Resolution to Authorize Resubmission of Greenway Grant Application for Village Center Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project

The second RESOLVED clause directs that the Village's $15,000 match 'will come from the Unrestricted Fund Balance of the General Fund.' Spending unappropriated fund balance mid-year may require a formal budget amendment rather than a simple endorsement resolution. Consider whether counsel should confirm that this resolution, standing alone, constitutes a sufficient appropriation, or whether a separate budget amendment resolution under Village Law §5-508 (budget modifications) is required before funds can be disbursed.

The grant funds a 'Prioritized Plan to Improve Pedestrian Experience' — a planning document, not a capital project. However, if grant deliverables or subsequent board action contemplate actual street alterations, widening, or acceptance, Village Law §6-612 (street improvement by resolution) and §6-602 (exclusive board control of streets) may be implicated. This concern is prospective and does not affect the grant application itself, but the Board may wish to note it for the implementation stage.

OSC's Reserve Funds guide notes that 'maintaining a reasonable amount of unassigned fund balance within operating funds is another important financial consideration,' providing 'a cushion for unforeseen expenditures or revenue shortfalls.' The resolution does not address the Village's current fund balance level, what percentage this drawdown represents, or whether the current adopted budget already reflects this appropriation. Best practice, per OSC guidance, would be for the Board to confirm on the record that the remaining unassigned fund balance remains at a prudent level after this commitment, and that the budget reflects the appropriation.

Under GASB Statement 54, as explained in OSC's GASB 54 bulletin, the category previously called 'unrestricted fund balance' has been replaced by 'committed,' 'assigned,' and 'unassigned' classifications. OSC requires municipalities to use the new classifications in their Annual Update Documents. The resolution's reference to 'Unrestricted Fund Balance' may be a legacy term; consider whether the resolution should specify 'Unassigned Fund Balance' to ensure consistency with OSC reporting classifications and to confirm the funds are not subject to any constraint that would limit their availability for this purpose.

The title and subject reference a 'resubmission,' implying a prior application was submitted and not funded or required revision. The WHEREAS clauses do not describe the prior application, its outcome, or any changes made for the resubmission. While this does not affect the resolution's legal validity, a brief recitation in the record of the prior application's status would strengthen the procedural documentation and assist future auditors or OSC reviewers in understanding the grant history.

Grant application resolutions commonly include a RESOLVED clause authorizing a named officer — typically the Mayor or Village Administrator — to execute and submit the application and any associated documents. The absence of such a clause may create ambiguity about who has authority to bind the Village in the grant application process. Consider whether counsel recommends adding an authorization clause, or whether existing Village Code or Village Law §4-412 (executive authority of the Mayor) supplies sufficient authority by default.