South Washington County Schools details nutrition budget, vendor change and kitchen upgrade needs

South Washington County Schools nutrition leaders presented their 2025–26 budget assumptions and program highlights at a May 8 workshop at the district service center in Cottage Grove, saying higher participation, a new prime vendor and equipment replacement needs are driving spending and capital requests.

The presentation, delivered by Wendy Peterson, director of nutrition services, and Bobbie Jo Grama, assistant director of nutrition services, described a food-rescue program that redistributes unconsumed but safe food to the Basic Needs food pantry and steady increases in meal participation tied to the continuation of free school meals this year.

"This last month, we actually hit 5,700 pounds in one month of donated food items," Wendy Peterson, director of nutrition services, said of the food-rescue program that began in October as a pilot at five schools and has since expanded. District staff said year-to-date donations are approaching roughly 20,000 pounds.

Nut Graf: District officials said nutrition services now operate like a "business within a business," relying mostly on federal and state meal reimbursements and a la carte sales. That financial model, rising participation and aging kitchen equipment are shaping next year’s budget assumptions, department leaders told the school board.

Bobbie Jo Grama walked the board through reimbursement and participation figures used to build the budget. "For breakfast this year, we're getting $2.37 for every reimbursable breakfast we serve," Grama said, and she reported lunch reimbursement at roughly $4.645 per reimbursable lunch. The department reported an average of about 4,137 breakfasts and about 13,680 lunches served per day this school year and projected a 1% participation increase for both meals in 2025–26.

Leaders said staffing has returned to safer levels after multi-year shortages, allowing Nutrition Services to resume theme days, expand scratch-style recipes and improve service at elementary and secondary sites. The district also selected a new prime vendor after a request for proposals: the company is identified in the presentation as IFD, which officials said offered lower costs, broader product selection and quicker customer support than previous suppliers. "They were the lowest cost, but also they were able to support us and give us the customer service we wanted," Wendy Peterson said.

Capital and operating pressures were highlighted. Grama said the department is replacing many outdated P3 ovens that are no longer supported by manufacturers; she quoted roughly $25,000 per new oven in preliminary estimates and said the district plans a replacement cycle to avoid service disruptions when unsupported ovens fail. District staff also reported water-quality problems at several buildings that accelerate oven failures; water treatment (reverse osmosis or water softeners) typically would add roughly $6,000 or more per site, not including installation.

Budget assumptions in the presentation treated meals as free for the 2025–26 school year, pending state action. Officials said the state of Minnesota has been covering the cost to subsidize paid meals to free status, and the district had not received any notice that that arrangement would change. "We haven't heard about any change to that," Peterson said when asked about the revenue outlook.

On fund balance and spending, the department projected a planned fund-balance decrease of about $400,000, bringing the nutrition fund balance to roughly $3.33 million and an estimated 21% fund balance, above the district goal of 16.6%. Grama said state guidance this year temporarily allowed a six-month balance threshold and that if the threshold returned to a three-month standard the district would submit a spend-down plan to the state explaining proposed, fiscally responsible uses of funds.

Board members asked about details such as the composition of reimbursements (federal primary, state supplemental), the specifics of required meal components under USDA rules, the lifespan and repairability of new ovens, and whether a return to eligibility-based meals would affect participation and revenues. Grama and Peterson answered that the federal government provides the bulk of reimbursement with state top-ups, breakfast and lunch participation requirements follow USDA rules (breakfast: three items including one fruit; lunch: three of five components including one fruit or vegetable), and the new ovens are repairable with an expected 8–10 year useful life.

The presentation also covered a la carte operations (snack shacks in seven secondary schools), the district’s decision to cover card fees so families are not charged processing costs, and compliance with smart snack nutrition standards for items sold outside reimbursable meals.

No formal board action or vote was taken; the item was presented as a workshop/information item and followed by board questions and a public offer from a meeting attendee who said they manage an R&D lab that performs analytical testing for water filtration and offered to review proposed water-treatment solutions.

The district indicated it will finalize vendor contracts and capital plans as budget and state reimbursement rates are confirmed. The board had no immediate motion on the item at the May 8 meeting.