Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses switching jail food service to Trinity Service Group; potential savings cited
Summary
County staff presented a bid from Trinity Service Group to provide jail meals, estimating roughly $298,000 per year for a 130-inmate average and projected savings of about $300,000–$325,000. Commissioners took the matter under advisement pending contract review and final terms.
St. Francois County commissioners discussed a potential contract with Trinity Service Group to provide food service for the county jail, after staff said the vendor’s bid would significantly reduce the county’s current food-service costs.
Summer (county staff overseeing food service) told commissioners that Trinity Service Group — which she identified as a sister company to O'Keefe, the county’s commissary provider — bid to provide meals for the jail. "Their bid's at $298,000 for a 130 inmates," she said, and staff estimated annual savings in the range of about $300,000 to $325,000 compared with current costs. Summer added that Trinity prepares meals using county facilities, would buy the food, and would employ its own staff while offering to hire willing county employees; inmate workers would still be used as appropriate.
Commissioners and staff discussed contract length (annual vs. extended), the need to review final contract terms, inspection and food-quality oversight, utility responsibilities and how the contractor would staff the operation. Staff reported reaching out to other counties for references; Jefferson County and "Kaye County" (as reported in the transcript) were cited as having positive experiences with the vendor.
No formal vote to award the contract was recorded in the transcript; commissioners said they would "take it under advisement" and review the final contract language before signing. Staff indicated next steps would include receiving and reviewing the vendor’s contract and bringing it back for approval if terms match the bid and county requirements.
Because contract language and final fiscal impact depend on the written agreement, the commission did not adopt or authorize a contract during the meeting. The matter will return to the board for formal action once staff completes contract review and confirms that the contractor’s final terms align with the county’s budget and operational needs.
