Norwich board warns budget gap could force staff cuts as special-education costs climb

The Norwich Board of Education was told April 8 that a proposed $100,420,901 budget for 2025–26 — a 4.95% increase over the current year — still leaves the district exposed to funding shortfalls driven largely by rising special-education costs and fixed tuition payments to regional high schools.

Superintendent Susan Lessard opened the budget discussion by walking trustees through the district’s revenue and cost drivers, saying the district’s current 2024–25 budget is $95,680,898 and the proposal for next year reflects an increase of about $4.7 million. "We were told to expect a flat budget. We heard yesterday 1%, and I'll remind everyone that doesn't even cover the tuitions that we have no control over," Lessard said during the meeting.

School finance staff said special-education spending and uncertain state reimbursements are the largest immediate risks. District staff reported 111 students in special-education outplacements, costing more than $9 million, and described a change to the statewide excess-cost pool that reduced Norwich’s estimated reimbursement rate. Finance staff reported the statewide pool grew by $10 million in March; that growth lowered the district’s estimated reimbursement from about 64.19% to roughly 62.2% in the March update. District staff said that shift reduces the dollars available to Norwich and creates uncertainty about the amount the district will actually receive when final figures are posted in June.

Bob (staff member), who presented the March reimbursement update, said the lower rate reduces Norwich’s funds by an amount the presentation described as "just under $1,400,000" compared with earlier expectations, and noted the district is budgeting conservatively. He and other staff called attention to pending state actions — including possible changes to the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) formula and several bills under consideration — that could materially change Norwich’s position if enacted.

Tuition payments to external high schools are another fixed cost the board cannot control. Staff said Norwich’s tuition bills to Norwich Free Academy (NFA) and Griswold contributed substantially to the proposed increase: projected NFA-related costs for the district rose year‑over‑year, and the presentation described next year’s NFA total at about $29.4 million (an item staff said reflects a combination of enrollment change and tuition rate increases). Officials said those tuition obligations, even with a modest municipal increase, still require additional reductions elsewhere in the district budget.

District staff described cost-saving and revenue measures under consideration. The in-district Rose City School, which serves students with intensive needs, was cited as producing both direct savings and cost avoidance: staff said nine Rose City students in January generated roughly $661,000 in savings versus outplacement tuition to private programs. The budget presentation also assumed some staffing reductions, including the possibility of eliminating several certified positions and administrative posts if state aid does not meet projections.

The board heard a list of planned personnel nonrenewals presented later in the meeting and voted to authorize the superintendent to notify the listed certified staff that their contracts would not be renewed at the end of 2024–25. The motion listed 13 certificated employees by name and passed unanimously, 7–0.

Why it matters: Norwich administrators said the gap between expected and certain state funding — particularly excess-cost reimbursement for special-education services and the city’s final contribution to the Alliance/ECS portions of state aid — will determine whether the district must permanently cut staff and services. Administrators urged the board and the community to treat federal and state budget decisions as pivotal to the final local plan.

During the presentation, staff urged caution: some numbers for reimbursements and legislative actions remain undecided until late spring. Bob advised the board that the district would not know the final impact of the state adjustments until early June, when official allocations are finalized.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes for March 11, 2025: motion made and seconded; outcome recorded as approved with four votes in favor and one recorded abstention during roll call (as stated in the meeting). The board’s minutes motion was introduced early in the meeting and the chair recorded the tally.

- Authorization to notify listed certified staff of nonrenewal (budgetary reasons): motion read listing 13 certificated employees; the board approved the nonrenewal notifications, outcome unanimous, 7–0.

- Authorization to submit IDEA Part B (6–11) and Part B preschool (6–19) entitlement grant applications for 2025–27: motion and second recorded (second by Joseph Tylor in the meeting transcript); approved unanimous, 7–0.

- Approval of minor policy updates (policy numbers read aloud in the meeting): approved unanimous, 7–0.

- Authorization for the superintendent to extend the acting assistant superintendent’s contract for the 2025–26 school year (motion returned from executive session): approved unanimous, 7–0.

What the board said next: Board members and staff discussed next steps for budget meetings with the city council; the superintendent said she would present the budget to the city council that evening. Staff and trustees noted they will continue to monitor two main variables: (1) whether the governor’s proposed increases and other legislative actions survive the legislative process and (2) the final excess-cost reimbursements released in June.

The meeting record shows the board moved several administrative and grant motions later in the agenda without further debate; all ballot actions recorded at the April 8 session passed on roll call as reported above.