Four days after the Toledo City Council president pressed the Hicks-Hudson administration on why it made a seemingly unnecessary $3 million transfer from the capital improvement fund to the general fund, the question remained unanswered.

Steven Steel, the Democratic council president, during a committee hearing Monday questioned why the transfer was made at the end of 2016, since it increased the general fund balance to a higher-than-needed amount.

The city closed its books on 2016 with the transfer, which was recorded in Toledo’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

RELATED: Transfer of $3M into Toledo's general fund debated ■ Blade editorial

Mr. Steel said Monday he would submit legislation asking a majority of council to move the money back into the capital improvements fund, where it could be used for things like street repair, but now he is waiting.

“The mayor asked me Tuesday to give them a couple of weeks to continue to look into it and see what the implications would be of transferring it back,” he said Friday.

City Spokesman Carrie Hartman said Mr. Steel’s question would be answered.

“The administration appreciates any ideas that may make funds available for much needed infrastructure improvements,” she said in a written statement. “However, due diligence should be undertaken to ensure City Council President Steel’s proposal makes sense legally and financially. Accordingly, the city is consulting bond council and its financial advisers to determine if there are any legal impediments or unintended consequences to enacting the proposed ordinance.”

The city has for years used money from its capital improvement fund to balance the general fund.

During Monday’s committee hearing, acting Finance Director Peter Rancatore told Mr. Steel the transfer was made because the general fund balance “was rather low,” but he acknowledged the fund balance would have still been in the black without that $3 million. He stopped his explanation when Chief of Staff Mark Sobczak approached the podium to speak privately with him. Mr. Rancatore then told councilmen they would get a written explanation.

Mr. Steel said he was baffled by the explanation that the fund balance was low, since it has previously been $11 million “in the red,” and 2016 was the first time in years it could be in the black without such a transfer.

Mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson on May 31 said the city had more money to spend on capital projects. It was the third time the municipal budget got an infusion of unexpected cash this year to fix crumbing streets.

A statement from the mayor at that time said: “The total general fund balance at the end of 2016 was $15.8 million, up from $10.2 million in 2015. Of this total, in accordance with the city’s ordinance, the stabilization fund balance or the ‘rainy day fund’ will increase to $4.8 million at the end of 2016, up from $1.9 million in 2015, through the addition of $2.9 million.”

Some of that $15.8 million is restricted, according to the city’s 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report shows the general fund was $15,754,000 at end of 2016. Of that, $1,158,000 is listed as “nonspendable;” $3,814,000 is listed as “restricted;” $4,754,000 was listed as “committed,” which means it is the city’s so-called rainy day fund money. That leaves $6,028,000 as unassigned.

That unassigned amount includes the $3 million.

The city has a $700,000 “appropriated deficit” for 2017, which would be addressed with the carry-over positive balance from 2016.

Contact Ignazio Messina at imessina@theblade.com, 419-724-6171 or on Twitter @IgnazioMessina.

First Published August 19, 2017, 4:00 a.m.