Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Security Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Training Protection Group pitches five-year building-security contract; commissioners voice reservation about term and raises
Summary
Training Protection Group proposed a five-year renewal with 4% annual increases to continue security and front-desk services at the County City Building. Presenters highlighted heavy screening volume and expanded duties; several commissioners said a five-year term with automatic raises may be too long and preferred a shorter term or stronger termination/renegotiation clauses.
Brandon Schmidt, co-owner of Training Protection Group, told the St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners that his firm proposes a five‑year contract to continue providing County City Building security, including front‑desk duties and perimeter checks. "We propose, a 5 year contract with 4% annual rate increase," Schmidt said, citing letters of recommendation and what he described as "275,000 screenings" processed through building entrances.
On-site security director Billy Pelletier described day‑to‑day operations and the program’s increased responsibilities, saying the team has conducted about "2,441" perimeter checks to date across all floors and has assisted with public-safety incidents. "We've also taken on the responsibility of the information center," Pelletier said, noting staff help guests navigate the building.
Several commissioners praised the staff’s professionalism and customer service but expressed concern about the proposed five‑year term and the 4% annual increases. One commissioner said a five‑year commitment could limit flexibility if department space needs change; another suggested a two‑year term would better protect the county while preserving staff stability. Schmidt said the longer term helps retain trained personnel and expressed willingness to revisit terms if circumstances change.
The transcript records a motion-related comment later in the meeting about submitting a raise, but the available segments do not clearly record a final, fully documented vote to approve the five‑year, 4%‑increase contract. The board and contract proposer discussed termination language and the county’s ability to adjust services if needs evolve.
The record shows the discussion centered on tradeoffs between contractor stability for staff retention and the county’s desire for contractual flexibility and fiscal control. The transcript does not include a complete, explicit final action approving or rejecting the contract as presented; next procedural steps or a later meeting are indicated by discussion rather than a recorded adoption.
