The finance committee reviewed a package of nine proposed awards totaling $601,000 from the county's greenways grant fund intended to fill gaps in capital projects in multiple townships. Committee members said the projects would unlock matching grants — collectively described by staff as enabling roughly $2.3 million in additional outside funding — but several council members cautioned that a court injunction currently restricts spending from the grant line and advised against unilateral action without a judicial stipulation.

Why it matters: The greenways grants cover playgrounds, trail expansions, pedestrian bridges, park upgrades and field turf — projects that depend on the county’s contribution to secure larger state or private grants. Committee members said approving local matches could help move those capital projects forward but noted the legal constraints cited by county counsel.

Administration staff presented the nine applications and said the grants are intended to fill funding gaps after awardees secure other grants such as DCNR (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources), DCED (Department of Community and Economic Development), ECCO and private foundation grants. Staff said one application (Washington Township) arrived after the packet was published; the rest were in the committee packet.

Councilors and the county solicitor discussed the legal status of the greenways line. The solicitor advised that funds in the greenways line were the subject of a court injunction and that spending deleted budget items would require either a stipulation executed by all parties and approved by the court or a court order undoing the injunction. One council member said an oral argument is tentatively scheduled in November and recommended heeding the solicitor’s advice to avoid reopening litigation in the 27 days before budget season.

Committee members split on whether to pursue a stipulation that would allow the administration to spend the money now: some argued applicants and projects were harmed by delay and urged council to cooperate with administration to reach a stipulation, while others said they would not negotiate in open court or make ad hoc exceptions while litigation is pending. Multiple members suggested placing the projects as line items in the upcoming budget instead of attempting a pre‑budget court negotiation.

No appropriation was approved during the meeting. Committee members asked for additional application materials and clarification of which grants are currently awarded, which are pending, and the legal status of the greenways line.