Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwich schools cite $300,000–$500,000 shortfall; special-education reimbursements, outplacement costs cited
Summary
At the Feb. 11 Norwich Board of Education meeting, administrators warned of a projected $300,000–$500,000 shortfall in the 2024–25 budget tied mainly to special-education reimbursements and outplacement costs. The district has issued a temporary spending freeze and is negotiating transportation changes to reduce costs.
At its Feb. 11 meeting, the Norwich Board of Education heard from administration that the district expects a $300,000–$500,000 deficit in the current (2024–25) operating budget and has issued a temporary budget freeze while staff pursue cost reductions.
The shortfall is driven largely by rising special-education outplacement costs and lower-than-expected state reimbursements, administrators said. Business Administrator Robert Sapinski told the board the district received a 64.19% reimbursement rate for excess special-education costs this year; administrators said that rate contrasts with statutory targets discussed at the state level and that the difference has a material impact on the district’s budget. Sapinski said the governor’s FY25–26 proposal includes increases in some lines (including the ECS formula) but that state-level changes are subject to legislative negotiation and would not necessarily resolve the current-year shortfall.
Acting Superintendent Susan Lessard told the board a letter to building administrators announcing a hiring and spending freeze was distributed the same day. Lessard said the district had conservatively budgeted for a higher reimbursement rate but that continuing underfunding of excess special-education costs has produced a gap. Lessard also highlighted local efforts to control outplacement costs by expanding in-district programs such as the new Rose City School, a program administrators described at the special-education listening tour held earlier this month.
Board and staff outlined several near-term steps to reduce the projected deficit. Those steps include the hiring/spending freeze, further negotiations with First Student (the district’s transportation contractor) to combine routes and reduce bus counts, and continued efforts to control outplacement spending by developing in‑district placements. Lessard and Sapinski said transportation is a large budget line; administrators and board members reported ongoing meetings with First Student to model route consolidation and evaluate savings for 2025–26.
Sapinski summarized the state budget context for the board. He said the governor’s proposed budget would change certain state revenue flows, including an increase in ECS funding that, if finalized by the legislature, would affect the district’s Alliance Grant. But Sapinski cautioned the governor’s initial proposal is the opening position in a multi-month legislative process and that state excess-cost reimbursement proposals in the governor’s plan become effective in later years rather than immediately.
Board members asked for continued updates and for administrators to return with more detailed projections as negotiations and state budget activity proceed. Lessard said the district will continue to monitor enrollment, outplacement caseloads and transportation modeling and will report back to the board.
Ending: The board did not vote on an amended budget at the meeting; instead administrators framed the actions taken (freeze, negotiations, and program development) as interim steps to reduce the risk of a year‑end deficit and asked the board to await updated numbers as state budget decisions and local negotiations progress.
