Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Meal Pricing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cuyahoga Falls board debates sizable school meal price increases amid rising food-service costs

3813649 · June 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District staff proposed raising student breakfast and lunch prices across grade levels; board members asked for smaller options and revenue projections before a vote.

Cuyahoga Falls Board of Education members spent nearly two hours on June 11 considering proposed increases to student meal prices after food-service staff said costs and expenditures have risen sharply in recent years.

The district’s food-service presenter, Mr. Bailey, reviewed current and proposed prices, saying the elementary breakfast would move from $1.20 to $1.50, middle school breakfast from $1.75 to $2.35 and high school breakfast from $1.95 to $2.35. He proposed lunch increases to $2.75 (elementary), $3.75 (middle) and $3.75 (high). "The current price for elementary is $1.20. The proposed price, $1.50," Mr. Bailey said during the presentation.

Board members raised multiple concerns about scale and equity. Board member Miss White said she could not support the larger proposal if it would place the district “one of the higher-price districts,” noting some neighboring districts are wealthier and warning that steep increases could push families who pay full price to stop buying school meals. Another board member highlighted that the food-service fund has declined about $400,000 in carryover from the prior two years as expenditures — including insurance, wages and food costs — have risen.

Staff described limits on control: reduced-price tiers are set by state rules and would not change; federal reimbursements partially offset paid meals but do not cover the increased expenditures. Food-service staff said whether the account remains solvent depends on the number of meals served and the share of free-and-reduced students; staff could not provide a single “magic number” for a required price point without running revenue projections.

Rather than vote, the board asked staff to return with scenario modeling. Superintendent Dr. Celico and staff said they would prepare at least two projection scenarios: one using the higher proposed increases and one using a smaller, incremental option recommended by some board members (examples discussed included a $0.10–$0.30 increase for elementary breakfast and smaller adjustments at other levels). The board emphasized it wants numbers that show the projected effect on the food-service fund (projected revenues/expenditures and cash carryover) before authorizing any change.

Members also discussed operational changes that could reduce costs, including consolidating kitchen operations under the 6–12 campus move and anticipated reductions in waste. Several board members said they want to avoid shifting an unsustainable burden to families if alternate district support (general fund transfers or other measures) can be responsibly used.

The board did not take formal action on prices at the June 11 meeting. Staff will return with modeled projections and a narrower set of proposed increases for further board consideration.