Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwich board approves flat 2026–27 budget, plans to use $5.9M one‑time state aid for nonrecurring needs
Summary
The Norwich Board of Education on June 9 approved a flat‑funded 2026–27 operating budget and outlined use of approximately $5.9 million in one‑time state supplemental educational aid for nonrecurring expenditures, including technology and capital items, while proposing bookkeeping steps to preserve audit clarity.
The Norwich Board of Education on June 9 approved a flat‑funded 2026–27 operating budget and said it will use a one‑time state supplemental educational aid award to pay for nonrecurring needs.
Superintendent Susan Lassard and district finance staff told the board the district originally requested a 5.09% increase (about $4.9 million) to preserve programs and staffing. During the budget process a $5.9113 million supplemental grant from the state was awarded to Norwich; the ad hoc budget committee and city officials recommended keeping the operating budget flat and using the one‑time state funds for capital or nonrecurring items to avoid creating ongoing obligations.
Business official Robert Stupensky explained the administrative approach to accounting: the state recommended keeping the supplemental funds in a separate account for audit reasons, and the administration proposed reducing the transportation line item by $4,918,459 on the operating ledger so performance can be monitored against the originally proposed budget numbers. Stupensky said that, with the supplemental aid, the district would have roughly $1 million more than it asked for in combined resources and expects to end the year with an operating surplus if spending is monitored closely.
Board members discussed the implications for next year: the supplemental aid is one‑time and may affect perceived year‑to‑year increases in future budgets, and district leaders warned that state special‑education reimbursements remain below full cost (reported during the meeting as roughly 71.5% for excess cost reimbursement). Administrators flagged the risk that seed grants and other temporary funding streams may lapse and create budgetary gaps.
The board voted to approve the revised operating budget as presented; the motion passed by voice vote. The board was also told that the city will receive funds back to provide tax relief and that more detailed year‑end accounting will be shared after close‑out to explain any variances.
What happens next: administration will monitor account performance against the original line‑by‑line proposal, continue ad hoc discussions about separating capital budgeting from operating budgets, and report year‑end results to the board.
