It’s that daily juggle—and the struggle and dreams of families across our neighborhoods—that keep me grounded in the work and moving with urgency.”

Wu has long championed working parenthood.

As a city councilor in 2015, she created an ordinance to give city employees six weeks of paid parental leave. She was also the first city councilor in Boston’s history to give birth while serving on the council.

How many kids does Boston Mayor Michelle Wu have?

Wu has two sons with husband with husband Conor Pewarski.

She gave birth to son Blaise, 9, in 2014 while serving on the Boston City Council.

In 2017, she gave birth to her second son, Cass, 7, while she was the Council’s president.

What to know about Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s family

Wu is the daughter of immigrants from Taiwan.

She is the first person of color to be elected Boston’s mayor. She was also the first Asian American woman to serve on Boston City Council.

She has been open about her mother’s struggle with mental illness, which led her to become a caregiver for her siblings in her early twenties.

Is Boston Mayor Michelle Wu running for reelection?

While Wu has not officially launched a reelection campaign for mayor, she told the Globe she plans to run.

The next Boston mayoral election will take place in November 2025.

Wu’s term doesn’t end until Jan. 5, 2026.

Pennsylvania’s highest court will weigh in on the legality of Pittsburgh’s tax on out-of-town athletes and performers. In an order issued Monday, the state Supreme Court said it would hear arguments about whether lower courts misinterpreted a constitutional requirement that taxes be levied uniformly.

An appeals court this winter upheld a Common Pleas Judge’s ruling that struck down the city’s Non-Resident Sports Facility Usage Fee — the so-called “jock tax.” The tax is a 3% levy on the income earned by out-of-town athletes and performers when they use city-owned venues. The city appealed that ruling in February.

Pittsburgh officials say the tax evens the playing field between visiting players and home-team athletes: Those who live within the city pay taxes of 3% of their earnings to the city and its school district.

The city’s appeal argues that judges failed to properly apply earlier precedents to the matter. And on Monday, the state Supreme Court said it would hear the city’s appeal on that basis, while rejecting other arguments the city made.

Mayor Ed Gainey issued a statement Tuesday that said he was “pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case. … We believe that this tax is constitutional and will continue to collect it as we prepare to present our arguments to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court.”

Common Pleas Court Judge Christine Ward had previously issued an injunction to halt collection of the tax, but the city has argued that it can collect the tax while its appeal is pending.

Lawyers who spoke privately with WESA said they were puzzled by that claim, but Stephen Kidder, a lawyer for the athletes, did not contest it Tuesday night.

“We look forward to the opportunity to demonstrate to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that both the Commonwealth Court and the Court of Common Pleas correctly decided this issue,” he said.

Monday’s court order initially caused some confusion, with some media outlets, and one local official, interpreting the order as a blanket refusal to take up the issue.

City Controller Rachael Heisler has voiced concern about city finances and the fate of the “jock tax,” and on Tuesday afternoon posted a statement on social media that the city needed to be “honest” about its fiscal situation. But later in the day, she said that the post had relied “in part on news reports” and that she “was not correct relaying inaccurate reports about the complete dismissal of the appeal.”

Still, Heisler argued the city should prepare for a future without the tax: “I remain concerned about whether the city can continue to rely on revenue” from the jock tax, she said.

Gainey said Tuesday his administration is “doing all that we can to ensure the financial strength and security of our city.”

The city’s five-year financial plan estimates that the tax will bring in an average of $4.6 million per year. That’s a small sum in the context of an overall operating budget that runs well over half a billion dollars annually. But the impact could snowball if the city loses its legal battle: Those who’ve paid the tax would be eligible for refunds, and would have a three-year window to file a claim.

The uncertainty surrounding the jock tax is just one financial headache facing the city. Plunging property reassessments, especially among commercial properties Downtown, and the end of federal COVID aid also mean lean years ahead, and potentially a hotly debated budget season this fall.

Connecticut is losing three of its Big Lots stores.

The Manchester, Milford and Waterford locations are closing. A closing sale of up to 20% off, with limited exceptions applied, has already started at each location, according to the website.

The big box discount retail chain primarily sells furniture and décor products, as well as food and clothing, so shoppers will have to find other places for affordable finds.

These closures also follow the recent trend of retailers closing up locations.

Here are their exact addresses in case you want to grab those closing deals:

• 1470 Pleasant Valley Road, Manchester, Connecticut 06042
• 56 Turnpike Square, Milford, Connecticut 06460
• 40 Boston Post Road, Waterford, Connecticut 06385

Why is Big Lots closing stores

The discount retail chain Big Lots announced they will be closing dozens of stores this year across the country.

Big Lots stated in a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that 35 to 40 of their store locations would close this year – but they also plan to open three stores this year.

“In 2024, the U.S. economy has continued to face macroeconomic challenges including elevated inflation, which has adversely impacted the buying power of our customers,” the filing said.

According to the financial disclosure, sales dropped 10.2% between the first quarters of 2023 and 2024, equating to a loss of about $114.5 million.

Where are Big Lots stores in CT

Per the website, Big Lots locations include stores in: Bristol, Derby, East Hartford, East Haven, Manchester, Middletown, Milford, New Milford, Newington, North Haven, Norwich, Torrington, Wallingford, Waterbury, Waterford and Windsor.

Rin Velasco is a trending reporter. She can be reached at rvelasco@gannett.com.