Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Contracts And Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board accepts state stipend grant and approves food, custodial contracts

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board accepted $77,579.64 in unbudgeted grant funds and approved a food-service contract with Chartwells and a five-year custodial management extension with Aramark.

The Three Rivers/Josephine County School District board authorized use of three procurement and funding items: acceptance of unbudgeted grant funds of $77,579.64, approval of a food-service contract continuation with Chartwells, and approval of a five-year custodial management extension with Aramark.

Why it matters: The grant provides one-time funding for staff stipends (per the presenter), while the contracts cover ongoing student nutrition services and custodial management and have recurring fiscal impacts.

Finance staff told the board they applied for a state stipend grant and received $77,579.64, an amount not included in the current budget; the board approved appropriation and expenditure of those funds by voice vote.

On food service, staff reported an RFP was posted and three firms attended the mandatory walkthrough, but Chartwells was the only proposer. A committee that included kitchen managers, district staff, a principal and the child nutrition specialist evaluated Chartwells’ proposal and recommended continuing the existing partnership; the board approved the proposed contract.

On custodial services, the district and Aramark agreed on a five-year extension. The annual base fee is $291,500, with a 2% prepayment discount of $5,830; subsequent years’ increases are tied to the employment cost index. The board approved the Aramark extension by voice vote.

Board members asked whether the custodial extension had been competitively bid; staff said the item was an extension rather than a new procurement.

All three actions were approved by voice vote during the meeting; no roll-call tallies were recorded in the public transcript.