Groton‑Dunstable committee weighs athletic‑fee options, including annual fee and family cap

The Groton‑Dunstable Regional School District Budget & Finance Subcommittee reviewed a draft athletic‑fees analysis on March 26 and discussed keeping the current $500 per athlete, per season fee while studying alternatives to reduce costs and increase participation.

The packet presented per‑sport cost breakdowns, participation and revenue trends for fiscal years 2021–2025, and projections of how athletics are financed through the general fund, revolving (activity) funds and booster contributions. Committee members discussed an example proposal to aim for a long‑term reduction to roughly $425 per season by fiscal 2029, and explored an alternative structure of a single annual activity fee and potential family caps.

Why it matters: athletics fees affect access for student athletes and the district budget. Committee members noted that the district’s athletics program costs include coach stipends (contracted), transportation and equipment and that shifting revenue away from per‑sport fees would increase reliance on the general fund.

The subcommittee reviewed budget figures showing total athletic expenses budgeted at about $804,000 for fiscal 2024 and $765,000 for fiscal 2025 (budget figures). The packet shows that in 2024 the general fund was budgeted to cover about 57% of athletics costs while the revolving fund covered about 43%; the 2025 budgeted split reversed in planning to approximately 49% general fund / 51% revolving fund. The presenters cautioned that the 2025 numbers were budget projections, not final audited results, and that any revolving‑fund shortfall would be transferred to the general fund at year close.

Committee discussion focused on several practical tradeoffs: - Annual activity fee vs. per‑sport fees: Dr. Bruno described his district’s experience moving to a single annual fee, saying it was “not a revenue maker” but that it produced administrative savings and encouraged participation across multiple sports. He cautioned, “The biggest barrier is you’re bringing in less money.” - Family cap and waivers: members discussed setting a family cap and offering financial‑hardship waivers, but agreed the cap level would depend on projected participation and the chosen fee amount. - Transportation costs: staff noted transportation is a major cost driver. The district plans to purchase a van this year to reduce small‑team bus costs and to reduce reliance on contracted buses with driver wait‑time and mileage charges. - Revenue sources: gate receipts were budgeted higher for FY25 (budget line item) but actual gate receipts booked to date were lower (about $13,000 received to date); cash donations had not been booked as of the meeting. Booster club in‑kind or material support is not counted as cash donations in the district’s revenue lines.

Next steps: BNF members asked staff (Matt, Jeff and Sherry) to refine the financial model, run scenario analyses showing how much general‑fund support would be required to reach alternate fee targets, and calculate what a breakeven annual fee would be under different participation assumptions. The subcommittee will collect follow‑up questions and expect a more developed recommendation for the full committee at a later meeting.

No formal vote or policy change occurred at the meeting; the discussion was framed as data review and direction to produce additional analysis.