Food‑service staff recommend adding middle schools to CEP; board hears tradeoffs and recommended option

Food‑service officials presented three options Tuesday for the district’s participation in the federal Community Eligible Provision (CEP), and recommended the board expand the program to include middle schools for the 2025‑26 school year.

Jared (food service presenter) and Director Jared and Bobby (presentation team) explained how CEP works: a school or grouping qualifies based on its identified student percentage (ISP), which uses directly certified students (SNAP, TANF, Medicaid) and then multiplies that ISP by 1.6 for federal reimbursement calculations. The presenters said the district’s current ISP is about 58.88% and the district’s CEP sites (all elementary schools and the Franklin Learning Center) currently receive a reimbursement rate of about 94.21%.

Why it matters: CEP offers universal free breakfast and lunch at qualifying schools and can increase nutrition access and reduce stigma, but expanding CEP changes the district food‑service fund position and can affect the district’s reimbursements and cash receipts.

Options presented and recommended action - Option 1 (status quo): Keep current CEP group (elementary schools and FLC). Food‑service outlays stay similar and the district would remain in year 2 of its current four‑year CEP cycle. - Option 2 (recommended): Add middle schools to the CEP group. Staff estimated this would reduce the food‑service fund balance by about $174,000 and the total cost to the district (including potential student debt obligation) by about $209,000 for next year, but would extend universal free meals to more children. Staff recommended this option as the “lesser financial impact” versus the full district option. - Option 3 (district‑wide CEP): Put all schools in CEP. Staff projected a larger food‑service net loss (about $605,000) and an overall district cost of about $541,000 in the first year, though the option would eliminate student meal debt under current district policies.

Board discussion and concerns Board members asked whether students are ever denied meals (the answer was no) and pressed staff on why Option 2 was recommended instead of staying with Option 1. Presenters said Option 2 expands access while limiting short‑term district cost exposure. Staff also noted the food‑service fund had a healthy reserve (about $404,000 on hand) but that federal or state legislative changes could raise the qualifying ISP (one proposal discussed would set an ISP threshold at 60%) or remove grouping rules, either of which would reduce the number of qualifying schools.

Other operational details - Equipment and staffing: staff estimated equipment replacement needs at roughly $200,000 per year and stressed that past staffing shortages have eased after the board approved food‑service staffing increases. - Outreach and direct certification: presenters explained that directly certified students are identified by state systems and the district notifies families in July; households still must file free‑and‑reduced applications for non‑directly‑certified eligibility and the district said it has outreach plans to help families complete applications.

Next steps: staff will return to the board at the June meeting with a formal recommendation (staff suggested Option 2) for a vote. Board members said they were inclined to support Option 2 and requested additional detail on direct‑certification counts and outreach efforts.

Ending: Several board members framed the decision as a child‑well‑being issue and expressed support for expanding free meals to middle‑school students while balancing budget prudence.