Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the School Nutrition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Director outlines nutrition program finances, menu changes and a proposed 10¢ meal price increase

Fort Atkinson Board of Education · May 14, 2026
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

Director of Nutrition Services Keith Van Gelder told the Fort Atkinson Board of Education the department is stabilizing Fund 50, serving roughly 200,000 lunches annually, and recommends a modest 10¢ increase to meal prices for 2026–27 to help cover rising food and labor costs while preserving participation.

Keith Van Gelder, the district’s director of nutrition services, presented the annual nutrition report at the May 13 Fort Atkinson Board of Education meeting, detailing participation, finances, staffing and equipment needs.

Van Gelder said the district’s lunch participation remains higher than the national average and reported that the nutrition operation provides about 200,000 lunches annually. He summarized recent capital spending — including the installation of a high‑school dishwasher that he described as roughly a $100,000 investment — and said COVID‑era federal reimbursements that boosted revenue in prior years are declining.

To help stabilize the program’s fund balance, Van Gelder recommended a modest price increase for 2026–27. “I am going to recommend that we increase our rates just a touch next year,” he said, later clarifying the suggested increase as 10¢ per meal; board members noted that 10¢ is roughly a 3% change for current meal prices.

Van Gelder highlighted other revenue and cost‑saving steps: the district absorbed a previously outsourced district‑chef position internally, producing an estimated savings of $40,000–$65,000 annually; catering revenue is up by about $23,000 compared with last year; and the department reported $12,000 in sales at a recent district food showcase.

He also described operational improvements intended to support participation and efficiency: a four‑week menu cycle to reduce inventory complexity, targeted ‘seconds’ for younger students that improved service flow, renewed attention to scratch‑cooking where feasible, and partnerships with local suppliers (Van Gelder cited Jelly’s Market and the Fork Farm as examples).

On procurement, Van Gelder said the district’s membership in a Wisconsin school nutrition purchasing cooperative provides leverage that likely will lower milk costs next year, meaning the district may not need to raise milk prices even if meal prices increase slightly.

Board members pressed for details. Van Gelder estimated the high school accounts for about one‑fifth of daily meal service (roughly 260–300 lunches per day plus about 50 breakfasts) and said districtwide daily meal service can reach about 1,700 meals on some days. He confirmed breakfast participation is substantially lower than lunch — in some schools roughly 11% — and urged focused efforts (hot‑protein choices, brightened dining spaces, short promotional efforts such as a monthly “Donut Friday”) to raise uptake.

When asked whether current budgets can support needed capital replacements, Van Gelder said available funds are likely insufficient for larger equipment replacements and that the department is emphasizing preventative maintenance, modest revenue growth, and targeted operational savings while planning for future capital needs.

The board thanked Van Gelder for the report; no formal action on price changes was taken at the meeting.