Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ansonia Board reviews 2026-27 budget proposal and flags shortfall from lost grant funding
Summary
The Ansonia Board of Education received a first-pass presentation of the 2026-2027 budget, which requests a 6.1% increase tied largely to the anticipated loss of Alliance Grant dollars and rising health and special-education transportation costs. Board members asked for comparisons to prior-year spending and signaled concern about the size of the request.
Ansonia ' The Ansonia Board of Education on Dec. 15 reviewed the district's 2025-26 finance report and received a first presentation of the proposed 2026-27 budget, which requests a 6.1% increase driven largely by higher health-care and pension costs, special-education transportation increases and the expected loss of Alliance Grant funding.
Superintendent DiBacco told the board the proposed 6.1% increase would preserve current staffing levels rather than add programs. "This number is with no changes made to programs or staffing," he said, and attributed much of the increase to the absence of prior Alliance Grant support.
The meeting opened with a line-by-line review of the current-year finance report by district finance presenter Erich Marriott, who walked members through fund, object and local classifications, explained color-coded columns and highlighted red and green line items. Marriott explained the district's health-care arrangements and said the district's self-funded plan has produced savings, while noting continued pressure from salary and special-education costs.
Board member Dr. Steven Adamowski pushed back on the size of the request, saying the proposed 6.1% increase "isn't going to fly" and urging the board to give clearer direction to staff about a reasonable target. President Chris Phipps described the presentation as an early, informational pass and said board members would need more detail before taking a position.
The board discussed several specific drivers behind the proposal: higher health-insurance and pension obligations administered under the city; an increase in special-education transportation costs and a noted rise from All-Star Transportation; and the mechanics of Excess Cost Grant reimbursements. Marriott clarified that an Athletic-related line under review reflected transportation, not coaching salaries: "it is not, it is the transportation line," he said.
Members also discussed capital-improvement labeling and Fund 10 accounting, including how grant revenue and tax-raised revenue are allocated. Mr. Bergin told the board that revised NEASC accreditation criteria left no high school meeting the new threshold, and Superintendent DiBacco said curricular work under way should resolve the concerns; Dr. Adamowski asked that any spending tied to NEASC improvements be clearly identified in budget documents.
Public comment included a statement from resident Diane Stroman, who thanked district staff and warned that cuts would most affect students: "If cuts have to be made, it most affects the child but the entire district as well," she said. Several members of the Board of Aldermen attended but did not speak.
No formal budget vote was taken. The board discussed timelines for presenting the budget to the Board of Aldermen and scheduled further workshops and meetings for additional review. A motion to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. passed on a 5-0 recorded vote.
