RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE FINAL ARPA FUNDING

The RESOLVED clause directs that the $6,340 WWTP cost be 'covered by the remaining ARPA funds to the extent funds are available,' but available ARPA funds total only $5,205.44. The resolution does not identify how the $1,134.56 gap will be addressed. If the Village has already incurred this liability, an additional appropriation from another source may be required. Consider whether GML §6-c or the Village's budget adoption process requires a separate board action to appropriate the difference, and whether the 'to the extent funds are available' qualifier is sufficient to satisfy the board's obligation to authorize full payment of the obligation.

The work described (WWTP Capacity Upgrade and Collection System Expansion) appears to fall within the scope of VIL §14-1408, which governs establishment or enlargement of sewage treatment plants and requires the authorizing resolution to 'state the maximum amount to be expended.' The resolution references a cost of $6,340 but authorizes payment only 'to the extent funds are available' from $5,205.44 in ARPA funds. Consider whether this conditional framing satisfies the §14-1408 requirement to state a maximum, and whether a prior resolution authorized the full $6,340 expenditure in compliance with this section. Counsel should confirm whether the work was previously authorized under a separate capital or project resolution.

The American Rescue Plan Act's State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program required that funds be obligated by December 31, 2024 and expended by December 31, 2026. The WHEREAS clauses acknowledge the work was completed through August 2024 and that previously approved items came in under budget, freeing the $5,205.44. The resolution does not recite whether this specific expenditure item was previously obligated under the Village's ARPA project register by the December 31, 2024 deadline. Consider whether the Village's ARPA compliance documentation supports treating this as a timely obligation, and whether the final report referenced in WHEREAS clause 1 has been or will be submitted to Treasury. This is a federal compliance question that warrants review by counsel or the Village's ARPA program administrator.

The resolution references work completed through August 2024 at a cost of $6,340. While this amount is relatively modest, GML §103 requires competitive bidding for public work contracts above applicable thresholds (generally $35,000 for public work under GML §103(1), though lower thresholds may apply under specific circumstances). At $6,340 this likely falls below the bidding threshold, but consider whether the resolution or supporting documentation confirms compliance with applicable procurement rules, including the Village's own procurement policy which OSC guidance recommends every local government maintain in writing.

The WHEREAS clauses reference a 'final report to account for the remaining ARPA funding expenditures' and previously approved items, but no resolution numbers, report dates, or invoice references are cited. For federal grant closeout purposes and potential OSC audit review, the record benefits from specificity: which prior resolutions authorized the WWTP work, what contractor performed it, and where the final report is filed. This is a documentation gap rather than a substantive defect, but it may complicate audit defense. Consider attaching or referencing supporting materials in the resolution or meeting minutes.

The procedural record (mover: Bradley-Rickard, seconder: Smith, unanimous vote) is formally adequate for a routine appropriation. However, given that this resolution closes out the Village's ARPA program and involves a $1,134.56 funding gap between available funds and the stated cost, some recorded deliberation on how that shortfall will be addressed and the Village's federal compliance status would strengthen the minutes as an audit record. This is a best-practice observation, not a procedural defect.