LEWISTON — Lewiston High School athletes may be asked to pay a modest pay-to-play fee next year to help buy uniforms, and the high school could get an extra educational technician to staff a new in-house suspension.

Hearing about those proposals for the first time Monday night, several School Committee members said they were not prepared to vote on a school budget as scheduled.

One of the budget cuts this year is a 9 percent reduction in athletics. That would not mean any team would be eliminated, but the equipment account would be lost, high school Athletic Director Jason Fuller said.

That account allows each team to get new uniforms every five years. Fuller said he could go one year without replacing uniforms, but longer than that the uniforms would wear “and we’d look sloppy.”

To raise money for uniforms, he proposed a $10 fee for athletes to play a sport, and higher ticket fees for fans attending games. Combined, the two could replace the 9 percent cut, which amounts to $18,500.

The higher ticket prices would be $5 for adults, $3 for students and senior citizens. Few members of the School Committee had difficulty with the $5 game fees, but several hesitated about charging students and their families to play.

“I’m philosophically against pay-to-play,” Chairman Jim Handy said. “It’s a real hard step for me to take.”

Other members worried it could keep some students from playing.

Fuller said the boosters encouraged him to develop the proposal, that the $10 could be waived for students who can’t afford it. “I don’t see myself standing in front of a kid and saying, ‘Sorry, you can’t play. You didn’t pay your $10.’” Some businesses have even offered to cover the fees for students, Fuller said.

Donald D’Auteuil, the City Council representative on the committee, said as a parent of athletes he didn’t have a problem with the $10. Parents pay far more for their children to play. For instance, baseball costs $90 for one child, $120 for two, D’Auteuil said, adding ice hockey is much more. “It’s very reasonable. It would help offset the cuts.”

Member Linda Scott agreed, saying, “My son’s Little League is way more than that.”

Member Paul St. Pierre asked if there is a chance some students would not play because they’re too proud to say they don’t have the $10.

Principal Linda MacKenzie said scholarships could be offered to cover the fee.

Members also discussed whether to hire a high school educational technician to staff a new in-house suspension program. The position would have an annual salary of $30,000.

In the past five weeks, some students who normally would have been sent home from school for nonviolent behavior have been given in-school suspensions where they go to school, but stay in a contained room doing work, are supervised and receive some coaching to change behavior.

The goal is to keep students in school, help them succeed academically, change their perception of a suspension being a vacation and have structured time to reflect on their behavior, MacKenzie said.

Since the program started March 10, “25 students are now in school who would have been kicked out.” Those students were given suspensions for repeatedly skipping detention on Fridays, tobacco violations, chronic tardiness and being disrespectful.

Thirteen students received out-of-school suspensions in the past five weeks for more serious violations such as fighting, possessing or using marijuana, lewd conduct, having a weapon or theft.

School Superintendent Bill Webster said an in-house suspension is key to help more students and improve the graduation rate. “This program is reducing the number of days our students are at home. This is keeping kids off the streets, giving them skills.”

Student dean Ronda Fournier said she and the other dean, Jay Dufour, work with students to improve behavior. Parents are happy their students are in school, not at home unsupervised or on the streets.

But looking at the number of students given in-house suspension for skipping detention, D’Auteuil said he doesn’t see the need for a new position.

Scott said she likes the idea of the program, but there isn’t enough money in the budget to do everything. “I have to look at the money. Right now, I can’t support this.”

The committee agreed to meet Monday, April 21, and possibly vote on the budget.

The proposed $61.3 million budget is up 4.2 percent from $58.8 in 2013-14. It would raise the tax rate by 48 cents. That would mean an increase of $72 a year for a property valued at $150,000.

Residents will vote on the budget May 13.

[email protected]