|
Post by aycaramba on Nov 25, 2014 6:51:32 GMT -5
Oldest trick in the book. When you want to increase taxes, say that by not doing so the most sacred and/or vital services will be cut. Despicable tactic, but unfortunately often successful. Most people aren't willing to risk the community and social backlash that will be triggered by calling the extortionist's bluff. It takes a lot of intestinal fortitude and a very thick skin.
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Nov 25, 2014 11:33:36 GMT -5
Alex, would it be fair to all for the School Board to vote on the single issue of taking off the table the consideration of closing any school during a specific time period, say for instance, the next election? Since there is no demonstrated crisis requiring that option, remove it from consideration and focus on a spending/tax increase only. If a bloc wants new money from taxpayers, force them to sell the merits, not the fear. Is a vote to remove (or not) closing any schools during this upcoming budget-tax increase decision period possible as a School Board? Just discussing such a single-issue vote publicly would draw out obscure issues and proponents from cover.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Nov 25, 2014 21:36:25 GMT -5
Stranger, I'm starting to see that as well, especially in the comments by Concerned Citizens of Pickens County.
Nobody likes to increase the burden on our families, but we have looked at the numbers forwards and backwards. The cost to our families is much greater if we close schools.... Folks, we don't have to close schools. We have options... Nobody wants to close those schools. Please don't make the school district choose between closing schools or providing a 21st century education for its 16,000+ students! We beg of you, please consider the benefits of stabilizing the mill at a rate that is sustainable long term.
A form of coercion. I oppose unjustly scaring women and children (and men too) to get them to support a tax increase. It shows how much the tax and spend approach to education has fallen in the eyes of the public. Supporters have to resort to coercive comments like that to garner public support for a tax increase now-a-days.
I remember when I ran in 2004, I was critical of the overspending/ overtaxing in the name of education. I wasn't the lone voice, but there were only a few of us on the ballot, and only a few more chattering in public about it. Today, Facebook abounds with the skeptics of the problem with education, is a lack of money approach. When you look at how much government has grown the last four decades, I think more and more are seeing that a lack of money is not the problem. Talk radio, then the internet, now Fox News. The opposition to tax and spend continues to grow because people see the excess of it all and the harm.
In the end, money needs to be more efficiently managed, priorities set, excess reduced and waste eliminated and those savings redirected to the core services government is tasked to provide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course they don't look at anything like this when they want to make spending reductions. The choices are limited to a tax increase or closing schools or cutting classroom teachers or the most unappetizing things to cut. I think I was on the losing side of a 5 to 1 vote there. If it went to referendum, it would have been voted down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conservative wrote: "Is a vote to remove (or not) closing any schools during this upcoming budget-tax increase decision period possible as a School Board?" Bowers suggested it at the meeting. Bowers said he was against closing schools. I said the same. Edwards said she supported the consolidations. Wilson said he wanted to look at all things. The other two had an opportunity to weigh in and didn't. The board just heard about this hours before. I don't think such a resolution would have passed.
Gosh, where would you put the children, at other schools in portables? These schools had multi-million dollar renovations, what just close them? Some of our smallest schools are the best performing. Where's the logic?
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Nov 25, 2014 23:08:39 GMT -5
Obviously no logic, hence my reasoning for a binding no-consideration vote for closing any school during upcoming budget debates. I'm a bench-sitter just thinking out loud. Of course no school is going to be closed. I've negotiated big and small solutions important to those involved but you're the expert opinion on school board matters. I have no experience in negotiations with people on both sides of a problem or issue where no one at the table suffers measurably large losses when the wrong decision is reached. The Administration/teachers vs. the School board risk little beyond hurt feelings either way. Or so it seems.
|
|
|
Post by aycaramba on Nov 26, 2014 12:09:42 GMT -5
I looked at the "Concerned Citizens of Pickens County" facebook page. Another manifesto by Ms Miller, unsurprisingly, but some of the posts by other people are plain jaw-dropping, eg: "I have watched the horrible decline, and have been very discouraged (and ashamed) with the state of our PC schools. I hope and pray that my neighbors want to do the responsible thing for our county's children and for Pickens County's economic future. Investing in our schools is not a luxury, it's survival! Keep posting. I like to think that a time will come that I will be proud to live in Pickens County once again."
Are you kidding me? We have spent almost $400 million in the past six years on new school buildings and renovations, and the school district has an annual budget in the $150-$165 million range. So over the past 6 years, over a billion dollars has been spent on education in Pickens County schools. (Full disclosure - this has been funded by state and federal money as well as grants, contributions, and fees for services, as well as local property taxes). All I can say is that if the person who wrote that is seriously ashamed of the state of our Pickens County schools at this point, she either needs to have her head examined or get her priorities straight.
The other thing that is mind-boggling is to hear all of these people parroting Ms Miller's "$20 is not too much to ask to..." blah, blah, blah. If I knew it were only going to be $20, I would write a check today. These people don't realize that the $20 is a myth - it is a lot more than that when you do the math. They talk about a 4.2 mill increase raising $5.8 million dollars. According to all the sources I can find, there are about 31,000 owner-occupied homes in Pickens County. Getting $20 from each of them will raise about $620,000. Where do people think the other $5.2 million is coming from - the tax revenue fairy?
Another way of looking at it - the total population of Pickens County is about 120,000. If every man, woman and child were taxed $20, it would come to about $2.4 million. So how can a tax increase that they say would raise $5.8 million come out costing each HOMEOWNER only $20? Wake up, people.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 1, 2014 22:48:34 GMT -5
The district administration sees $5.8 million in roofing, HVAC, technology and other capital needs in 2015-16.
To fund it, the administration proposed refinancing the $308 million in outstanding bonds at a lower interest rate, and that will generate $3.2 million in annual savings. Then the district proposed borrowing $5.8 million, which would generate a 4.8 mill tax increase.
The administration's proposal was presented and a motion was made to pass it tonight in the 2nd reading on this issue.
Henry Wilson made an amendment to borrow only $3.2 million offsetting the savings so there would be no tax increase.
I then made a substitute motion that proposed the refinancing $308 million in bonds, and generating the $3.2 million in annual savings. Then borrowing $3.2 million. Then I proposed taking $500,000 of the TIF settlement (see the home page of PickensPolitics.com), and taking the $330,000 from the sale of the Pendleton Street property, and putting that all toward those capital needs – about $4.0 million in total. This was also a no tax increase proposal, but it was less conservative than Wilson’s because my plan spent some savings. Mine was the moderate proposal of the evening.
I also made a motion for the facilities committee (Swords, Bowers, Wilson), to work with the administration and look at the building needs first hand. Personally, I have not seen the needs first hand and can’t tell if they are wants or needs, the degree of the need and if they are immediate needs. We've just seen the needs on paper, my thought was that committee could see the needs firsthand.
My motion failed 5 to 1.
Wilson’s motion passed 6 to 0. The issue faces a 3rd reading on December 15th. If this plan makes it through the final reading, it will give the district administration more than half of the money it is asking for right off the bat, and cover the building needs into 2016. Hopefully, the board will through the facilities committee will get a closer look at the needs. It was a good compromise so I voted for it.
I’m not a fan of stabilizing the millage even if it is for one year like this (I’m sure Jim Shelton will remind me of this vote the next time I see him), but when the other choice is to raise tax rates, it is the preferred choice so I voted for it.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 2, 2014 10:44:11 GMT -5
I thought it was a good meeting. Three proposals were made, one from the administration, one from myself and one from Henry Wilson.
One of my overall concerns was this. The board is supposed to approve budget. A budget has a list of itemized expenditures – project-cost, project-cost, project-cost, then a total at the bottom. On the other side it is the revenue. The two sides balance and the board is supposed to approve both the revenue and the expenditures. That’s the approval of a budget and the board’s responsibility.
The plan the administration presented and the motion recommended to the board was only half a budget – the sale of $5.8 million in bonds or the revenue side. The board wasn’t given a specific list of expenditures for approval which that money was to be spent on. The administration showed us all sorts of list over the last few months with many projects on them from roofs, to HVAC’s to painting to computers to buses, but would have been bound to none of it because the board wasn’t voting to approve any of the specific expenditures or the other half of the budget.
So once the $5.8 million in bonds were issued and the money was put in the district’s bank account, the administration could have then chose to spend the entire $5.8 million on computers, let’s say. Then they would have came back to the board the next year and said, we had to spend all the money on computers for this or that reason, and we need more money for the leaky roofs we told you about, but didn’t get to.
This is one of the reasons I opposed giving the administration the entire $5.8 million it requested, but preferred $4.0 million or $3.2 million.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 22:12:47 GMT -5
Was that the final vote?
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 2, 2014 22:29:05 GMT -5
No. The final vote in Monday, December 15.
This $3.2 million of extra funding takes the district into 2016 on the list of needs. It is December 2014, so the district is ahead on this as of now. On December 15th, I’m hoping the board finalizes the $3.2 million, and also orders the facilities committee to work with the administration to look closer at the list of needs. As of this point, the board has only seen the needs on paper. I urge that committee to see some of the needs with their own eyes and question it when they do. I know when I call the HVAC guy, if something is wrong, the first thing out of their mouth is you need a new unit. Often, it is just a compressor or coil. If the unit is running, but old, I tell them just recondition it and replace what is old or that are most likely to fail. My hope is the facilities committee will take the rest of the winter and into the spring to scrub the list down to what is truly needed and what is an immediate need for 2015-16. Once the committee does that, we should relook at this issue again with the possibility of additional funding if it is available.
That funding may come from the general fund. By spring of next year we’ll also have a better sense how the general fund revenue situation is shaping up for 2015-16. With the economy growing at 4% and oil dropping, state revenue growth will accelerate. In the spring if we can take a bite out of the teacher pay issue and supplies with extra state money and other savings, it will make sense to come back to the building needs issue again after that. Because there might be some extra general fund money available.
On the general fund side, the budget is being squeezed over the long-term and that has to be addressed. Instead of jumping right to a tax increase, reductions in waste and excess need to be made like reducing the mileage allowance from 57 cents to 30, reducing or eliminating bonuses for retirees, and giving teacher allocations to high schools for students that are never in the school because of late arrival/ early dismissals and those students being in the career center. Plus so many other things need to be looked at. Priorities need to be set as well. If the district wants to give teachers an extra pay raise, it is unlikely supplies can be boosted in the same year. It is not a crisis, but a long-term squeeze. With revenue growing the district has some wiggle room to manage its way out of it, but it has to get more serious about managing the budget. The general fund budget is like 3,000 lines, and maybe only 20 to 30 lines are changed each year.
|
|
|
Post by goforit on Dec 4, 2014 9:00:38 GMT -5
How much has been approved for these repair items, and is there much more to do?
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 5, 2014 10:22:23 GMT -5
There are a lot of comments on Facebook on this issue, and here are a couple of mine.
Closing a school(s) would be a drastic decision brought on by a financial crisis. Can you think of a more drastic decision than closing a school? I can't. I'd cut or reduce 100 other things first that would not hurt one student. I've studied finance my entire adult life and I ask what crisis? The district's budget is in surplus of $500,000 and revenue is growing. I would not vote to close a school and I see no justification to do that now given the district's budget is balanced and revenue is growing. I think it is irresponsible for some to be saying this or that school is going to be closed or might have to be closed... Like all districts and many families we have some challenges with building roofs and HVAC needs, but spent $4.2 million on that in 2013-14, $8.9 million in 2014-15, and just allocated another $3.2 million for 2015-16.
Two of those projects are to put $1.7 million worth of new HVAC's at Holly Springs and Ambler. Does that indicate those schools are about to be closed? No, just the opposite as far as I can tell... In 2005 the county voted down a $197 million building referendum because the people opposed the all at one time approach to fixing the buildings. In 2006, ignoring the people and circumventing the constitution, the board passed a $350 milllion plan anyways. (I voted "No".) Too much too fast -- 7 new schools were built and the 20 other schools were renovated in about 6 years. The district/ board is slowly digesting that 800 pound gorilla. Naturally, paying off the bonds ($18 million more a year that is covered), heating/ cooling, cleaning and repairing all the buildings on a day to day basis (another $3 million a year that is now covered) and now replacing HVAC's, roofs and other things (another $5 million which we have covered into 2016), has put strain on the budget so there is less for everything else. Teacher salaries are about $350 to $2,500 a year below the districts of Anderson, Oconee and Greenville. My hope is with growing revenue and good budget management, we'll get an extra pay raise for teachers this upcoming year.
This notion that school taxes haven't been raised in 10 years is comical. The tax rate has been raised from 128 mills in 2007 to 165 mills today. Total school spending is up from $122 million in 2006 to $170 million last year. Most of that increase is in buildings, but ignoring the voters, the board/ district administration chose to do it that way with its all at once/ massive building program. Attached is the tax rate of the school district for each year. You can see the school property tax rate has gone up a good amount.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 5, 2014 10:23:37 GMT -5
I have opposed increasing taxes for all these buildings since 2006. Why? As I mentioned above, the people voted down a $197 million school building plan. The board and the administration work for the people and are paid to listen to them. That referendum vote clearly said, do not spend all that money and do not build all these buildings at one time. The board and adminstration ignored the people and spend twice what the people voted down. (I voted against that $350 million in borrowing and the 39 mill tax increase, because it went around the voters or those we work for.) Because of THEIR actions, the board and administration now face high costs in the carrying the debt, running, cleaning, repairing the buildings. As a result, money is tight and there is less money for everything else. Instead of taking responsibility for THEIR actions and managing the situation it created, the administration and some on the board are looking to the taxpayer to pay for their poor decisions in the past -- mainly building too many buildings at one time. Typical government. Government makes the mistakes and then expects everyone else to fix the problem. That is not how elected officials should treat the people they work for. Additionally, with wise budget management the needs can be met without a tax increase, so I oppose it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The district spent $30 million plus on technology. Gosh, that is a ton of money. Teacher pay is a bit lower, and I think the board is focusing in on addressing that next. When you spend $387 million on new and renovated buildings, equal to building 38 new Easley libraries, something elsewhere in the budget is going to give. Next year teachers will get their regular pay raise, and my hope is with growing revenue, and wise budget managment they'll also get something in addition to help narrow the gap. One thing at a time. We are still trying to swallow and digest this 800 pound gorilla called the million building program... The notion teaches are leaving in droves because they can make $1,500 more a year in Greenville is not true. Actually, the opposite is true. The teacher turnover rate in Pickens County is lower than Greenville, and most of the Anderson districts and just behind Oconee. Here are the turnover rates by district. cerra.org/.../2014/5/DistrictTurnover_5year.pdf
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 5, 2014 10:26:02 GMT -5
I'm at a loss when you say we need to better resource our schools. Here are the price tags for the 7 new school buildings that were just built: PHS: $58.2 million, EHS $57.3 million, DHS $50.1, LHS $42.6, Career Center: $30.1, Dacusville Elementary: $17.2 and Chastain Road: $16.1 million, and that doesn't include the other $100 million plus spent on the 20 schools that were renovated. All funded by a massive loan being paid off at a clip of $26 million a year by county taxpayers through 2032.
When I walk into the state of the art Pickens High and think my kids will be educated here, and others paid for this $58 million facility (most which don't even have children in school), I'm grateful for what they've done for my children already. Gosh, the football stadium alone was $3 million. My thought isn't, you all haven't done enough, give us even more.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 8, 2014 11:19:24 GMT -5
Gforit, I missed your question. I think $6.4 million has been allocated, and not yet spent. In the 2nd reading, the board allocated another $3.2 million (no tax increase), so about $10 million in total. That is all that they wanted for 2014-15, and more than half for 2015-16. We are ahead on this now.
Myself, I would turn to other priorities.
The board has the responsibility to approve budgets. A budget has a list of itemized expenditures – project-cost, project-cost, project-cost, then a total at the bottom. On the other side it has revenue. They balance and we are to approve both the revenue and the expenditures. That’s the approval of a budget... If you look at what is being presented to the board, was the sale of bonds or the revenue side only. We've been given a long list of needs, but none of that has been nailed down or voted on. Hence, the administration could take that money and spend it all on computers, and come back next year and say, you know that leaky roof we told you about, we didn't get to it. We need more money for that now.
Also, the board needs to look closer at the list, to see what is a need, and what is a want, and if the needs are immediate needs. Also, we need to see the needs firsthand. All we have seen are the needs on paper. I think the board should ask the facilities committee to do that, and while they are doing that, the board should turn its attention to other priorities.
Oversight is one of the board's primary functions, and one of the things school board trustees pledge to their constituents.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jan 26, 2015 22:37:36 GMT -5
Here are my comments from the meeting tonight.
Building Refinancing: I support refinancing the bonds which have a 4.85% interest rates with bonds at lower interest rates. However, I disagree with the timing of this refinancing decision. The bonds are not callable until December 2016, and it is quite costly get around that. I also disagree with the way the refunding is being implemented, in particular the mechanism used to do this.
This is how refinancing works. The school district has $300 million in bonds outstanding at 4.85%. It would borrow $300 million at current interest rates of 2.9%, and immediately use that new $300 million to pay off and the old $300 million. So tomorrow the district would only have $300 million in bonds, but at 2.9% or the lower rate. The district has $300 million in bonds outstanding at 4.85% it is paying on. However, those bonds are not callable and can’t be retired until December 2016. To get around that, the district is borrowing $300 million today at 2.9%, and setting aside that new $300 million in an escrow account. It will carry that second $300 million loan until December 2016. So it will continue to pay on the 4.85% $300 million old loan, plus pay on the new $300 million loan at 2.9% (less the half of percent it earns on the new money in escrow) until December 2016. In December 2016, when the bonds are callable, the escrow account will be used to pay off the old loan and the refinancing will be complete.
The next 18 months (now to December 2016), it is quite expensive to carry that second $300 million loan. That extra cost is $10.9 million in total, $625,000 a month, or more than $20,000 a day.
Also, the dummy corporation is borrowing another $300 million. The total debt of the dummy corporation will be $600 million for the next 18 months, against a $300 million asset in the escrow account. I didn’t support the creation of the dummy corporation and that entire scheme, and I won’t approve using it this time around either. I understand why the district is doing this: 1) it wants to lock in the current interest rate (rates could go up) and 2) the district wants to pull the savings of the refinancing in 2016 to this year, because it so needs the cash. This is one of the consequences of building all these buildings and doing it at one time, without a lot of thought of how much is going to squeeze the district’s budget and suck up its cash. It is like going to one of those pay-day lenders that gives you a loan on your next pay check, because you just can’t wait until pay day because you need the money so badly because you overspent up to that point.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jan 26, 2015 22:38:26 GMT -5
More comments from the meeting.
Easley TIF Settlement: I voted against the Easley TIF settlement, because I have a different and quite unique point of view on this TIF issue. I was there at the start, when I sent the first email that lead to uncovering this all. To me the Easley settlement isn’t right or fair. Clemson was held to the law going forward. Easley is not. The school district is not receiving the surplus going forward, but less than it is entitled to under the law. This agreement sets the county aside, and if it wasn’t for the county this illegal TIF spending would have never been stopped.
Supplies: Boosting classroom supplies along with narrowing the teacher pay gap is a priority. The administration and board leadership needs to get back to the established practice of having a fall and spring budget amendment, and take care of it that way. A budget amendment lists the extra revenue that has come in at the start of the year. Without seeing those figures in an amendment budget statement, we really don’t know how much extra revenue has come in. Also, without putting together a budget amendment, we don’t know which extra expensives have cropped up either. We are kind of flying in the dark on evaluating this request for more classroom supplies mid-year.
Approving supplies with a one-off motion like this will encourage school managers to go around the superintendent and go directly to board members for budget requests during the year. Next month likely a manager will step forward and tell their board rep, I need that. You’ll be getting motions like this every month from board members not knowing if any new revenue is there or if the need is a top priority. The result would be an annual budget that changes monthly, and the annual budget will lose its value as a fiscal discipline tool.
The managers should go to the administration with their requests. The administration then should evaluate those requests and present the board a list of revenues and proposed expenses once in the fall and once in the spring in a budget amendment. There has also been contingency money spent by the administration without a public presentation, public debate or board approval. That is a bad practice too. That needs to go through the budget amendment process.
All new expense requests beit coming from principals, board members and the superintendent should be funneled to the fall and spring budget amendments where all can be presented at once, to the public and the board, be debated and voted on.
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Jan 27, 2015 9:56:17 GMT -5
I'm shocked that anyone can request changes in funding approval for school related expenses other than the Superintendent. Lobbying in acceptable ways yes, but direct request for new funding is outlandish. I'm surprised a competent Superintendent and an elected Board would allow it. Are there not laws or directives in place to control this? The fiscal discipline you espouse is the last thing the worker bees want but it is the primary reason for a management hierarchy.
To add to your Pay-Day lender comparison, the re-finance plan seems like something desperate couples used to cook up using multiple credit card schemes to fund vacations or other things they couldn't live without for a year or two. Cash flow was always more important than total debt until hard time hit. Reducing total interest cost is a great goal but coupling it with immediate spending encourages waste and bad decisions. Government can't waste "new" money fast enough. If future savings can result, start planning future spending, not an immediate "feeding frenzy". There's plenty of important currant work to be done with presently available, budgeted funds. So much so, I'm surprised sub-Superintendent level employees have unscheduled time and energy left to worry too far into the future. My opinion.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jan 27, 2015 11:54:35 GMT -5
There is a dispute whether or not the board allowed that before. I don't remember when the board passed a budget in the last few years that it was state any extra money not budgeted to be spent (a contingency) was for the administration to spend how it wanted. I remember the board voting on budget amendments where the administration spending that contingency was approved by the board. Going back to 2005, there has been a series of decisions that overspent on buildings. The first county wide building program presented was $158 million. It was increased in size 10 times to $387 million. As a result, the district is desperate for cash to fund the financing of the loan(s), fund the day to day operations of all this new square footage, and finding the money for all the new roof, HVAC and paving replacements. When a district like the couple you mentioned get themselves in a situation like that, their choices are going to be fair, bad and worse. What few realize is the long-term funding for traditional public education is getting bleaker for a variety of reasons. Naturally, the leaders of public education throughout the state/ nation are pushing for more funding, yelling even louder (we need a statewide property tax, we'll have to close your school or put more children in your child's classroom and the 24-7-365 CCPC campaigns for more taxes), but in the end it won't be effective. All they are doing is further alienating the public, whose support is vital in the long-run. Instead of blaming the public for not doing enough or threatening it, public school leaders need to reform, streamline costs and functions and get their systems in line with the permanently lower revenue streams they now face. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before last night the district had 9 projects for $6.4 million that are already funded, but either not yet started or they are started but not completed. It looks like this refinancing will make another $3.2 million available for more projects. Doing the math, so close to $10 million in projects will be funded taking the district all the way through 2015-16 and deep into 2016-17. So the district will be way ahead on its capital needs. My hope is the board will now turn its attention to the general fund budget. I think the priority there will be boosting classroom supplies and narrowing the teacher pay gap relative to surrounding districts. We started talking about that last night, and moved the teacher pay issue to committee. Our district built 7 schools, renovated another 20, and it is spending $26 million more a year on buildings than before. Because the district chose to spend so much on buildings in such a short period of time, the rest of the budget has been squeezed. We are moving forward one step at a time, and making steady progress. -------------------------------------------------- Closing schools is not an option for me. www.foxcarolina.com/clip/11072086/pickens-co-schools-considers-tax-hike-for-repairs
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Feb 9, 2015 23:10:27 GMT -5
Here are a couple of comments/ thoughts from tonight's work session.
Classroom Supplies: The administration did a good job of laying out the top priorities of pay, computers, facilities needs and supplies. We are focused on those priorities and continue to chip away them as money becomes available. Tonight the board boosted classroom supply money by $355,000. It is an impressive allocation and will greatly help teachers and students. A good chunk of it was funded by the Clemson TIF revenue, so that money is going directly for classroom needs.
Wellness Policy: I supported the policy giving our school district a list of exemptions from the new federal lunch standards. However, this is a sad example of a federal bureaucracy gone mad.
School nutrition standards are set by the USDA. Their nutrition standards are so high it is killing the taste of the meals, and less and less students as well as employees want to eat them. Meals sales to students/ employees have fallen from $2.7 million in 2010 to $2.4 million last year, even though the price of a meal is higher today.
During that time federal reimbursements to the district increased from $4.4 million to $5.4 million. Oodooles of federal money is the driver of this train gone off the track. It seems the dynamic is, take all this federal money and the Michelle Obama nutrition standards, and don’t worry if less students/ employees buy/ eat the meals, because your district is getting all this extra money from the federal government to make up for it.
|
|
upset
New Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by upset on Feb 25, 2015 17:20:36 GMT -5
|
|