A majority of Honolulu City Council members appear ready to approve a modified recovery plan for the over-budget $9.2 billion rail project when it comes up for a final vote next week.

But the plan, which is being required by the Federal Transit Administration, would put city taxpayers on the hook for $25 million of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation’s rail construction costs. That’s a tougher proposition.

The money would come through a bond issuance, which would have to be authorized via a resolution from a “supermajority” of six votes from the nine-member Council.

Council members Ann Kobayashi and Heidi Tsune­yoshi told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Thursday that they intend to vote “no” on a bond authorization resolution. Newly seated Councilman Tommy Waters said he is still thinking about it, although he said in a campaign brochure to East Honolulu voters earlier this year, “I oppose the use of property tax for rail as proposed by my opponent.”

At stake is $744 million in funding for construction, which FTA officials have held up pending approval of the recovery plan.

Earlier this month the FTA told city leaders that $25 million in city funds would need to be earmarked for rail construction in the fiscal year that begins July 1, and in addition a total of $92 million more is required during the following seven years in order for the federal government to resume funding.

Council Budget Chairman Joey Manahan inserted the $25 million into Bill 11, the Council’s capital improvements program budget for the coming year. But the bond issuance itself must be approved separately by the Council later in the year.

Resolution 19-115, approving the recovery plan, won 5-0 approval from the Council Budget Committee on May 20. But three of those Council members — Ron Menor, Kymberly Pine and Waters — said they were voting “yes” with reservations. The other two “yes” votes came from Budget Chairman Joey Manahan and Budget Vice Chairman Brandon Elefante.

Kobayashi, a longtime critic of the rail project, said she will likely vote for the recovery plan when it comes up for a vote on June 5 but then vote against a bond issuance when it comes before the Council.

Approving the recovery plan “is something that has to be done,” Kobayashi said. However, she said, “I’m not sure about the bond. I’ve never favored bonds (for rail).”

The money should — and could — come from savings or cuts from general funds, not through borrowing, Kobayashi said.

Councilwoman Heidi Tsuneyoshi said she will vote “no” on both the recovery plan and any future bond authorization tied to it. “I feel there’s too much incomplete information,” she said, noting that there is nothing in the recovery plan about HART’s plans for a public-­private partnership for a private entity to pay for the last part of construction and then operate and maintain the rail line for three dec­ades.

Tsuneyoshi has raised strong reservations about a “P3” arrangement and worries the city may be giving up too much. “I really feel uncomfortable with moving forward with any funding when we don’t know what the long-term impacts financially are going to be with a P3.”

During her 2018 campaign, Tsuneyoshi did not specifically say she would oppose using taxpayer dollars for rail construction, but did promise to ensure “we rein in the cost of rail.”

Tsuneyoshi said she will likely vote for the CIP budget bill because it includes many other projects that she deems essential.

Waters said he’s still weighing what to do about both the recovery plan and a possible bond float.

“So far I have resisted raising residential property taxes for rail construction,” Waters said, stressing that he has supported an increase in the homeowner exemption and opposed Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s proposal for a curbside trash pickup fee. “I feared this fee would ultimately be used to fund rail construction or operating and maintenance costs.”

However he said, “HART has said that the $25 million bond float is only a safeguard and meant to appease the FTA and help restart the federal funding. According to HART, they will not use these funds.”

HART officials have insisted that FTA’s demand for additional city funds is based on earlier revenue projections.

Councilman Ron Menor, among the supporters of the 20-mile, East Kapolei-to-Ala Moana line, said Council support of both the recovery plan and a bond authorization is critical to the success of the project.

“The future of the rail project is at stake,” he said.

“I’m concerned that the FTA will continue to withhold federal funding, and my concern is that, in a worst-case scenario, the FTA may reject the recovery plan and find the city in default of our obligations under the Full Funding Grant Agreement, which would seriously jeopardize the rail project in the future.”

That might require the city to reimburse the FTA for the roughly $800 million the city has already received, he said.

Councilwoman Kymberly Pine said she will also support both the recovery and a bond issuance despite lingering concerns about how the project’s price tag has grown so dramatically and the Department of Justice’s investigation into possible waste, fraud and abuse.

“We need to support this project and keep it moving,” she said. “It is too important to my constituents and to the future development and transportation on this island. We need to prove to the federal government that we can execute, otherwise we risk that working relationship and federal funds in the future.”

When the Council voted in October to OK a $44 million bond float for rail, the first time the city general fund would be used to finance the project, Kobayashi was one of two Council members who voted against it. The other was former Councilman Trevor Ozawa, who lost to Waters in special runoff election last month. While Ozawa voted against the bond issuance, as budget chairman he led the proposal to pay the $44 million through HART’s capital improvements budget.

Andrew Robbins, HART chairman and CEO, has painted a rosy picture to the Budget Committee.

“We’re in a great position with the FTA in that once we submit the recovery plan, they indicated they will approve it,” he said. “So the only thing at this point holding up approval of the recovery plan is our ability to submit it, and they’ve indicated that they would approve it shortly thereafter.”