Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Beverage Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates five‑year Coca‑Cola exclusivity as staff describe logistics and rebate details
Summary
The board discussed a proposed five‑year Coca‑Cola beverage contract that would return approximately $128,427 over five years and include an exclusivity clause; board members and a public commenter raised concerns about water pricing, concessions vs. vending, and logistics for booster/ PTO orders.
The East Stroudsburg Area School District board discussed a proposed five‑year exclusive beverage contract with Coca‑Cola that staff presented as returning about $128,427 to the district over the contract term. The contract language shown at the meeting would prohibit competitive products from being sold, dispensed or served anywhere on district campuses, an exclusivity clause that prompted questions from board members about concession‑stand access for booster groups and event organizers.
Board member Rebecca Baer asked whether clubs and PTOs would have to purchase through Coca‑Cola or could continue to buy elsewhere. A staff member responded that clubs “do not have to. They have the option,” indicating the district would not require booster clubs to order only through the vendor but that contract language prohibits competitive products being sold on campus. Several board members raised the point that vending machines used by staff and student vending during non‑instructional hours could be handled differently than concession operations at athletic events, and asked whether the district could separate vending‑machine services from concession rights so boosters could select preferred sport‑drink brands (Gatorade v. Powerade) for game concessions.
Public commenter Keith questioned whether the long‑term financial benefit of the contract would outweigh potential higher retail prices at events, noting examples from the materials shown at the meeting: a 24‑count case of Coca‑Cola listed at $12.90 and a 24‑count case of bottled water listed at $7.42, prices the commenter compared to club/warehouse prices at Sam’s or BJ’s. Board members also asked for clarification of “handling fees” and other line items on the vendor pricing schedule; staff said handling, taxes, deposits and recycling fees were listed separately and some items (for example, deposit fees) would not apply in Pennsylvania.
Several board members asked staff to prepare a logistics plan if the district moves forward: a single ordering point of contact, a central order form and a scheduling approach so booster organizations and event sponsors can place orders to be delivered to the correct campus on a timely schedule and without adding storage burdens for schools. Board members said that such operational details would affect whether they support a single exclusive contract that covers both vending and concession operations.
The board did not take a final vote on the Coca‑Cola contract at this meeting; several members said they still lacked information and wanted staff to return with clarifications on logistics, what sponsorship/scholarship payments would be if concessions were excluded, and the likely revenue tradeoffs of separating vending from concession rights.
