Council Defers Vote on Proposal to Let Mayor Tap Rainy‑Day Fund if Federal Funding Is Cut

Council members and budget staff debated a proposed ordinance that would add a specific contingency allowing the mayor to use the city’s fiscal stability fund if federal funding were substantially reduced — an action supporters say could speed emergency responses and opponents say requires council oversight and reporting.

The measure drew sustained discussion from council budget leaders, the director of Budget and Fiscal Services and several council members about timing, legal authority and the practicalities of reopening the operating budget. Council member Weier, the bill’s introducer in committee, said the change was intended to give the administration flexibility to respond rapidly if federal funds were cut and to avoid delays inherent in reopening the city budget.

Director Andy Kawano of Budget and Fiscal Services told the council that reopening the budget or using a supplemental ordinance would take time and that he preferred not to spend the fiscal stability fund if avoidable.

"I think the process of reopening the budget or going through the supplemental budget process will take time," Kawano said. "I'm not sure if that would ... impact how quickly we can react if we had to. Personally, I'm hoping that we never have to use our fiscal stability fund."

Several council members urged adding reporting requirements and other guardrails if the mayor is given expanded access. Council member Tupelo said she supported having options but wanted transparency and council oversight; council member dos Santos Tam, as budget chair, emphasized that different floor drafts carried different provisos and that the issue was linked to the operating budget language the council would consider later in the meeting.

"If we don't pass bill 36 today but pass your version of the FD 1, the mayor theoretically has fairly broad discretion as to how these monies can be spent," dos Santos Tam warned, urging quarterly reporting and identification of savings or transfers before fund access.

After discussion on a hand‑carried FD1 prepared to align with corporation counsel recommendations, Council member Tupelo moved to defer the measure to the end of the calendar so members could settle on language that preserved oversight. The motion to defer was agreed to without objection, and the council will revisit the measure after departments and council staff reconcile budget proviso language with the ordinance text.

What the bill would change: The proposed amendment would have added a specific trigger tied to a substantial decline in federal funding and set notice and reporting requirements for the mayor’s use of fiscal stability funds; the hand‑carried FD1 revised the reporting language to conform with corporation counsel suggestions and to require a line‑item budget and measurable outcomes when funds are expended.

Why it matters: The fiscal stability fund supports the city's credit rating and is a longstanding budgetary reserve. Director Kawano said the city has not needed to access the fund historically and that rating agencies consider the fund a positive credit signal. Council members said they want a clear, timely process that preserves council oversight while allowing the administration to respond to urgent funding shortfalls.

Next steps: The council deferred bill 36 for additional drafting and to consider concurrent language in the operating budget (bill 22). Council members indicated they will seek specific reporting triggers, timelines and possible council review mechanisms before bringing the bill back for a vote.