Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Non Lapsing Account topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates safeguards for proposed non‑lapsing school fund, recalls 2020 COVID rollover
Summary
Members discussed language to implement Public Act 24‑45 allowing the board of education to create non‑lapsing accounts, reviewed a 2020 COVID‑era rollover precedent and debated specificity versus flexibility for permitted uses and reporting; the committee asked legal counsel and town finance staff for clarifying redlines before first read.
The committee spent a substantial portion of the May 1 meeting reviewing draft Policy 3100 language that implements authority under Public Act 24‑45 for a board‑controlled non‑lapsing account. The presenter said the model language from Shipman & Goodwin must be customized for Ridgefield and noted the draft contains purple text for local procedure (how deposits are authorized, how withdrawal requests must be processed and the role of the superintendent and finance director).
Invited guest Mike Recker, chair of the town Board of Finance, described a 2020 rollover non‑lapsing account that the town and board of education established during the COVID budget uncertainty. He said that account had strict constraints (dedicated to COVID‑related expenses and a clause that unused funds revert to town reserves) and recommended the committee be explicit about purpose and reversion mechanics. "When we approved it the idea was ... provided it's used exclusively for COVID related stuff and if at the end of the day that's not needed the money reverts to the town," he said.
Superintendent Dr. Susie Dilva and finance director Jill Brown favored a process that requires the superintendent and finance director to report final year‑end numbers and for the board of education to vote by majority to create any non‑lapsing account. Committee discussion turned to how specific a designation must be: some members asked for narrowly defined purposes to avoid misuse; others favored broader "buckets" (for example, special education, building utilities/bus fuel, or unanticipated excess costs) that give the district flexibility while preventing a general rollover of funds.
Town accounting mechanics were addressed: Board of Finance members noted a non‑lapsing designation would typically be an allocation on the town's books (not a separate bank account), and staff agreed to work on procedural language for how vouchers and account codes would be used when funds are expended. The draft also points to required state reporting as part of the EFS year‑end submission. Committee members agreed to collect feedback, ask legal counsel to clarify statutory phrasing (including the use of the statutory term "fiscal authority" versus explicit naming of the Board of Finance), and return revised language for the full board's first read.
Next steps: staff to draft clarified redlines addressing statutory wording, designated purpose language (narrow buckets vs strict single‑purpose designations), accounting mechanics, and reporting expectations; consult Shipman & Goodwin and town finance staff before second reading.
