Stratford budget workshop spotlights "ESSER cliff," $2 million reserve and cuts to school staff

Acting Superintendent Heather Borges urged Stratford's ordinance committee to address an "ESSER cliff," saying the school district faces imminent reductions to mental‑health staff, tutors and after‑school supports that were previously funded through one‑time federal grants.

"We stand on the brink of an ESSER cliff and it's imperative that we rally the maximum support possible from the town during this ... pivotal budget season," Borges said, describing a revised Board of Education request that ultimately sought a 3.27% increase to the town allocation after earlier cuts.

The meeting—first of five budget workshops—centered on three intertwined issues: the size of the town's operating contribution, the treatment of supplemental grants (including Alliance/ECS funds), and a $2,000,000 non‑lapsing gift shown in the mayor's proposed budget. Town staff and council members differed over how those supplemental dollars should be counted.

Town staff explained that the mayor's presentation places $2,000,000 in a reserve/non‑lapsing fund "so the board of education would still get the $2,000,000 knowing full well that this council would essentially approve or amend" any ordinance changes. A town official said placing the money in a reserve was intended to avoid adding that sum to the mill‑rate calculation while still making the funds available to the Board of Education with council approval.

Several councilors warned the accounting choice could create a new fiscal cliff. "If we can't continue to fund the reserve fund with the $2,000,000 ... it means I'm back here next year with more cuts," Borges said, noting that even with the gift the district could still face a substantial shortfall if the funds are restricted or not replenished.

Committee members pressed for clarity on which dollars constitute the town's operating contribution. Committee member Sheikh and others argued the mayor's advertised 4.79% education increase includes Alliance grant and non‑lapsing funds that cannot currently be used for general operating costs without ordinance changes and, potentially, an audit. Administrators confirmed the Board appropriation of $127,002,725 is the line that counts toward the general operating budget and said Alliance/ECS money is treated as supplemental.

Councilors raised additional operational questions: the district's year‑to‑date encumbrances and projected year‑end balance (administration estimated a conservative $400,000–$500,000 before unpaid meal and special‑education contingencies), substitute‑teacher fill rates and per‑diem pay (local rates were raised to $135 certified/$125 non‑certified but remain below nearby districts), and the growing cost of special‑education placements (one official said the district is "more than a million dollars in debt currently for special education").

During public comment, community member Freer said the mayor's proposal reflected "austerity as a path to solvency" and warned that proposed elimination of elementary librarians would harm early literacy; Borges acknowledged the cuts would have impact and said the district is seeking grant offsets where possible.

On process, council members asked when audit results and retirement‑savings estimates would be available; administrators promised updates by early April and said some lines (insurance, athletic trainer bids) had already increased beyond initial estimates. Administrators also cautioned that many grant sources—ESSER in particular—are temporary and that shifting recurring costs onto one‑time funds risks future shortfalls.

The committee recessed the workshop until the next scheduled session after distributing follow‑up questions to administration; no formal vote on the education budget was taken at the meeting.