Plainfield SD 202’s Site & Finance committee on Jan. 15 reviewed the district food-service program and directed administrators to keep the current vendor contract in place while holding the supplier to higher performance expectations and continuing work on an in‑house model.

The committee heard presentations on participation rates, commodity usage, staffing, procurement and potential financial and operational tradeoffs between the district’s current outsourcing arrangement and a self-operated (in‑house) program.

What was said and why it matters
- Participation and CEP: Administrators noted 14 Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) sites in the district, meaning breakfast and lunch are free to students at those schools. Even so, breakfast participation at CEP schools was reported below national comparators and district leaders identified significant opportunity to increase participation, especially at the high schools, where participation was reported at roughly 17% (Central) and 24% (South) so far in the school year.
- Financials and reserves: Staff presented audited food-service numbers showing net cash resources (reserves) and an operating profit in the vendor model; administrators said district must maintain a three-month operating reserve as part of program management.
- Vendor vs. in‑house tradeoffs: Presenters said an in‑house model could increase procurement of local commodities and the flexibility to change menus and food quality (for example, increasing fresh/local produce, or changing protein and cooking oils). Outsourcing, staff said, can limit the district’s ability to use certain grants or local-food opportunities because the vendor must account for those resources against its margin.

Auditor and staff perspectives: The committee received staff analysis showing that, using conservative cost assumptions, an in‑house program could provide higher-quality meals while still covering costs; staff noted complexities including union implications, co-op purchasing requirements, and initial startup responsibilities such as equipment upgrades, kitchen labor organization, and contract management.

Committee direction and recommendation: Staff recommended continuing the Aramark partnership for the current contract period while requiring clearer monthly performance metrics, expanded training for food-service staff and collaborative menu planning. Staff proposed tracking improvements on measures such as breakfast and lunch participation rates, commodity usage, training frequency and response times. Committee members asked staff to meet with comparable districts that operate in-house and to return in the fall with an implementation recommendation if a transition is advisable.

Quotations: Auditor/finance staff and district leaders emphasized the balance of cost, compliance and student nutrition in deciding the model. As one administrator summarized the tradeoffs: if the district pursued an in‑house model it would gain menu and procurement flexibility but would also bear direct responsibility for staffing, equipment and union matters.

Next steps: Staff will negotiate clearer performance and reporting metrics with Aramark, pursue site visits and comparative conversations with districts that operate in‑house, and return to the committee with an updated recommendation by October 2025. Committee members asked for a demonstration of how improved food quality and menu changes could affect participation and participation revenue.