Farmington Heights residents and staff urge board to keep custodians in-house as outsourcing options advance

Farmington Public Schools Board of Education · February 25, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

Public commenters, custodial staff and teachers urged the Farmington Public Schools board to retain in‑house custodial employees amid district review of outsourcing options that could save the district money but alter wages, benefits, and staffing models.

Farmington Public Schools officials faced sustained public comment on Feb. 24 as dozens of parents, teachers and custodial staff urged the board to keep custodial services in‑house rather than move to a privatized provider.

Parents and staff described day custodians as long‑serving, trusted members of school communities who respond promptly to student needs, maintain relationships with teachers and students, and contribute to school safety and morale. Lisonbee Gay, a 12‑year district parent and six‑year employee, said outsourcing would not preserve the same quality of service and questioned how roughly $1,000,000 in projected savings would be reallocated to benefit students. Head custodians Skyler Shezpanic and Haley Bell provided operational detail, citing sanitation checks, recurring concerns they have tracked, and the value of building‑level familiarity.

Board materials show the district solicited bids because a current contract is expiring and returned three main options: continue the existing hybrid model (district daytime custodians; contracted evening cleaning) with modest savings; a model where the contractor assumes employee roles but the district retains equipment and supplies (projected savings of about $1.2 million over three years); or full outsourcing of staff and supplies (presented as roughly $3.2 million over three years). District staff and trustees said they had negotiated wage‑parity language into vendor proposals so that custodians would be offered pay rates comparable to current levels.

Trustees and committee members emphasized unresolved questions: whether guarantees in contractor proposals protect staff who wish to remain, what benefits (health care, retirement accruals, paid time off) would change if employees moved to a contractor payroll, and how attrition/retirements were being modeled in staffing counts. Finance committee notes shared with the board cited reference checks with Ann Arbor, Lansing and Plymouth‑Canton school districts that reported generally positive experiences when management and accountability were robust.

Board members repeatedly acknowledged the district’s obligation to weigh fiscal responsibility against community values. President Williams said the district is required to go out for bid and must consider the returned proposals; several trustees said they needed more time to review clarified cost tables and reference materials before any final vote. No formal action on outsourcing was taken at the Feb. 24 meeting; trustees said the item would return for action after additional due diligence.

The discussion concluded with trustees thanking speakers and staff and instructing the administration to supply clearer comparative cost tables, more detailed benefits information, and the committee’s reference summaries before the next meeting.