A central issue of the meeting centered around proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2026 General Appropriation Resolution. Aisha Chughtai laid out three amendments aimed at refining the budget in alignment with the Mayor’s signed version. The first amendment addressed the language of a task force for nonfatal shootings. The second amendment proposed reallocating $1 million from the Health Department to the City Clerk’s Office for emergency housing vouchers, with a commitment from the Mayor for ongoing support over three years. The third amendment sought to clarify language concerning civilian investigators, with input from the City Attorney’s Office.

The debate over these amendments revealed deep divides within the council. One member expressed strong opposition, criticizing the backdoor negotiations that led to the amendments and underscoring the transparent, democratic process that had initially shaped the budget. They argued that the switch from ongoing to one-time funding for emergency housing vouchers failed to reflect the needs of working-class residents who had participated in the budget discussions. They stressed the importance of maintaining commitments that had been collaboratively reached.

In contrast, another member defended the amendments as necessary to prevent potential layoffs within the city, arguing that the changes would ensure the sustainability of funding mechanisms to support ongoing work. This perspective highlighted a different approach to resource allocation and the potential risks of altering previously agreed-upon commitments.

The council’s discussions also focused on the management of emergency housing for the unhoused population. Concerns were raised about a “multimillion dollar fiscal cliff” that could arise between 2027 and 2029 if ongoing funding for housing was not secured, potentially leading to hundreds being displaced back onto the streets. The urgency of this issue was emphasized by members who called attention to past instances where funding commitments were altered after votes had been cast, criticizing any actions that might jeopardize worker stability and disrupt previously secured funding.

Amidst these debates, another member expressed unease over two ordinances related to franchise fees for gas and electric services, which were intended to provide the necessary funding for a $4 million initiative focused on weatherization and retrofitting. The uncertainty surrounding these ordinances prompted calls for further consideration to avoid layoffs and ensure adequate funding for the proposed initiatives.

As the council moved toward a motion to reconsider the budget, a brief recess was called to address these concerns. The discussions resumed with members articulating a need for ongoing support for families at risk of homelessness, stressing the critical nature of ensuring housing stability and expressing skepticism about the mayor’s future implementation of housing initiatives.

Ultimately, the meeting concluded with a vote on the series of proposed amendments to the budget, revealing a mix of support and dissent among council members. The budget was adopted with the amendments, concluding the session with acknowledgments of the collaborative efforts that had contributed to finalizing the budget before the holiday break.