School cafeteria operation lost $78,395 in past school year; soaring fuel costs also bite into school budget
By James P. Gannon
Food service operations at Rappahannock County Public Schools racked up a net loss of $78,395 in the past school year, according to final 2007-2008 budget figures approved Friday by the School Board.
This was the largest operating loss by the school cafeterias in recent years–possibly ever–and was up from the $69,799 loss recorded in the prior year. A nearly $20,000 increase in the cost of food purchased deepened the loss, while cash receipts from students declined.
The public schools’ food service has been a chronic money-loser in recent years and has been subsidized by the School Board by transferring funds from other parts of the budget to cover losses. At its Friday meeting, the board authorized transferring $107,693 from the classroom instruction category to the school food account.
The food service operations were sharply criticized in the School Efficiency Review report made public last February by MGT of America, Inc., the educational consulting firm that reviewed all operations of the Rappahannock Schools. MGT cited poor management, inadequate employee training, low student participation and overstaffing in recommending steps to cut the annual losses.
In reviewing six years of results, MGT found that food service operations showed small profits in school years ending in 2002 and 2003, but losses of $38,595 in 2004, $47,029 in 2005, and $22,771 in 2006. The losses deepened to $69,799 in 2006-2007, and $78,395 in the year just ended.
Superintendent Robert Chappell recently announced cutbacks in cafeteria staffing, changes in food procurement, and changes in foods offered in an effort to cut losses and increase student use of the food services. MGT found that student meal participation is low at Rappahannock Schools. It also reported that in a survey of teachers, only 28% agreed with the statement “the food services department provides nutritious and appealing meals and snacks,” while 46% of teachers disagreed.
In the past school year, the school food services took in total revenues of $375,036, but spent a total of $453,431. The revenues included an increase in Federal and State subsidies for meals served to lower-income students, but a decline in cash receipts for meals purchased. On the expense side, cafeteria employee salaries and benefits totaled $255,120 and purchase of food products cost $182,899, up $20,200 from the previous year.
A year ago, in an effort to cut food services losses, Chappell proposed modest increases in the prices charged for cafeteria meals, but the School Board resisted the move and the Superintendent withdrew the proposal. While food costs have escalated, the prices charged have remained level for several years.
In its year-end budget reconciliation meeting, the School Board authorized a long list of payments to vendors, some of which illustrated how soaring energy costs are biting into the schools budget.
Filling the schools’ tanks with 7,504 gallons of fuel oil last week cost $29,997, based on a price of $3.92 cents per gallon. A year ago, it cost only about half as much–$15,600–to fill the tanks, when prices were much lower.
The price of diesel fuel for buses purchased last week was $3.96 a gallon, compared to $2.24 a year ago, Chappell said; filling the diesel tanks cost $18,836. Another $12,709 was spent on buying gasoline at $3.56, up from $2.48 a year ago.
The largest year-end expenditure approved by the board was $56,295 for a 2009 Blue Bird 35-passenger bus. The superintendent said the smaller bus, to be used on a long-mileage route, will save $2,000 or more per year in fuel costs compared to a large bus.
Finance Director Bonnie Hahn provided the board with a report showing the year’s expenses by function, which showed significant overspending of the budget for vehicle operation, building services and school food, and underspending in the large “classroom instruction” account, which includes teacher pay, benefits and other instructional costs.
The $7.3 million classroom instruction category showed spending of more than $6.9 million, leaving $412,095 unspent. This “surplus” in the classroom instruction category was used to cover overspending in other accounts.
Spending on vehicle operation of $845,705 was $74,639 over the budget, due mostly to higher fuel costs. Building services costs of $825,560 ran $28,563 over budget, due to higher spending on fuel oil and custodial supplies. Spending on school food was nearly $200,000 and ran $107,693 over the budgeted amount.
To “balance the books,” as Chappell put it, and wipe out the negative balances in overspent categories, the School Board authorized transfers of funds among categories. These included a transfer of $74,332 from classroom instruction to vehicle operation; $107,694 from classroom instruction to the school food account; and $14,561 from classroom instruction to building services.
After all the fund transfers and reconciliation of accounts, the year-end summary showed total school expenditures of $12,051,981 out of total revenues of $12,054,762. That left a year-end balance of $2,781.67, which is to be returned to the Board of Supervisors.
-- James P. GannonComments
Comment from brad
Time: June 29, 2008, 4:52 pm
I am reading about the over budget issue of the school food program and wonder about how they are procuring food. I know there is the farm-to-table program, but how much further could the school system go with buying local food? Can’t we think about buying some of the food we need and freeze it for use this winter and into the next spring? I know in our home we are looking at this, why can’t the school do the same.
I read through the report mentioned in the article and agree that there are areas where the school has room to make improvements in their operations. I made the recommendation about adding more money to the fuel budget during the public meeting, and know that additional money was shifted. Yet, they are still coming up short.
I have also met with Dr. Chappel and talked with him about other ideas and areas to save money. However, I came away feeling like nothing would change. Yet Dr. Chappel did ask me for information on a topic I mentioned to him about saving energy in the schools. He said he would share it with the consultant they had hired for an energy study of the school. How is it they have money for another consultant and yet I am giving him suggestions about how to save energy.
It is frustrating to want to see good ideas implemented in the schools, but read about more losses and rising costs that are just going to raise the ire of the taxpayers when next year’s budget comes up. Now I don’t have all the answers, but I think the time has come to place all the cards on the table and hold nothing as sacred.
–Brad Schneider
Write a comment