Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Athletic training contract would rise to $75,000 next year; committee backs one‑year extension while exploring bids
Summary
The district's athletic training services provider, Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, proposed renewing at $75,000 for one year with an optional second year at $80,000; the committee supported a one‑year renewal and asked administration to survey other districts and prepare a bid if needed.
Get email alerts on the Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials told the finance committee on April 27 that athletic training services at Lisle High School — currently provided by the Illinois Bone and Joint Institute — have become more expensive and that the provider offered a renewal at $75,000 for a first year and $80,000 if a mutually agreed second year is exercised.
"The first year would be at $75,000...and then if we want to do a second year with them, that would be $80,000," Dave Wilkinson said, explaining the prior three‑year agreement had been about $50,000 annually and that vendors have shown limited interest in recent procurements. He said the district put a bid on the shelf but is uncertain whether other bidders would respond.
Committee members discussed alternatives: immediately bidding the contract (risking no bidders or a single, high bid), renewing for one year to maintain coverage and re‑competing in winter, or hiring an in‑house trainer. Administration estimated bringing the service in house would likely cost at least about $70,000 and possibly closer to $90,000 once salary and benefits and coverage needs were included; members noted Lisle’s small size makes consistent coverage with a single in‑house trainer difficult.
Several members voiced support for the administration’s recommendation to secure coverage for the coming year and survey other districts before committing to a second year. Wilkinson said he would bring the agreement forward for board approval in May if the committee was comfortable with the one‑year approach.
No formal contract vote was taken in committee; the direction was a consensus to pursue the one‑year renewal while preparing to bid if market responses warrant it.

