'Tough Conversation': Ridgefield BOE Debates Budget Options As Members Clash

RIDGEFIELD, CT — The Ridgefield Board of Education wrestled Monday with how aggressively to pursue its proposed 2026–27 school budget, exposing sharp differences among members over fiscal strategy and how closely the board should align with guidance from the Board of Finance.

During the Feb. 2 special meeting, Superintendent Susie Da Silva presented a budget proposal calling for a 4.62 percent increase over the current year, which would translate into an estimated 4.88 percent mill rate increase when combined with other town spending. Board members agreed the budget preserves classroom staffing and core student services but diverged on whether to ask the administration to return with alternative scenarios.

Board member Jon Paradiso argued the board has a responsibility to examine lower-cost options before advancing the budget to voters, citing Board of Finance projections shared at a recent tri-board meeting.

“I think our responsibility is to show the town that we have done the work, and I personally do not feel like we have done the work until I understand what option B is, and maybe option C,” Paradiso said. He suggested asking the administration to model a version of the budget that would result in a mill rate increase comparable to last year’s, which he estimated would require roughly $1.3 million in reductions. Paradiso emphasized that he was not advocating immediate cuts but wanted the board to understand the consequences of different funding levels.

Paradiso said he was concerned the current proposal exceeded what the Board of Finance had signaled it was comfortable supporting and warned that failing to explore alternatives could undermine public confidence. He called the notion that the BOE was properly positioned to parse through each element of the superintendent's spending plan "a trap."

“We’re not voting on line items,” he said. “We’re voting on an entire budget.”

Related: Ridgefield BOE Policy Committee Advances Title IX Updates, Continues Library Review

Board member Wyatt Lipman strongly pushed back, calling the Board of Finance projections unrealistic and warning against preemptively scaling back the superintendent’s proposal.

“I would not support cutting one dollar from the proposed superintendent budget,” Lipman said. He described the finance board’s suggested increase as insufficient to cover existing obligations, let alone maintain program quality. Lipman argued the Board of Education’s role is to advocate for educational investment and allow other boards or voters to make reductions if necessary.

“We should aspire to be the best school district in Fairfield County,” Lipman said. “Anchoring on (the BoF) number is deeply wrong, a deeply inappropriate approach."

Several board members expressed concern about the growing gap between the Board of Education’s proposal and the finance board’s expectations, while also voicing reluctance to reduce services tied directly to students.

Board member Christine More said she felt the board should acknowledge the finance board’s guidance, even if it ultimately disagreed. “They are responsible for the financial health of the town,” she said, adding that ignoring their input could appear dismissive.

Others echoed concerns about long-term sustainability, particularly regarding administrative growth. Board member Rachel Marino called the meeting the "first real tough conversation about this budget." She questioned whether adding new administrative positions would lock the district into costs that are difficult to reverse. “Once they’re there, we’re on the hook year after year,” Marino said.

Da Silva cautioned that large reductions could force cuts into what she described as the district’s “core,” including legally required services tied to special education and student support mandates. She said some proposed increases, such as additional paraprofessionals and behavioral support staff, are not discretionary.

Related: Ridgefield Tri-Board Reviews Fiscal Outlook, School Needs And Capital Pressures

Despite disagreements, the board broadly agreed on several priorities: protecting classroom teachers, maintaining class sizes, and preserving direct services to students. Chair Tina Malhotra said the board’s goal is to demonstrate diligence and transparency before adopting a final budget.

By consensus, the board asked Da Silva and her team to return at a future meeting with multiple budget scenarios, including the current proposal, a lower-cost version showing the impact of reductions, and an option outlining additional investments that were not included in the original request.

The board did not take any votes on the budget during the meeting. A public hearing is scheduled for Feb. 7, followed by further discussion at the board’s Feb. 9 meeting, before a final vote later in the month.