Board of Education Lays Out New Proposed Activity Fee

Montville superintendent Dr. Paul Fried presented two possible Student Activity Fee plans for the 2011-2012 school year at the Board of Education public policy meeting Thursday night.

Plan 1 suggested a tiered fee based on the type of sport or activity a student participates in.

Some clubs, like Student Council, would be charged more than a club like International Concerns Club, because it costs more to administrate Student Council.

Similarly, a sport like football would be charged a higher fee than cheerleading.   

Plan 1 also called for a cap of no more than $500 in fees per family. Fees would range in the area of $35 to $150 per activity or sport, It is estimated that the tiered system would yield approximately $175,000 in additional revenue for the district. 

Plan 2 suggested a flat fee for each student participating in a club or sport. A higher fee of $150 or so would be charged for sports. A lower fee of around $35 would be charged for clubs. Only students participating would be charged a fee. 

Plan 2 has no cap and is estimated to yield only $151,000.

Unlike the current activity fee structure, both Plan 1 and Plan 2 would seek payment only from those students who actually participate in after school activities. Both athletic teams and clubs at Lazar and the high school will be affected by either plan.

Last night’s public meeting by the board’s subcommittee was designed to bring transparency to the board’s budgeting proceedings, according to board president Dr. Karen Cortillino.

“It is the goal of the Board of Education to be more transparent,” she said. “We invite people into the process.”

Roughly 20 people came out to discuss the proposed plans. Each member of the public who spoke voiced favor with Plan 2, stating it would be the simplest and most effective way to handle the implementation and insure that fees are paid on time. Many stated that Plan 1 was too cumbersome and would require the hiring of additional personnel just to administer the details and insure that fees were being paid. All agreed that in the current economic climate, additional staff would be a mistake.

Cheryl Meytrott was one of several who thanked the committee for their hard work and suggested that the proposed fee be raised slightly to close the gap between the projected earnings of each plan.

PTO President, Kathy Lindert, agreed that Plan 2 was the best approach, but requested that the Student Council be exempt from the fee.

“These students work hard to bring events to the school. They go out of their way,” Lindert explained. “It’s a lot of work. I think a fee will discourage participation.” 

Jon Alin asked the committee for feedback, but before they could weigh in on the Plan 1 or Plan 2 debate, Dr. Fried asked the members of the board to provide direction when stating a plan preference.

A unanimous endorsement of Plan 2 was stated by those board members who serve on the subcommittee. However, board member Michael Palma requested that a cap be worked into the Plan 2.

“These are only two options for plans,” explained Dr. Fried. “And there are probably one hundred in between.”

All parties agreed that those with financial hardship should be instructed to reach out to the Board of Education to set up an assistance plan. No child will be denied the opportunity to participate due to lack of funds.

Since November, the Public Policy Committee has encouraged residents to voice opinions regarding the Student Activity Policy.

The 2010-2011 school year was the first time such a fee has been collected in the Montville school district. Despite a budgeted amount of over $200,000, only about $160,000 has been collected to date. The short fall is thought to be due to families not paying because the children in those families are not participating.

The proposed plans for next year will only affect families whose children participate in sports of clubs and will not apply to families whose children do not participate.

“This is a positive step,” said Jon Alin, chairperson of the Public Policy Committee. “In the past the public hasn’t had any say in the budgeting process. But with this, they have been encouraged to participate, and the outcome meets their approval.

“We think this will make getting the budget passed easier because the people participated.”