Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Facilities Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

District staff present cost comparison for bringing custodial services in-house versus ABM contract

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

Facilities staff presented a preliminary cost comparison showing the current ABM custodial contract at approximately $1.8 million per year and a proposed in‑house staffing model at about $2.6 million per year, and the School Committee requested a detailed side‑by‑side spreadsheet for review.

Facilities staff presented preliminary financial analyses of the district’s custodial services procurement on March 4, comparing the current ABM contract to a proposed in-house staffing alternative.

The district’s current contract with ABM covers approximately 30 custodial employees at a quoted average hourly rate included in the presentation. Facilities staff reported an annualized ABM cost of about $1.8 million (30 employees at $16/hour in the district summary). Staff proposed a hypothetical in-house model in which the district would hire 35 custodial staff at a $21/hour baseline; that model was estimated to cost roughly $2.6 million annually. The presentation included per‑employee annual cost examples (approx. $62,000 per employee at current rates versus approx. $77,000 per employee under the proposed in‑house assumptions) and noted a 90‑day notice requirement to ABM if the district opted to end the contract.

School Committee members asked for a side‑by‑side spreadsheet and additional time to review the figures. Facilities staff agreed to circulate a more detailed comparison of assumptions (benefits, headcounts, hourly rates, overtime and other line items) and to provide clarifying documentation. The committee did not vote on any contract action at this meeting.

Ending: Facilities staff will publish a detailed spreadsheet comparing the ABM contract and the proposed in‑house model for committee review; committee members requested time to evaluate the assumptions before any direction to administration or motion to change vendors.