Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletics Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Athletics director cites rising officials, police detail and equipment costs; board asks for line‑item breakdown
Summary
Athletic Director Eric Hall told the board that officials’ contract increases, police detail, ambulance coverage and equipment/supply price rises are driving an approximately $84,000 increase in the co‑curricular and athletics article; the board asked for a detailed dollar breakout of officials, supplies and dues.
Athletic Director Eric Hall outlined the athletics and co‑curricular budget pressures facing RSU 5, citing external contract increases and safety costs as primary drivers of the proposed rise in Article 4.
Hall said officials’ compensation rose under a multi‑year contract that took effect in fall 2023 and that the district pays association fees for assigners, rentals (for example, indoor track facility rental), awards and related costs. He also identified increased police detail costs for higher hourly wages when officers work after hours, ambulance coverage for football games, and higher equipment and uniform prices as contributors to annual increases.
Participation rates are strong, Hall said, with high school participation roughly in the mid‑50s to low‑60s percentage range. He noted a new middle‑school unified basketball program funded by a Special Olympics grant and said he is negotiating a uniform vendor (BSN) that would give a purchasing credit to the district.
Board members asked for more detail on Article 4’s $84,000 change and a line‑item breakout. Business manager Kelly clarified that Article 4 covers stipends (the largest portion), stipends’ benefits, officials, supplies and co‑curricular costs; she said stipend increases are largely contractual and not under the athletic director’s direct control. The board requested an exact dollar breakdown for officials, ambulance/police detail, supplies and stipends during budget deliberations.
Hall and the board agreed that cutting a program would be a last resort because program elimination tends to be long‑lasting; suggested near‑term options for savings included equipment or supply choices rather than dropping student programs.
