Board authorizes non‑lapsing account; debate ensues over buses, start times and a possible interim appropriation

Board authorizes non‑lapsing account; debate ensues over buses, start times and a possible interim appropriation

The Greenwich Board of Education voted to allow administration to deposit fiscal year 2024–25 unexpended funds into a non‑lapsing account, clearing the way for the district to hold leftover funds into a dedicated account and return to the board later to approve any expenditures.

Why it matters: Board members and administrators said the authority gives the district a mechanism to hold one‑time savings to cover known contract shortfalls in transportation and to avoid asking the town for emergency funds immediately. Board members disagreed over whether the newly projected surplus should be used now to reverse the high‑school start time change or whether the board should pursue a formal interim appropriation from the town’s governing bodies.

The motion the board approved authorizes the administration to deposit all FY24‑25 unexpended funds into a non‑lapsing account under CGS 10‑248a and Public Act 24‑45, the statute that expanded local boards’ ability to carry unexpended appropriations forward. The administration explained the statutory language permits the board to retain up to 2% of the district appropriation; for the current year that ceiling is “just over $3,800,000,” administration staff said. The board discussion made clear any use of those funds will require a later affirmative vote by the full board.

Administrators told the board the district typically spends about 98–99% of its operating appropriation and that leftover year‑end savings primarily come from salary “churn” — vacancies, timing of hires and turnover. Finance staff projected an approximate $2,000,000 surplus for FY24‑25 but cautioned that figure is a projection and subject to change by June 30.

That projection set off the meeting’s longest debate: transportation and school start times. Board members and staff reiterated that the district currently needs additional money for the transportation contract, and that contractual rates being negotiated with the bus vendor are higher than in prior years. In public discussion staff said vendor contract rates being negotiated are up across the region and described single‑digit to double‑digit percentage increases; administration said the district had been negotiating under difficult market conditions (driver shortages, parking constraints and rising wage costs).

Two distinct funding questions emerged. One is the immediate shortfall the administration said exists for the transportation contract under the schedule the board already approved; administration said the non‑lapsing account could be used to cover that shortfall so the district can sign the contract and run buses for summer school and the fall. The second question — politically and procedurally more complicated — is whether the board should seek a formal interim appropriation from the town to restore funding cut during the budget process that reduced high‑school start times (reversing the April budget action that changed start times). Some board members urged asking the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) and the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) for an interim appropriation earmarked for transportation, while others urged caution because (1) the amount needed to fully restore buses and reverse the start‑time change is not yet final, (2) any BET/RTM action cannot be completed until after the new fiscal year begins July 1 and (3) the bus vendor negotiation is ongoing.

Administration and multiple board members said the non‑lapsing account is the prudent mechanism to secure funds now and avoid signing a contract without appropriation. Several board members also requested a written legal opinion from the town attorney clarifying whether the board may ask for an interim appropriation before July 1 and what procedural steps would follow.

What the board decided and next steps: the board approved placing FY24‑25 unexpended funds into a non‑lapsing account (motion passed). The board did not take a final action tonight to request an interim appropriation; members agreed to seek a clearer, written legal opinion from the town attorney and to set a follow‑up session (possibly in the next week) that could include an executive session for contract negotiations and a possible action request if the legal and financial details are resolved.

Ending: Several board members asked the administration to return with precise, documented figures at the earliest possible date (June 30 year‑end numbers and the negotiated vendor rate) and a written opinion from the town attorney about the interim appropriation process so the board and the public can understand next steps and timing.