[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6238591,"mediaKeyId","3350851-abfb0287a4a920ef32c82b0d0a283e78","parentId",3350851,"title","Nutrition program clears USDA administrative review; food-service staff outline 2025–26 budget and equipment needs","audioSeconds",718,"startMs",5381000,"endMs",6099000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3350851-abfb0287a4a920ef32c82b0d0a283e78&start=5381&end=6099","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3350851-abfb0287a4a920ef32c82b0d0a283e78/thumbnail_5381000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6238591/Pennsylvania/Nutrition-program-clears-USDA-administrative-review-food-service-staff-outline-202526-budget-and-equipment-needs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6238591-f9e8a407d3fbdaf6e1e76176929b86bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200471&Signature=gHB~fUDnnG1dnzWjs3P1~QKpyPF74aqT5ldweLEkT4xaQfz5IwkSeNz-LCgr491W~CeWaXRDR5cDBsQqv7jb7NCz29d6klOlUNcZuK8Zrco-HqCuWDhkrJrIcvhsD11tN~pM6YHIhrxGWopuz2F9H73e1xkQmJSymZcgP6GByFyrTbqm6LcbTOxUNsh5x7Yl8HBzmMS1Zd9gUXlktOCStwHggePF-x~5QSrXSFfJBwWAB4pPRd2Q1AONbRpHgdbdWzxm7keC2rZdJ2b~i6HIn7TKApef8yuMkoPLpPOefoczjabv2YwuPokLr5G7jueHOgQNgL8AJh7VS6j1OXaXhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-15T13:48:40Z","article","The Wallingford-Swarthmore School District’s nutrition program completed an administrative review by the National School Lunch Program (USDA) and the district submitted corrective action on a professional‑standards training item; the reviewers accepted the corrective action and closed the finding, the business office told the finance committee on May 14.

Why it matters: The administrative review is a federal compliance check for the National School Lunch Program. Passing the review preserves the district’s participation, federal reimbursements and continued eligibility for school-meal programs.

What the nutrition team reported: Food-service director Kate Rigler described nutrition-education and engagement programs run during the school year — including “wellness Wednesday” tasting events at elementary schools, a farm-to-fork program featuring local produce, action stations (build‑your‑own bars) at the secondary level and a student youth advisory committee that tests menu items. Rigler highlighted outreach activities such as an apple‑crunch day and “Moo-licious” smoothies; she also said the program runs frequent student‑taste and advisory sessions that inform menu choices.

Administrative review and corrective action: The USDA review included an on‑site observation and an off‑site document review. The district received one corrective-action finding regarding required food-safety and professional‑standards training for the food‑service program director during a staff transition. The business office and food-service director completed the required training and submitted documentation; the USDA accepted the corrective action and issued a final closeout letter.

2025–26 food-service finances and operations: The food-service staff presented year‑to‑date participation and reimbursement data and a preliminary 2025–26 budget. Staff and the business office said food-service operations remain self‑sustaining (the program does not require a general‑fund subsidy) and that year‑to‑date reimbursements and participation are at or above budgeted levels. The food-service forecast includes a planned 5% food‑cost budget increase and an 8% increase for paper/cleaning supplies; labor budgeting includes a proposed 50¢ per hour wage increase for starting staff and a 50¢ Across‑the‑board increase for current staff per the employee contracts the district expects to implement for 2025–26. The nutrition program offered a revenue guarantee number to the district, which the business office summarized as part of the program’s internal budgeting.

Equipment, contracts and procurement notes: The business office highlighted several contracts on the May board agenda related to technology lease renewals and the expansion of the district’s MySchoolBucks (MySchoolBox) online payment platform (no cost to district for expansion; processing fees recommended to be split with families). The food-service team noted past equipment investments this school year (about $300,000 in kitchen equipment) and indicated additional targeted equipment purchases were under review to reduce food loss and improve service delivery.

Ending: The committee accepted the report and heard questions from parents and board members. Public commenters praised student engagement in menu trials. Business‑office staff and the food‑service director said they would return with any additional equipment requests and continue to monitor participation and costs as the district finalizes the 2025–26 budget.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Facilities & Finance Committee meeting 5/14/25","oneSentenceSummary","The district’s food service passed the U.S. Department of Agriculture administrative review after submitting corrective action on professional standards. Staff reviewed nutrition-education programming and presented a preliminary 2025–26 food-service budget that remains self‑supporting while requesting equipment and modest labor adjustments.","taxTitle","Wallingford-Swarthmore SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania","taxId",38778,"location","Pennsylvania","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6238596,"Board committee hears concerns from local rec groups over proposed Policy 707 facility fees",507,912000,1419000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3350851-abfb0287a4a920ef32c82b0d0a283e78&start=912&end=1419","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3350851-abfb0287a4a920ef32c82b0d0a283e78/thumbnail_912000.jpg","/articles/6238596/Pennsylvania/Board-committee-hears-concerns-from-local-rec-groups-over-proposed-Policy-707-facility-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6238596-755aa5d2807fd99c0e038d8871e06ffe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200471&Signature=EnGvP5jg97MSuPPHpMpj0iX1Q1Wa5lqSqNHJaH0ArSmETKPzlvRi4VUL~MFO8JNDAB4zVkC~nG2Xt61AvYwqNwCZkUbzrplTksop-Fl5sNZJSFCM7AwOQP1BS9hX18oI5eRU8xKeb1IiXuTPv150TXZuGWy9ItLM6MxxCh6RvZmZTeXAjpMFxkeY6UoZpK6R77KopsZdTnOxdC6UG2Q2fvr9s-FAzLwvAjDxLAb2BeOj2UNQlHNLjtZRCicHPF1t2TmiTYz48U4sgoavavB4fK65kR0fBj3c3lBpU5LGR5pzWUg2h34C73Crv9k55gGtz3pxyWze0YwJckUkyvRZ4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Operations staff reviewed proposed changes to Policy 707 — the district’s field and facility usage policy — at the May 14 facilities meeting, saying the goal is to align rental charges with actual costs for custodial coverage, field lining and other services. The administration told committee members it had surveyed neighboring districts and produced a fee matrix to propose new charges, and recommended implementing new rates at the start of the next school year pending board approval.

Why it matters: Policy 707 defines rental fees for community groups, nonprofit organizations and external users who use district gyms, classrooms and fields. Changes to the policy affect local youth athletics and recreation providers who rely on school facilities in a community with few alternative venues.

What was presented: The operations director said the district’s current fees undercount actual costs — for example, the staff cited a comparison in which the district had been charging roughly $10 to line a football field while the cost to paint lines was closer to $120; the district’s outside vendor was charging about $3.50 to the district for field lining. The operations office explained that the policy uses a four‑hour minimum rental block (to cover custodian minimum call‑in costs), with additional hours pro‑rated. Administration said it preferred implementing the updated fee schedule immediately rather than phasing increases over multiple years, because current rates were not covering expenses.

Public reaction: Amy Stracken, executive director of Sophomore Rec Association, told the committee her nonprofit rents district gyms and fields year‑round and has more than 550 children in a typical basketball season. She said the proposed jump—for example, a gym rental increasing from $35 to $80 for a four‑hour block in the district’s chart—would add about $26,000 in fees to her organization’s season costs, and could force program reductions. Another commenter (identified in the transcript as Miguel O’Donnell) said district funds are for the schools and supported recovering the district’s full costs; other residents urged the committee to consider whether a graduated or geographic rate would be more appropriate.

Board and staff discussion: Committee members discussed whether to carve out exceptions for outdoor fields that do not require custodial presence, whether to treat in‑district nonprofits (Group B) differently from outside organizations (Group C), and whether to create an explicit exception or separate agreement for the Wallingford night school program, which had been treated historically as an educational entity and not charged. The operations director said educational entities are not charged under existing policy.

Next steps and communications: Operations said it would post the updated fee schedule on the district website and proactively email regular users once the policy is approved. The committee asked administration to return with refined options (for example, different treatment of outdoor fields, possible phased increases, and any special agreements such as the night‑school arrangement) before the board takes final action.

Ending: The committee did not adopt the updated fee schedule at the May 14 meeting; members asked staff to return with alternate proposals and clearer examples of financial effects for in‑district nonprofit programs before forwarding a policy recommendation to the full board.","Operations staff described proposed increases to field and facility rental fees under Policy 707 to better cover custodial and maintenance costs. Local nonprofits said the proposed changes would sharply raise costs for year-round programming; committee asked administration to return with refinements and communications plans.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6238601,"District hears two 10-year capital-plan options; consultants outline phasing, schedule and likely tax impacts",1023,2019000,3042000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3350851-abfb0287a4a920ef32c82b0d0a283e78&start=2019&end=3042","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3350851-abfb0287a4a920ef32c82b0d0a283e78/thumbnail_2019000.jpg","/articles/6238601/Pennsylvania/District-hears-two-10-year-capital-plan-options-consultants-outline-phasing-schedule-and-likely-tax-impacts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6238601-d7acb198786c48af2dbf4708909792a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200471&Signature=TIp16Xy7QT4aL9P2bCIn2J-~UoG2usvcsjBKwrbMvzBgXa8WIHFDw97OcMKMzViUFZpEO-jmpLuM6v93b7xeX-BNzUAMrxpcMOp1EsuKlzq5yg8DpagJMbLQ2IDx~AkOJ11pbX-4rMFAVVn2DWsW2s2-YmvfO164FoSdnd3cjGqJn69aBpayyhZ6edITl~s4e~5ItJmC1pHnEk6kmt9S1bi8HiCC~CTu9xBx0583im0SpoXMm0-W2vedqudHGc4WyCwsIKnZV8VkFXLu~E51mJH61qCzVp8TNnzC8GP1ULhA96H8nB2V1VKleAwX5ELph~sqGCjoiVBOZRMua-6psg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Consultants from ICS presented two financing options for a 10-year capital plan to the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District facilities and finance committees on May 14, outlining phasing, projected schedules and preliminary tax impacts for borrowing scenarios of $129 million and $164 million. The presentations included a priority set the consultants described as “warm, safe, dry” (HVAC, roofing, fire safety and basic code-related work) and a larger “base-plus/extended” scope that would add discretionary items such as auditorium and cafeteria renovations and athletic turf.

Why it matters: The consultants’ scenarios would increase the district’s long-term debt service and, under their assumptions, require multi-year millage phases the district would need to incorporate into future budgets. Committee members, the administration and members of the public asked for more detail on capacity, timing, and how debt service would be staged against existing repayments.

The presentation and plan framing: Bill Solomon, Tim Guider and John Young (consultants, ICS) summarized work done since January, including building-condition assessments and public engagement from an open house on May 5. They recommended focusing first on essential systems — heating, ventilation, air conditioning, roofing, sprinklers and accessibility — and packaging discretionary items for later community review. For the high school the “warm, safe, dry” plus the previously proposed addition/renovation produced a near-$99 million estimate in the consultants’ slides; the previous “base” high-school concept alone was cited in the presentation as roughly $64 million.

Phasing, modular classrooms and schedule: The consultants proposed starting design immediately for the high school if the board chooses to proceed, with a design period of about one year, permitting and bidding and then multi-season construction. They said modular classrooms (temporary units) are included in the budgets for most high-school options except the smallest base option and that designs aim to minimize required modulars via optimized phasing. For the SRS (Swarthmore-Rutledge School) “warm, safe, dry” option the consultants said work could be done in two summers and might not require modulars; a fuller renovation would.

Two districtwide borrowing scenarios and the tax impact shown: Financial advisors (PFM and Raymond James) presented sample debt schedules keyed to the administration’s preliminary draw schedule. Under conservative assumptions the $164 million scenario would be borrowed in several issuances over multiple years; the advisors modeled roughly a phased annual mill increase in the mid-range of the plan. Their example: a multi‑year phase equating to roughly a 0.50‑mill annual addition over seven years (they described phase and contingency assumptions), which the advisors summarized as a total mill-equivalent requirement of about 3.39 mills over the 10‑year horizon to fund that larger scenario. For the smaller $129 million scenario they modeled roughly a 0.437‑mill annual increase across a similar multiyear phase, totaling about 2.62 mills across the horizon.

Household examples from the administration: The business office translated those model results into sample homeowner impacts using three assessed-value points. For the $164 million example the administration reported average annual tax-bill increases (spread over the modeled years) of about $194 for a property assessed near $334,000 (≈$16.25/month), $232 for $400,000 (≈$19.40/month), and $290 for $500,000 (≈$24.30/month). For the $129 million case the similar examples were roughly $150 (≈$12.55/month) at $334,000; $179 (≈$15/month) at $400,000; and $224 (≈$18.75/month) at $500,000.

Public questions and board concerns: Residents pressed about enrollment projections and whether the proposed additions (for example an expanded high-school capacity) matched projected student counts. One commenter asked why the high school expansion would lift capacity substantially above projected 2029–30 enrollment levels and asked for documentation tying proposed additions to demonstrated need. Board members asked for clearer numerical capacity and utilization charts the consultants could return with. Several speakers asked for a phased approach that prioritized essential systems and deferred discretionary items such as a turf field until the community had more input.

Next steps: The consultants said the plan is a living document: estimates and timing will change during schematic design and each project will have additional community engagement and design checkpoints. The advisors noted that interest-rate and market conditions will affect timing and that the district’s rating agencies will surveil outstanding debt as the district proceeds.

Ending: Committee members and members of the public asked the administration and consulting team for more granular enrollment, capacity and cost breakdowns at the next follow-up meeting so the board can weigh tradeoffs between addressing deferred building needs and the tax burden on residents.","Consultants from ICS presented “warm, safe, dry” and expanded renovation options for a 10-year capital plan and two borrowing scenarios ($129M and $164M). Consultants and the business office showed potential millage increases and household tax impacts; board and residents pressed for more enrollment, phasing and cost detail.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Nutrition program clears USDA administrative review; food-service staff outline 2025–26 budget and equipment needs

Board committee hears concerns from local rec groups over proposed Policy 707 facility fees

District hears two 10-year capital-plan options; consultants outline phasing, schedule and likely tax impacts