Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts And Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bedford City board accepts superintendent report; district to contract with Certasite for fire-alarm services
Summary
At its March 20 meeting the Bedford City Board of Education approved the superintendent's report, which included several contract recommendations and a new vendor for fire-alarm monitoring, Certasite. Board members were told the switch would lower annual costs from about $6,000–$7,000 to roughly $2,700 after an initial one-time charge.
The Bedford City Board of Education on March 20 voted to accept the superintendent's report and approve multiple recommended contracts, including a new agreement with Certasite for fire alarm monitoring and related annual checks.
The superintendent, Dr. Johnson, presented seven recommendations in the report and asked the board to approve the listed contracts and services. The board approved the superintendent's report by roll call, 3-0.
Board members spent most discussion time on agenda item 7.06, the proposed contract with Certasite. Adam (district staff), who answered board questions at the meeting, described Certasite as “a fire monitoring alarm company” that the district uses for annual checks of fire extinguishers and related services. Adam said Certasite’s charges would include a one‑time initial fee of about $7,000 and then an annual cost of about $2,700, which he said was “much cheaper than what we have been spending for US Protective” at roughly $6,000–$7,000 per year.
Dr. Johnson told the board the superintendent’s report also included contracts or service approvals related to: the district’s partnership with an autism fellowship (7.01), services for the auto collision program in career and technical education (7.02), a summer bridge program collaboration described as working with Closing the Achievement Gap and Ms. Bridal Wright (7.03), additional listed services and separations of service (7.04–7.05), and an exhibit for the facilities usage plan (7.07). The board discussed whether to take the seven items individually or as a whole and ultimately voted to accept the report as presented.
Board members did not request further written detail about the other contracts during the public portion of the meeting. The superintendent thanked a retiree, Velvet Mella, and recognized a student athlete, Amaya Hardeman, during the meeting, but those recognitions were ceremonial and not part of the contract approvals.
Votes at a glance: • Approval of minutes of the March 6 work session: passed 3-0 (motion by Miss Macklin; second by Miss Boynton). • Consent agenda (6.01): passed 3-0 (motion by Miss Boynton; second by Miss Mecklen). • Acceptance of superintendent’s report (items 7.01–7.07, taken as presented, including 7.06 Certasite): passed 3-0 (motion by Miss Macklin; second by Miss Boynton).
Board members who participated in the March 20 roll calls and votes included Miss Boynton, Miss Macklin, Miss Carter and (in some roll calls) Miss Turner Burch and Miss Mecklen; recorded tallies in the meeting transcript were 3-0 for the above routine approvals.
The board did not vote on individual contract language in public beyond accepting the superintendent’s report; the meeting minutes or district procurement records were not provided in the transcript and cost details beyond the Certasite estimates were not specified.
The board will incorporate these approvals into the district’s procurement and contracting processes per usual practice; no follow-up motion or assigned staff deadline was recorded on the public record for the listed contracts.
