Students who currently live in residence halls and plan to stay on campus next year won't have to purchase a meal plan.
Under a grandfather clause implemented by the ASU Meal Plan Committee last week, only incoming freshmen living on campus would have to purchase a plan if the proposed mandatory meal plan becomes a reality.
The Arizona Board of Regents will vote on the meal plan at their March meeting.
Memorial Union Director Brett Perozzi said he thinks students will be more receptive to the meal plan with the clause.
"I would like to see students be excited about a meal plan for the campus community," he said. "If this clause is something that helps students become excited, then it's a good idea."
But the grandfather clause will reduce the amount of revenue that comes into the University next year.
Returning students living on campus can still choose to purchase a meal plan. But Mike Mathis, the food service contractor and project manager for the Memorial Union, said he estimates approximately 800 returning students who decide to stay on campus wouldn't purchase a plan.
Without the sales from all returning upperclassmen, ASU would lose about $1.6 to $3.1 million dollars in sales, although only $150,000 would be profit.
About 60 percent of the sales money would go back into operating the MU, he added.
Karen Levy, staff chair of the meal plan committee, said the money that does not come in from returning upperclassmen could affect MU programs.
But she said the clause would also be a good compromise between the students and the University administration.
"It is a compromise that will continue to meet the needs of current students as well as move the vision of President Crow forward," she said.
The grandfather clause only applies to students currently living on campus. Incoming freshman will have to buy meal plans every year they live on campus, she added.
Journalism freshman Meghan Keck said although the University will lose revenue, it could encourage returning students to live on campus and generate more money from room fees.
"[ASU] has to think about the people that would choose not to live on campus [because of the plan]," she said.
Although journalism freshman Sarah Slagle decided to live on campus before the clause was passed, she was unhappy with the idea of any kind of mandatory meal plan.
"We should be able to choose where to eat and when we want to eat," she said.
Several student leaders had voiced concern about the plan since it was announced last spring.
Two Undergraduate Student Government senators came up with the basic idea of the clause, Perozzi said.
Ross Meyer, a USG senator from the Barrett Honors College, and Chris Gustafson, a senator from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, worked together to make the meal plan more appealing.
"If this meal plan is going to go through, let's make it the best for all students," Meyer said.
Although Meyer is happy with the new clause, he continues to oppose the plan.
"But right now is not the time to debate its merits," he said. "It's the time to make it less of a burden on students currently living on campus."
USG President Corinne Widmer said she doesn't believe the lost money will affect ASU negatively.
"I'm not focused on the financial loss; I just want to see students be able to live on campus," she said.
Reach the reporter at kristi.eaton@asu.edu.
