Question 5, the rainy-day fund target, was the most popular of the five. What Council budget leaders said about the reserve this year

Question 5, which sets a savings target for the city's rainy-day fund, passed with 72.5% of the vote. The count was 1,243,219 yes to 471,812 no as of 12:42 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 4, according to the Board of Elections' unofficial results. That was the largest margin of the five charter questions.

Why it matters to residents: the fund is the city's cushion for a recession or another emergency. A bigger cushion can protect services in a downturn, but money saved can't be spent on programs that year.

What it does

The measure sets a target for the Revenue Stabilization Fund of at least 12% of the prior year's tax revenue, according to City Limits, which put the fund at about $1.7 billion before the vote. The mayor's budget office must produce a plan by May 2027, working with the comptroller and taking public input, for when and how much the city puts in. Once the target is reached, contributions are no longer required. The mayor must also certify a compelling fiscal need before taking out more than half the fund in a single year, according to amNY's guide.

Not everyone who cares about reserves backed it. The Citizens Budget Commission opposed the question as too weak, amNY reported. City Limits noted that an April report from Comptroller Mark Levine suggested a 16% target.

Yes won in every borough except Staten Island, where it fell just short at 47.7%. The Bronx gave it 79.8%, according to the Board of Elections' borough breakdown.

What our records add

The Council has no vote on charter questions, but how to treat the fund was a running argument in this year's budget.

The plan to draw on it. At the March 11 Finance Committee hearing, the Independent Budget Office flagged that the mayor's preliminary budget used $980 million from the fund, with a plan to replace it later.

The Finance chair said the city didn't need to. At the March 10 stated meeting, Finance Chair Linda Lee said the Council's analysis showed the city could protect critical services without drawing down the fund. She added that it had never been drawn down.

Members asked what counts as an emergency. At the March 11 hearing, Council Member Frank Morano asked whether the city would be spending its emergency reserves "before the emergency arrives" if the economy weakened before the fund was replenished. The witness recommended clearer rules defining an emergency and what the fund pays out. Question 5's certification requirement is a version of that kind of rule. At a March 25 Finance hearing, Council Member Alexa Avilés asked the administration what it was considering besides a drawdown. Its witness said the financial plan included replenishment and that the administration would avoid the drawdown if savings or revenue allowed.

The Speaker made it part of the Council's case. In April, Speaker Julie Menin said the Council's budget response showed how to close the shortfall without raiding the rainy-day fund, raising property taxes or cutting services. At the June 11 budget vote, she said the Council wanted to put money aside for the fund.

We first covered the question in our early voting story.

What's next

Once results are certified, the budget office's contribution plan is due by May 2027, during the next budget cycle. The mayor's preliminary budget for the next fiscal year is due in January, and the Council's Finance Committee holds hearings on it in the spring. The Finance Committee has meetings on the calendar for Nov. 12, Nov. 17 and Nov. 19; agendas have not been posted.