Bristol school leaders ask for $154.6M budget, spotlight rising special-education costs

The Bristol Board of Education presented a $154,649,443 proposed budget for fiscal 2026–27 on March 24, saying the request represents a 12.83% increase over the current adjusted budget and is driven largely by special-education tuition, transportation and employee-benefit costs. Superintendent White called the request “designed to stabilize our school system while maintaining the level of education our students require.”

The presentation, delivered to the Board of Finance and the public, laid out the district’s financial picture through Feb. 28, 2026, including a projected year-end deficit primarily attributable to special-education expenditures. Director of finance Jody Bond told the board the district currently shows a general-education unencumbered balance of roughly $3.0 million but that special-education costs are producing a structural shortfall. Bond said recent excess-cost (Medicaid) reimbursements have started to arrive but that uncertainty remains.

Dr. Martino, the district’s special-education director, told the board that 22.9% of students now require special-education services and that the district currently places dozens of students out of district. She outlined the principal cost drivers — rising tuition for private placements, transportation and the expiration of one‑time federal ESSER/ARP funds — and described a roughly $5.16 million year‑over‑year funding gap tied to those changes. “If we fail to meet the mandate, it triggers a number of other cycles,” Dr. Martino said, citing legal, tutoring and compensatory-service costs that follow unmet federal and state obligations.

Martino proposed a phased approach to reduce long-term costs: stabilize in‑district special‑education programs by adding staffing and supervisory capacity, create program seats to bring students back from out‑of‑district placements, and ultimately charge tuition to neighboring districts when capacity allows. Using district examples, she said educating a single high‑need student in‑district over time could save “almost $2,000,000” compared with long-term outplacement tuition and transportation.

Board members pressed for incremental cost estimates, asking how many outplaced students could be returned and what the immediate budget impact would be. One commissioner asked for a multiyear projection mapping upfront staffing costs against expected reductions in tuition and legal fees; Dr. Martino agreed to prepare a three‑year model and a program-by-program cost breakdown.

Superintendent White also identified specific budget drivers and requests: 53 new positions across certified and noncertified staffing (including paraprofessionals, BCBAs, occupational therapists, custodial and IT roles), an increased transportation contract with DECO, and higher liability insurance associated with a new middle‑school facility. The superintendent said some positions previously assumed to be funded through Alliance/ECS grants will now fall to the general fund because Alliance funding is flat for the coming year.

Public commenters at the hearing urged fiscal restraint and questioned past federal and state funding uses; board members said they welcomed continued public dialogue and analysis. The district agreed to circulate copies of the presentation and to provide additional financial detail by email for follow up.

Next steps: Board of Finance and city council review and joint action on appropriations. The Board of Education committed to returning to the boards with the requested three‑year projections and a clearer itemization of the proposed positions’ costs and anticipated savings.