June 23rd Finance Committee agenda item: Raising the prices of school lunches.
The Supporting Documentation
The "board package" information contained only the following "Situation Report" submitted by Administration:
Food prices are projected to increase an estimated 15 -20% for the next school year. For example, the School Nutrition Association predicts that the price of milk will increase 17%, rice and pasta 13%, cheese 15%, and bread 12%. The financial goal of the School Nutrition Fund (Fund 50) is to be self-sufficient and to not rely on the General Fund to subsidize it. In order for the School Nutrition Fund to reach this goal, we need to increase our meal prices. ...with the proposed ten-cent increase Sun Prairie Area School District will still be below the average meal price. This is due to the high participation in the meal program and also the efficiency of the department.
The Director of School Nutrition recommends breakfast and lunch prices be increase by ten cents and milk be increased by five cents.
There was also a table showing area school district meal prices for the 2008-09 school year (see below) with both the Sun Prairie current and proposed prices.
For the school board meeting of July 14, the only additional information provided by Administration was a gross budget projection for the ENTIRE food service program.
Citizen Concern
Roger Fetterly, former school board member and active participant in school board actions, asked a simple question: "Where is the budget information to support the price increase?"
Fetterly was concerned-as should the Finance Committee have been- that perhaps the prices had not been raised enough, and that the Food Service fund (Fund 50) would potentially end up being in the red.
School Board Response
School Board member and treasurer Jim McCourt sent the message at right in an e-mail response to Fetterly. Is this really how the Board should be communicating with its residents. As we've said so many times, you can't be in an elected position and toss the message aside just because you don't like how it's presented. Mr. McCourt --and the school board-- needs to get a thicker skin. No one promised this job would be a bed of roses. And even if you thought that's what you were getting, you forgot that roses have thorns. Deal with it.
Three Questions
1. Shouldn't the Finance Committee have been presented with a more complete budget analysis, rather than a simple, "Trust us, we've looked at this and we think it will work" statement?
2. Why would a Finance Committee approve this request (and forward it to the full Board) in the absence of more detailed financial supporting data?
3. Maybe we can understand the Finance Committee not reviewing a more detailed analysis of the meal price increase, but shouldn't the school board--as the last line of fiscal defense---done so?
The Numbers-on Closer Inspection
Shouldn't SOMEONE be concerned that across the board the proposed price increases only represent 4-6% increases (except for milk at 17%)? If the projection is that food prices will rise 15-20%, how will these price increases cover the additional food costs?
If we have already spent $1,779,510 and only taken in revenues of $1,702,373, isn't this fund already running at a deficit of over $75,000?
If the overall budget is only projecting 65 additional students in the entire district, and we're only raising meal prices by 4-6%, how on earth are we projecting revenues from student meals to increase by 18.2%??? Are we going to force students to purchase meals? Advertise? Perhaps send subliminal messages to eat more over the loudspeaker system?
Food costs represent about 50% of the Fund 50 expenses....and they are projected to rise 15 - 20%.
Does anyone else think that it would be nice to see actual versus projected sales breakdown of individual meals and milk to really evaluate the proposed increases?
The bottom line
It's quite possible that Administration has such a good handle on the food service budget that they don't need to spend time doing a more detailed analysis. And perhaps there's an element of trust involved. But...the school board MUST operate under philosophy of "Trust..but verify".
Mr. McCourt: THAT is what Mr. Fetterly is trying to impress upon you. And until you and the school board stop simply ignoring his messages --no matter how they are presented--things will not change. You profess to always taking the higher road on issues. Well, the higher road would be to incorporate Mr. Fetterly's concerns...because he presents valid points.
The numbers certainly make it difficult to understand why we are not raising prices higher than proposed.
Posts
