RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE UNALLOCATED INSURANCE RENEWAL & BUDGET ADJUSTMENT

The resolution directs that the cost increase be 'paid with Fund Balance,' which effectively constitutes an unbudgeted appropriation mid-fiscal-year. Village Law §5-508 governs budget amendments and transfers; consider whether this drawdown of fund balance requires a formal budget transfer resolution or amendment beyond the authorization language in this resolution. Counsel should confirm whether the RESOLVED clause language is sufficient to constitute the required appropriation or whether a separate line-item amendment is needed. The resolution does not reference a specific budget line to which the additional $11,460.11 is being appropriated.

GML §78 authorizes public officers to insure municipal property 'at the expense and for the benefit of such corporation,' which supports the general authority to purchase insurance. However, GML §103 requires competitive bidding for contracts above the applicable dollar threshold (currently $20,000 for most municipalities). Insurance contracts are generally exempt from competitive bidding under GML §103 when obtained through a licensed broker; consider whether the engagement of Marshall & Sterling as broker satisfies applicable procurement requirements and whether documentation of that procurement process is on file. The resolution does not recite any exemption basis or prior competitive selection of the broker.

OSC's Reserve Funds guide notes that 'a reasonable level of unrestricted, unappropriated fund balance provides a cushion for unforeseen expenditures or revenue shortfalls,' and its companion guides on financial condition and budget process address maintaining and utilizing fund balance. Using fund balance to cover a recurring operating expense — an annual insurance premium increase — may mask a structural underfunding of the insurance line and could erode the cushion over successive years. The Board may wish to consider whether the budget process should instead absorb routine premium increases through the appropriation process, and whether the WHEREAS clause disclosure (Fund Balance at 23.7% declining to approximately 21.6%) is sufficient transparency for the public record. OSC guidance generally recommends that fund balance use be disclosed and that officials explain the plan for replenishment.

The RESOLVED clause authorizes the Mayor to 'accept the proposed insurance renewal' but does not specify whether the Mayor may accept any modified terms, endorsements, or coverage changes that arise during binding. If the final bound policy differs materially from the renewal proposal (e.g., coverage exclusions, higher deductibles), it is unclear whether re-authorization would be required. Best practice is to specify that the Mayor is authorized to execute the renewal 'substantially in the form presented' or 'at a premium not to exceed $98,745.81,' to bound the delegation. This is a minor drafting concern that does not affect the action's validity.

Village Law §4-414 requires a majority of the full board for most actions. A 4-0 vote on a five-member board (if applicable) satisfies this requirement, but the resolution record does not indicate the total board composition or whether any trustee was absent or recused. For a clean record, minutes should reflect the number of trustees present, the total board size, and any absences, so that the quorum and majority requirements under Village Law §4-414 can be verified from the face of the record.