Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
District food‑service supervisor warns of ongoing meal-program deficit and outlines participation and staffing plans
Loading...
Summary
Becky Terry, the district food‑service supervisor, told the De Forest Area School District board the program is operating at about a $150,000 year‑to‑date deficit (through February) while elementary participation remains strong and high‑school meal uptake is low; she described menu, staffing and purchasing strategies intended to reduce costs and raise participation.
Becky Terry, the district food‑service supervisor, told the De Forest Area School District Board of Education that the district’s meal program is running a year‑to‑date deficit of roughly $150,000 through February but that several short‑term and medium‑term steps are underway to stabilize finances. "Our reimbursement rate from the federal government is $4.69 a meal," Terry said, noting that per‑meal costs are about $5.00 and that increased a la carte sales have helped offset some expenses.
Terry gave a building‑by‑building summary of participation and program innovations. Harvest Elementary saw about 58% lunch participation (roughly 538 lunches per day), while elementary schools overall are strong. Middle and high schools lag: the high school’s meal participation is about 31%, and pooled lunch participation districtwide was cited at about 46%. "We tried theme days, student surveys and a 'try‑it' day each month to encourage students to sample new fruits and vegetables," Terry said.
The supervisor identified staffing shortages as a major operational stress: the food‑service team has 24 staff and averaged about 50 absences per month, forcing heavy reliance on substitutes. She said the department trimmed about $40,000 compared with last year despite higher food and labor costs and that community donations (about $17,260 reported this year) are used to clear balances for families who qualify for free or reduced meals.
Board members pressed for budget clarity and asked whether the district is ‘‘solvent’’ on food service. Terry replied the current deficit is seasonal and hoped April and May participation would improve results; she also committed to returning with more detailed year‑to‑date and March figures. One board member noted the district had reduced the food‑service deficit by $40,000 year over year and encouraged continued cost‑control measures.
Terry described operational tactics under consideration: more hot‑sandwich offerings, rotating theme days, use of student interns and a school store partnership, leveraging a cooperative purchasing agreement with Gordon Foodservice (including summer ordering for a per‑case rebate), and deeper menu‑level cost analysis for each item. She also outlined compliance constraints: a la carte items must meet Smart Snacks nutrition and portion standards, which limits the set of higher‑margin items the program can sell.
The board thanked Terry for the presentation and asked staff to return with disaggregated figures, a precise calculation of per‑meal cost and options (including whether price increases or other policy changes should be considered) before any changes are implemented.
The board did not take formal action on pricing at the meeting; staff will include food‑service figures in the upcoming budget planning cycle.
