Accuracy in Stating Facts in Campaign Debates/Discussions is a Must!

 

At the August 2025 Jordan Commercial Club meeting, Rep. Ben Bakeberg said that “if the free lunch for all program in the schools approved in 2023 was amended with an income limitation of $160,000 per household added, the State of MN could save $460 million (although I don’t recall whether he said whether it would be per year or per biennium) and that could be redirected to the classroom”.

That did not sound accurate, so I did some queries with chatgpt.com which is pasted below. The summary is as follows:

1.      The estimate of the incremental cost to the state at the time the law was passed was $400 million per biennium. We need to look at incremental cost as the federal government reimburses the school system for free or reduced lunches and breakfast for those who qualify based on low incomes. So, the incremental cost is the total cost of the meals minus the federal reimbursement. According to the most recently published USDA Income Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026), the annual thresholds (48 contiguous states) are, for example:

·         Free meals (130% of federal poverty guideline) — $34,645 / year for a household of 3.

·         Reduced-price meals (185% of federal poverty guideline) — $49,303 / year for a household of 3.

2.      The actual incremental cost reported for the 2023-24 school year was $267.81 million, higher for a two-year biennium than originally estimated if the 2025-26 year would be similar.

3.      Chatgpt.com estimated the cost savings to the State of MN if the household income limitation were set at $160,000 to be $14M to $14.5M per year, depending on what assumptions are used. This is far off the $160 million that Ben asserted.

Bottom line: I don’t know if Ben made an honest mistake or intentionally shared misinformation to sound good. But, when we debate issues, it is important that the candidates use actual facts, i.e., to tell the truth. With Ben being a middle school principal, if he has learned anything while being an incumbent, one would think he would know school funding.

From my experience of over 10 years of being a school business manager who supervised the school lunch programs in the districts I worked:

  • Besides the savings of cost to the State of MN, it is claimed here would be some savings at the local school district level due to less bureaucracy in administering the free or reduced lunch program if all students got the meals. However, to get the federal reimbursement, the district must still gather the applications from the parents so they can report that for reimbursement. So, little saved, and in fact, parents may say, “Why bother filling out the applications when my kids will get free lunch and breakfast anyway?” So, the costs to the state may actually be higher than originally estimated due to lower actual reimbursement totals received, an unintended consequence.

  • One benefit claimed for the “all students” approach is that those who qualify would not be stigmatized for being poor. I think this is overstated, as with using the cashless Point of Sale systems with ID cards, there is no reason for anyone to know who qualifies and who does not, from just observing in the lunchroom. Note, I installed a POS system in the Adrian School District lunchrooms in 2000, so these are very commonplace today.

  • The accuracy of the reporting of who qualifies and who does not is checked by random samples pulled out of the school district’s records. Those families selected must submit records of their income to prove eligibility. While a bit of a hassle, this was not that big of a deal when I did the income verifications.

Prepared and paid for my Olson Senate Committee, P.O. Box 15, Prior Lake, MN 55372

The interaction with Chatgpt.com:

“You said:

MN passed a law in 2013 mandating free lunch and breakfast for all students, not just those who qualify under the federal free lunch program. What is the projected cost per year? What would it cost if household income limits were reimposed at various levels? What is the household income level under federal law for a family of 3 (mother and two school age kids)

ChatGPT said:

Nice — good question. I’ll give you (A) what Minnesota’s universal program actually cost in practice (the best real-number available), (B) a small set of transparent scenario estimates for “if we re-impose income limits” (I’ll show the assumptions and the math so you can change numbers if you want), and (C) the federal income thresholds you asked for (family of 3). Sources are cited so you can dig deeper.

What Minnesota actually spent / what was projected

  • Minnesota Department of Education (first-year, SY2023–24) — real, preliminary result: MDE’s “Minnesota Free School Meals: First Year Preliminary Summary” reports the program put back $267.81 million into families’ pockets in the first year (this is the value of breakfasts and lunches that would not have been covered before the state law). That total is explicitly broken out as $47.77M for breakfasts + $220.04M for lunches (SY2023–24). Minnesota Department of Education
    MDE also reports ~151 million free meals served in year 1 and large participation increases (breakfast +40%, lunch +15%). Minnesota Department of Education+1
  • Legislative / media projection when the bill passed: the bill was estimated to cost about $400 million over a two-year budget period (≈ $200M per year) in legislative press materials and news coverage at passage. That was an estimate used in the FY budget debate. AP News+1

Bottom line (real vs. projected):

  • MDE first-year (actual preliminary): ≈ $268 million (one year) in state-funded value that previously wouldn’t have been covered. Minnesota Department of Education
  • Original legislative projection: ≈ $200 million / year ( $400M over two years ). AP News

How I’ll do scenario estimates (method & important distinction)

There are two different useful ways to express “cost”:

  1. Gross value of meals = (number of students served) × (price per student per year at full price).
    • MDE used $2.25 per breakfast and $3.50 per lunch and 180 school days, so full-price annual value per student = (2.25+3.50)×180 = $1,035/year. (MDE used those figures in their calculations). Minnesota Department of Education
  2. State incremental cost = what the state actually pays above federal reimbursements. (Because the federal NSLP/SBP already reimburses schools for children who qualify for free and subsidizes reduced/paid meals — the state only needed to make up the difference for students who would otherwise have paid full price). MDE’s $267.81M figure above is this incremental state cost for the first year. Minnesota Department of Education

For the “reimpose household income limits” question I’ll produce scenario costs both as:

  • (A) Gross cost if the State only paid full-price value for those students (simple, transparent), and
  • (B) a rough state incremental estimate (more policy-accurate) using MDE’s approach — but note the incremental estimate requires detailed federal reimbursement rates and the exact count of students in each eligibility bucket (free, reduced, paid). Where public, statewide counts by bucket are not available at the exact vintage, I’ll show a transparent range and the assumptions so you can see the sensitivity.

Useful baseline numbers I used (sources)

  • MDE first-year summary (SY2023–24) — meals served, $47.77M breakfast / $220.04M lunch = $267.81M additional (state) in year 1; per-student full price used = $2.25 breakfast, $3.50 lunch, 180 days → $1,035/yr. Minnesota Department of Education
  • Minnesota K–12 enrollment (statewide) (used as an upper bound for “all students”) — MDE stats show about 871,189 K–12 enrolled in the referenced summary. (If you prefer the 800k+ figure from some news stories I can show that too — I’ll use the official MDE enrollment for calculations). Minnesota Department of Education
  • Count of students eligible for free or reduced (185% poverty) — MDE summary shows 275,279 students reported as Free & Reduced-price eligible (this is the statewide count reported in the Education Statistics summary). That is the official count we can use for the 185% threshold bucket (free+reduced). Minnesota Department of Education

Scenario calculations (rounded; all math shown)

Assumptions (explicit):

  • Full-price meal value per student/year = $1,035 (MDE: $2.25 breakfast + $3.50 lunch × 180 days). Minnesota Department of Education
  • Use enrollment = 871,189 (MDE education summary) as the universe of K–12 students. Minnesota Department of Education
  • Use 275,279 = students eligible at ≤185% FPL (free + reduced) (from MDE stats). Minnesota Department of Education
  • Federal reimbursements: federal program already reimburses schools for students eligible under the federal free/reduced rules — thus the State’s incremental expense is mostly for students who previously paid (paid/full-price students). MDE’s actual incremental number for year 1 is used as the best real estimate when possible. Minnesota Department of Education

A — If the state paid full-price for all students (gross value)

  • Calculation: 871,189 students × $1,035/yr = $902,000,000 ≈ $902 million / year (gross value of meals if every student’s meals were valued at full price).
    This is not what the state would necessarily pay out-of-pocket, because federal reimbursement covers a portion for children who are federally eligible. (Source: $1,035/student from MDE; enrollment from MDE). Minnesota Department of Education+1

B — What Minnesota actually paid (incremental, real)

  • MDE (SY2023–24) preliminary: ≈ $267.81 million (state incremental cost for first year) — this is the best real empirical number for what the state paid in year 1 to deliver free breakfast and lunch to students who previously would have paid. Use this as the practical answer to “projected cost per year” based on real implementation. Minnesota Department of Education

C — If the state re-imposed income limits: two simple policy scenarios

Scenario 1 — State reimburses free meals only for students at or below the federal free threshold (130% FPL).

  • We do not have a single, officially published statewide count in the MDE PDF that separates “free” (≤130% FPL) from “reduced” (130%–185% FPL). MDE reports 275,279 for free+reduced combined. Nationally the “free” bucket is typically the large majority of FRPL, but the exact split varies by state/district. Two ways to proceed:
    • (1) Conservative (lower cost) estimate: assume ~75% of FRPL are in the free bucket → free count ≈ 0.75×275,279 ≈ 206,000 students.
      • Gross value ≈ 206,000 × $1,035 ≈ $213M / year (gross).
      • State incremental cost would be substantially lower than universal because federal already reimburses free students at the highest federal rate; the State would primarily cover those not federally free — so incremental state cost would drop dramatically vs universal. (To calculate incremental precisely you’d subtract federal reimbursements for the “free” students — that requires per-student federal rates and CEP adjustments.)
    • (2) Upper bound (if most FRPL are free): assume 90% free → free count ≈ 0.90×275,279 ≈ 248,000 students → gross ≈ $257M / year.
  • Takeaway: if you limit free meals to the federal free threshold only, the gross value of those meals would be on the order of $210–$260M/year depending on the assumed free-share among FRPL students. The state incremental cost (what the state would actually write checks for beyond federal reimbursements) would be much smaller than universal — but computing that precisely requires per-student federal reimbursement rates and the exact counts in each eligibility bucket. (I can compute that if you want me to pull current federal reimbursement rates and an exact free-count for MN.) Minnesota Department of Education+1

Scenario 2 — State reimburses free meals for students ≤185% FPL (i.e., the federal free+reduced group) — effectively mirroring federal eligibility but making them fully free at school:

  • Count = 275,279 students (MDE Education Stats). Minnesota Department of Education
  • Gross value ≈ 275,279 × $1,035 ≈ $285M / year (gross value).
  • Compare to MDE actual incremental $267.8M — you can see that the real incremental number is close to this gross value but not identical because MDE’s $267.8M is the actual incremental paid when all students were made free (it reflects how federal reimbursements and CEP were used to offset costs). Minnesota Department of Education+1

Quick summary table (rounded)

  • Universal (what’s in law, actual first year incremental) — ≈ $268M / year (state incremental, SY2023–24 preliminary). Minnesota Department of Education
  • Original budget estimate (legislature/news) — ≈ $200M / year (derived from $400M over two years estimate). AP News
  • Gross value if state paid full $1,035/student for every K–12 (no federal role) — ≈ $902M / year (useful upper bound). Minnesota Department of Education+1
  • If free limited to ≤185% FPL (federal free+reduced count = 275,279) — gross ≈ $285M/yr; state incremental would be lower because federal reimburses part of those meals. Minnesota Department of Education+1
  • If free limited to ≤130% FPL (federal free only) — gross ≈ $210–$260M/yr (range depends on how many of the 275,279 are in the free bucket — I used 75–90% as plausible shares). Incremental state cost would be much lower (because federal already reimburses free meals). Minnesota Department of Education+1

The federal income thresholds (your last question)

You asked: “What is the household income level under federal law for a family of 3 (mother + two kids)?”

Using the most recently published USDA Income Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026), the annual thresholds (48 contiguous states) are:

·         Free meals (130% of federal poverty guideline) — $34,645 / year for a household of 3.

·         Reduced-price meals (185% of federal poverty guideline) — $49,303 / year for a household of 3.

(Those are the official federal thresholds effective 7/1/25–6/30/26; earlier years are slightly lower.) Federal Register

Quick notes, caveats, and offer to drill deeper

  • Why MDE incremental ≠ simply “enrollment × $1,035” — federal reimbursements (free/reduced/CEP) cover a lot of cost for low-income students; the State’s program pays the difference to make the meal free for students who previously paid. That’s why the State incremental cost (~$268M in year 1) is far lower than the gross value of all meals (~$902M). Minnesota Department of Education
  • If you want a precise “state incremental” cost for a particular income cutoff (for example “free only if household income ≤ $50,000” or “free if ≤ 150% FPL”), I can compute that, but I’ll need to (and will) do these steps automatically for you:
    1. get the exact count of Minnesota students in each eligibility bucket (free / reduced / paid) for the year you care about (MDE reports sometimes break these out by district/site); Minnesota Department of Education
    2. pull the current federal reimbursement rates (breakfast & lunch free/reduced/paid per meal) for the same school year; USDA Food and Nutrition Service
    3. compute the state incremental payments = (full-price value – federal reimbursement) × number of students the state would cover under the proposed cutoff.

If you want me to run that precise calculation for one or more specific household-income cutoffs (for example: 130% FPL, 150% FPL, 185% FPL, $50k, etc.), say which cutoffs and which school year (e.g., use SY2023–24 actual counts, or latest 2024–25 counts) and I’ll produce a clear table with exact math and sources. (I can do it right now if you want — tell me the cutoffs and which enrollment year to use.)

Key source links I used

  • MDE — Minnesota Free School Meals: First Year Preliminary Summary (SY2023–24) (meals served; $47.77M breakfasts / $220.04M lunches = $267.81M). Minnesota Department of Education
  • MDE statutes / program description (HF5 / 124D.111) — text that created the MN universal program. MN Revisor+1
  • News coverage & projections (AP, Axios) on the original $400M / two-year estimate and early demand increases. AP News+1
  • Federal Income Eligibility Guidelines (USDA / Federal Register) — 130%/185% table; family of 3 numbers shown above. Federal Register

If you want the precise incremental-cost table for a set of income cutoffs (e.g., 130% FPL, 150% FPL, 185% FPL, and $50,000 household), tell me which school year to base counts on (I used SY2022–23 / SY2023–24 numbers above) and which cutoffs — I’ll run the exact calculations (showing the per-meal federal rates used, per-student math, and final state incremental cost) and return a tidy table.

You said:

what if the cut off household income level to qualify for free or reduced lunch were $160,000

You said:

use the 2024-25 school year if possible

ChatGPT said:

If you set the cutoff at $160,000 household income (i.e. everyone below that gets free or reduced lunch under the state policy), here’s how I’d estimate the cost in 2024-25 (or as close as I can) — with caveats and approximations.

What data / parameters we know (or approximate) for 2024-25

Some pieces of data are available, some are not. Here’s what I found and what I must assume / estimate:

Known / approximate data:

  • The federal reimbursement rates for school meals for SY 2024-25 are published. USDA Food and Nutrition Service+1
  • Minnesota’s MDE document “School Nutrition Program Reimbursement Rates 2024–25” is active (the August 2024 bulletin notes that the reimbursement rate documents are updated under CLiCS). GovDelivery+1
  • Minnesota’s first-year (SY 2023-24) incremental cost of universal free meals was $267.81 million (state incremental) per MDE’s preliminary summary. Minnesota Department of Education
  • The full-price meal value per student used in MDE’s modeling is about $1,035/yr (breakfast + lunch at $2.25 + $3.50 over ~180 school days). Minnesota Department of Education
  • I did not find a reliable, publicly published count (for 2024-25) of how many Minnesota students have household income between e.g. $160,000 and “no limit” (i.e. above the cutoff). In other words, I can’t precisely know how many students would lose free meals under that hypothetical cutoff, so I must assume a share.

Thus, the key uncertainty is: how many students’ households earn more than $160,000? That determines how many students would be excluded under your cutoff.

Given that $160,000 is quite high relative to typical household income distributions (for many school districts, a relatively small share of households may exceed $160k), the share excluded might be modest, but in some higher-cost areas (Twin Cities, high income suburbs) it could be nontrivial.

So we’ll build a scenario with an assumed exclusion share, run the math, and see how sensitive the result is.

Estimation approach for cutoff at $160,000

Step 1: Define “universal baseline” cost (2024-25)

As a starting point, if the state fully funded free meals for all students in 2024-25, we can use the previous-year incremental figure as a baseline, adjusting modestly for inflation or reimbursement changes.

  • The $267.81M was for 2023-24 (first year) incremental in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Education
  • Federal reimbursement rates for 2024-25 have risen somewhat (per USDA / FNS). USDA Food and Nutrition Service+1
  • Let me assume that the 2024-25 incremental cost, if fully universal, would be in the ballpark of $280–$300 million (state share) given cost inflation, clothes, food, and participation growth.

Thus, let’s set a “universal 2024-25 state incremental baseline” = $290 million (this is a rough assumption, but likely within ±20%). (If you prefer I can try to get MDE’s actual 2024-25 number.)

Step 2: Estimate the share of students with household income above $160,000

Since we don’t have an official Minnesota breakdown, I’ll consider two plausible assumptions:

  • Low exclusion scenario: assume only 5% of students have household income > $160,000 (so these would not qualify under the cutoff).
  • Moderate exclusion scenario: assume 10% of students have income above that (so 90% still qualify).
  • (One could also try 15%, etc.)

Thus:

  • Under 5% exclusion → 95% of students remain eligible
  • Under 10% exclusion → 90% remain eligible

These are guesses; the real number could differ.

Step 3: Compute the reduced incremental cost under the cutoff

If only, say, 90% of students qualify (i.e. 10% excluded), then the state would not need to cover the incremental cost for that 10%. So the state incremental cost becomes:

Adjusted cost=Universal baseline×share still eligibleAdjusted cost=Universal baseline×share still eligible

Using our baseline $290M:

  • If 5% excluded → eligible share = 95% → cost = $290M × 0.95 = $275.5 million
  • If 10% excluded → eligible share = 90% → cost = $290M × 0.90 = $261 million

So under these assumptions, using cutoff $160,000 would reduce state incremental cost by $14M to $14.5M relative to full universal cost of $290M.

Step 4: Consider “gross value” contrast

For perspective, the gross value of meals is higher than just the state incremental. If full-value per student is ~$1,035/yr (same as earlier), and Minnesota has, say, ~870,000 students (or a bit more in 2024-25), then:

  • Gross value for all = 870,000 × 1,035 ≈ $900–$910 million
  • If 10% excluded, gross delivered value = 0.90 × that = ~$810–$820 million

But the state does not pay gross, only pays incremental above federal reimbursements.

Sensitivity and caveats

  • If the exclusion share is larger (say 15–20%) the savings grow linearly: e.g. at 15% excluded, cost = $290M × 0.85 = $246.5 million (saving ~$43.5M vs universal).
  • If the exclusion share is much smaller (say only 2–3%) the savings are minimal (e.g. ~$6–10M).
  • The assumption that the incremental cost scales linearly with number of students is approximate, because federal reimbursements (and CEP / community eligibility dynamics) might behave nonlinearly with participation changes. For example, excluding higher-income students might slightly increase average federal reimbursement per meal in some districts or change cost structures.
  • Also, some fixed or overhead costs of meal programs (kitchen staffing, etc.) don’t scale down perfectly with fewer students; so the actual savings might be a bit less than proportional in practice.

Tentative answer (2024-25, $160,000 cutoff) under plausible assumptions

Using the baseline assumption of $290 million incremental cost for universal coverage in 2024-25:

  • If 5% of students are excluded (i.e. > $160,000), the cost drops to $275.5 million
  • If 10% excluded, cost drops to about $261 million
  • If 15% excluded, cost drops to about $246.5 million

So the state would save $14–$43 million relative to full universal, depending on how many high-income households exist.”

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Congressional Candidate Rick Olson (MN2) Breaks Party Ranks

Statement on Impeachment Vote in the U.S. House of Representatives Rick Olson, Republican Candidate for Congress, MN District 2 For more info: 320-248-9933, olson48176@gmail.com,  http://rickolsonforcongress.com Sunday, December 15, 2019 – For immediate Release This morning a Star Tribune reporter informed me that Angie Craig had decided to vote “yes” next week on the motion in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach President Trump, and asked me if I were in her shoes, how would I vote. When I took office as a State Representative in Michigan in 2011, I swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. That oath is still binding today. I understand the Founding Fathers viewed the impeachment process as very similar to the process in a criminal court. The prosecution presents evidence in a preliminary hearing. If the judge hears sufficient evidence to believe a crime has been committed, taking the evidence as true on its face in the absence of any defense from...
Read more

Our Changing Climate: Options to Consider

Image
Our Changing Climate: Options to Consider ·          Have you noticed that the past few “normal” Minnesota winters have not been as cold as 20 or 30 years ago? According to University of Minnesota scientists testifying to the Minnesota House of Representatives earlier this year, between 1895 and 2015, average daily low temperatures in winter have increased. In the northern part of the state, they’re up 4.8 degrees over that period and 3.4 degrees in the south. One study pointed out that between 1959 and 1978 Duluth averaged 45 days a year in which the average daily temperature did not top 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Between 1999 and 2018, there were no such days. ·          Have you noticed that the emerald ash borer territory has moved north with the borers not killed in the winter as the winters have gotten warmer, such that our state’s ash trees have been disappearing? ·    ...
Read more

Skeptical about Climate Science? It is smart to be skeptical.

Image
The paper below establishes (1) who accepts the scientific evidence that climate change is real, primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels and that it is urgent that we do something about it and (2) who does not. If after reading this, and you are still skeptical, I would love to hear from you about how you evaluate sources of information, i.e., how you determine who you should believe and who not - not only on this issue but on other issues. "Skeptical about Climate Science?   It is smart to be skeptical. By Alan Anderson, Northfield. But please consider: The scientists and leadership of these organizations . . . agree that human-caused climate change is happening, mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions, and that the consequences of not significantly reducing CO 2 emissions are negative, irreversible and   will imperil all future generations. 1.        The American Petroleum Institute : “Few things threaten America...
Read more