Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Custodial Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks on terminating custodial contract; motion to end services fails 3–3
Summary
After protracted debate about service quality and costs, a board motion to terminate the district’s custodial services contract and bring custodial staff in‑house failed on a 3–3 vote; members asked committees to study options and timing.
The Milan Special School District Board of Education discussed its existing custodial services contract at length and voted down a motion to terminate the current vendor and move custodial operations in‑house.
Board members raised competing concerns: some said bringing custodial services in‑house would improve accountability and quality because supervisors and principals could exercise direct oversight; others warned the transition would be logistically difficult, could create short‑term service disruptions and might require significant up‑front equipment purchases or rental costs.
During the meeting, staff noted the existing contract contains a termination provision that requires 90 days’ notice. One board member described contract costs as roughly “half a million” and estimated an in‑house cost of about $700,000–$800,000 annually, while noting the district had included funding for the shift in a prior year’s budget but the change was not implemented. Board members also discussed interim options such as increasing vendor staffing levels or seeking a different contractor.
A board member moved to terminate custodial services with the current vendor; the motion was seconded and went to a roll‑call vote. The motion failed on a 3–3 vote. Members who opposed immediate termination said they preferred forming committees (finance and/or construction) to study the fiscal and personnel implications and return with a detailed plan that aligns to the budget cycle. Proponents of immediate termination continued to argue the problem had “lingered” and that in‑house staff would create better accountability.
No contract was terminated at the meeting. Board members directed staff to pursue more information and recommended that either the finance committee or construction/maintenance committee convene to develop a transition timeline, staffing plan and equipment list. Members also asked staff to confirm whether funds previously allocated in the budget remain earmarked, with staff indicating those funds currently remain in the district’s unrestricted fund balance until the board chooses to restrict/earmark them.
