School meal prices back in spotlight after free lunches end

Families will once again have to pay for school meals starting in fall

As the saying goes, all good things must come to an end.

In this case, with the sunsetting of federal COVIDrelated aid programs, when school starts next fall students and families will once again have to pay for school lunches.

This brought with it the annual discussion about how much the school district should charge for meals served. At Monday’s Medford school board meeting, finance director Audra Brooks proposed a 10 cent increase over the lunch prices that were in place in the 2019-2020 school year. With a large surplus in the district’s food service accounts, board members were split about running at a potential loss and keeping costs to families as low as possible versus raising fees in order to stay above future program increases so there isn’t a shock with a large jump in one year.

The school lunch prices are an annual debate for boards and one which the district has not had to deal with for the past two years. For 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 federal programs have provided free breakfast and lunch for all students across the country.

At the same time the federal government was paying to provide the meals to students, it was also reimbursing the district for each meal served at a higher than normal rate. This allowed the district’s food service account fund balance to grow even larger to its current total of about $1 million.

The challenge, the district and others around the state face is that they are very restricted in what the district can spend that money on. Medford has been aggressive in using some of the funds to update existing kitchen equipment, ovens, freezer units and air handling in the kitchens. Dave Makovsky, director of buildings and grounds for the district reported that the district recently spent about $250,000 on equipment upgrades.

Brooks’ proposed increase would have raised the lunch prices from $2.60 to $2.70 for Pre-K-4, $2.75 to $2.85 for grades 5 to 8 and from $2.80 to $2.90 for grades 9 to 12.

Board member Steve Deml noted that at 10 cents a day, the increase would amount to $17 per child over the course of the 170 day school year.

The challenge for board members is that after not having an out of pocket cost for the past two years, it would be a big jump for families in the district. Added to that was the distaste of raising prices when the district was sitting on a $1 million surplus in that account with very limited ways in which to spend it.

Board member Brian Hallgren said that while the balance was healthy now, it could quickly drop to the point where they could have to increase it a larger amount. “I get nervous that down the road we will need a bump,” he said.

Further complicating the food service pricing is that the district has a high number of families that qualify for federal free and reduced lunch programs. Under these programs, the school district is reimbursed at a rate that is higher than the paid lunch prices. In the district’s two elementary schools over half the students are on free and reduced lunch.

It was noted that based on the area’s demographic information many more families in the district probably meet the federal income and family size requirements to qualify for free and reduced lunch programs. Families are encouraged to check into the programs. Brooks noted that those rates don’t just impact lunch programs but are tied to a variety of other federal and state funding programs which could channel additional revenue to the district.

Board president Dave Fleegel said he was uncomfortable with raising rates when the district was making money in food service, noting that is not the district’s goal.

“That is the problem when you give something free,” said board member Kurt Werner. He said it is human nature to be mad when the price goes back and people will be angry whether it is $2.80 for a meal or $3.80.

Brooks also noted that the district has a very fiscally conservative contract with A’viands, which has protected the district from seeing the same sorts of sharp increases in food costs that have been seen by other districts.

She explained that under their contract A’viands can charge the district no more than the amount specified in the contract with capped percentage increases for the remaining three years of the contract.

“I don’t think there is a need to increase prices,” Fleegel said. “We made money pre-COVID and made a lot of money through COVID.”

“I think it should be raised a little,” Werner said. “Sooner or later something is going to give. Are you going to do it now or do it later, something is going to give.”

A motion was made to increase the meal prices by a nickel, which it was noted was half the price that the meal costs were going up under the contract. This would have the impact of raising prices for families by about $8.50 per child over the year.

Werner said that sooner or later a price increase will need to come and that he is worried if they delay it, it will be higher.

After further discussion, there was a roll call vote on increasing the prices by a nickel, with it failing 5-4 with Hallgren, Corey Dassow, Fleegel, Don Everhard, and Jodi Nuernberger opposed and Deml, Aemus Balsis, John Zuleger and Werner in support.

With no other motion to change it, the prices remain as set for the 2019-2020 school year.

In other food service business, Brooks reported that A’viands is in the process of working with area Community Supported Agriculture organizations to purchase locally grown and organic items for the school lunch programs. Brooks said one of the challenges Medford faces is that because of the way the contract is structured, the district does not have flexibility to use food service account money to purchase local produce or higher quality food products to serve to students. If the district chose to do this, Brooks said it would have to come out of the general operating budget and not food service.

“I just want kids to eat healthy, yummy things and know they exist,” Zuleger said.

Youth football

Youth football will continue to be run by a community group rather than the school district for at least another year.

Last month, the school board approved taking over the youth football program that runs the 7th grade football and adding the $17,100 annual cost to the fund 80 community service levy.

However, at Monday’s meeting, youth football board president Kim Wojcik asked the board to either modify the agreement to allow them to keep the coaches they have in place for another year with a 5:30 p.m. practice time, or withdraw the request for next year and come back in the future.

The request came after activities director Ryan Pilgrim had reported that at the first day of sign-up for the fall sports, 22 students had signed up to participate in 7th grade football, a number he was pleased with. He noted it represented a rebound in participation numbers following a dip during COVID. “We are kind of turning the corner with kids getting involved and doing things,” Pilgrim said.

According to Wojcik the group’s request to the district was miscommunicated last month. Their concern was to be able to allow the existing coaches Corey Wojcik and Monte Dassow to finish out coaching one more year with their children in the program. She said that they are not able to be there right after school but noted that with the new Community Learning Center program that is coming through grant funds to the middle school, there could be options to have the students get study time and fitness center time before a later time for practice.

“They just can’t coach right after school,” Kim Wojcik said, noting that it was never their intent to not have it for the existing coaches to continue.

District administrator Pat Sullivan questioned if the vote came from the full youth football board. Kim Wojcik replied that she had the support of five of the board members with three opposed.

Hallgren noted that when the board approved taking the 7th grade program on they thought they were doing a good deal. “Are we responding to the full board? Are you speaking on behalf of the full board?” he asked.

Wojcik replied that she wants the school to take it over eventually, but there was a stipulation with practices needing to take place later. Youth football board member Katie Brahmer noted there was not a formal vote of their baord.

Sullivan said that if it had come to the district with the stipulations last month, the recommendation from administration would be to not do it. He said the high school football coaches are in favor of the district taking it over. Sullivan also noted that anyone was welcome to apply for those coaching positions. “We always hire our own coaches,” he said.

“I don’t have a problem with letting them run it for another year,” Fleegel said.

Hallgren cautioned that come next year, depending on the board make-up the district could say no to the same request. “This might be your shot,” he said. Hallgren also made a point of thanking Wojcik for the work she has done over the years with the program and other activities.

Werner was more direct in his warning to the youth football board members and setting an expectation for similar kinds of requests in the future. “Next time you better have your ducks in a row,” he said, noting it is a disservice to the board to come with a request one month and then change it a few weeks later.

“I think Kurt is right on the money. It is really not fair to this board,” Hallgren said.

Middle school principal Al Leonard who serves on the youth football board, along with Pilgrim, defended Pilgrim saying he did not think he was trying to present information that was inaccurate or incomplete.

In the end, the board members voted to rescind last month’s action and have youth football run the 7th grade program on its own for next year as in the past with the group to come back next spring.

In other business, board members:

_ Set the date for the annual meeting for August 29. While the numbers will not be complete by that point, Brooks noted that the district is unable to do any short-term borrowing between the end of the fiscal year on June 30 and the start of the time of the annual meeting. Short term borrowing is done to cover expenses between the times when the district receives funds from the state and local tax dollars from municipalities. In the past, the district would wait to hold the annual meeting until the end of October when the final numbers would be in from the state, holding it before then means the numbers presented at the annual meeting would be subject to change. Brooks said she was uncomfortable with how close the district was getting with its finances and being able to meet expenses due to the delay and the large amount of costs at the start of the school year.

_ Approved the open enrollment report with 365 students coming into the district and 12 going out of the district. Three applications for the RVA were denied with one being underage, one have an expulsion and one that was filled out by the student rather than parents.

_ Received word that there would be a special policy committee meeting regarding the school’s bullying policies on June 8 at 11 a.m. with board and community members invited to attend. The meeting will be held at the school district office.