By passing a City Charter amendment creating a dedicated office on climate change last fall, Honolulu voters showed their theoretical support for “resiliency” planning.

When they put on their taxpayer’s hat, however, they’re liable to have another statement qualifying their actual support: Show us the money.

As there seems to be little funding to shake loose in the city’s operating budget, the Honolulu City Council would be wise to avoid ramping up funding for one of the city’s newest agencies, the Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency.

That’s especially true, said City Councilwoman Kymberly Pine, because the city can’t even feel secure about funding for its obligation to complete Oahu’s planned rail system. She’s right: There’s not much sustainability in expanding government in this way when paying the bills seems this uncertain.

The good news is that the city has secured a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation that for the first two years will cover the $135,000 salary of a new “chief resilience officer,” otherwise known as the executive director of the climate-change office.

Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s administration had better hope for similar help from private nonprofits for the foreseeable future for this office. The Council has approved a cut in the original request of $400,000-plus to pay for seven staffers to be hired for the agency, a line item now cut by $134,694.

Pine warned that it would be hard to see where any of this money comes from, should the city fail to secure enough money to complete the planned rail system. That means going beyond the built sections between East Kapolei and the Aloha Stadium, all the way to its end point at Ala Moana Center.

This depends on two major developments: first, Federal Transit Administration approval of the balance of the $1.55 billion in the full funding grant covering a share of the project, which now carries a projected price tag ranging from $8 billion to $10 billion.

Second, the city is waiting with bated breath for the disposition of Senate Bill 1183, which in its most current revision proposes a two-year extension of the general excise tax surcharge that pays for rail.

Neither of those events are a lock, so City Council leadership is right to question new-agency funding. Critiques have come from members of civic groups such as the League of Women Voters. Even environmental advocacy group Life of the Land expressed worry about the lack of definition in the climate-office amendment.

And it’s not only this office, but a second new agency established by charter amendment that needs to be viewed in this clear light. The Department of Land Management, meant to streamline the process of addressing the county’s shortage of affordable homes, was created by charter, and the city administration had made an even more fulsome request. Caldwell proposed 22 positions for this office.

Although whittling what’s become a stubborn deficit in needed housing units is a priority, that doesn’t mean the department needs this kind of staff — at least not yet.

What both mandated additions to city governance require first is a clear directive and mission statement. How would the climate change office exert its influence on established government practice?

And there must be guidelines developed to guide the land management department to ensure that streamlining and coordinating development doesn’t sacrifice transparency for the public.

At a minimum, these steps should be taken before the staffing of these offices progresses at the requested levels. While Honolulu is not the first city out of the gate with a climate-change office, this is not a race. The voters endorsed the idea at the polls, but nobody has authorized growing government without clear blueprints in hand.