Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Procurement Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Mobile County school board work session reviews contracts totaling hundreds of thousands, pulls C26 amid litigation

Mobile County Public School System Board of Education · April 22, 2026
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

At its April 22, 2024 work session the Mobile County Public School System reviewed numerous contracts and capital projects — from software renewals to generator bids — and pulled action item C26 because it is the subject of ongoing litigation. Several funding sources (Title I, PSF, county funds) were cited.

The Mobile County Public School System convened a work session April 22, 2024, during which board members and staff reviewed dozens of action items covering software agreements, professional development, capital projects, leases and personnel matters. The board pulled action item C26 from consideration because it is the subject of ongoing litigation.

The board reviewed procurement and contract revisions including a $169,217.49 revision with Riverside Assessments to provide a secure digital testing platform funded from RACE Act funds and a UKG (Kronos) annual renewal for personnel software (equipment listed at $32,232.05 and an integrated-hub line presented in the transcript as $220,896). District staff also presented a $52,525.35 agreement with PowerSchool Group for application-tracking software and a $51,450 contract with Kathy Steever for psychological services funded from state dollars.

Several professional-development and student-support contracts were listed: Kids First Pathway (27 days of English language arts professional development, $39,825 from School Improvement funds), Kids First ACT tutorials for Murphy High (12 days, $16,800, Title I), Franklin Covey engagements and a one-year Leader in Me subscription, and a series of school-level purchases of Agile Sports Technology 'Huddle' services (amounts per school ranged from $5,699 to $14,269.10).

Capital and facilities items included an architectural selection for a chiller replacement (C27), change order #1 for the Central Office cooling tower reflecting a $26,321.52 decrease to a revised total of $2,007,178.48 from PSCA funds (C28), and a Baker High auditorium reroof change order showing a $39,381.34 decrease with a new total of $863,018.66 (C29). The board also reviewed phase three of district-wide generator procurements (C30), noting low bids from Bagsby and Russell for grouped site packages listed in the transcript as $747,700 (sites 61–71) and $817,700 (sites 72–82).

The agenda included multiple multi-year lease requests: a five-year lease with the CEMS Athletic Association for approximately 37.11 acres at $3,711 annually (C31), an extension for Mobile Community Action to lease the Mount Vernon and Warren School campuses (C32; amount referenced as insurance/state insurance, not specified), and a five-year $150-per-year lease with Air Methods Corporation for the emergency medical helicopter landing pad at Mary G. Montgomery (C33).

The board moved through consent items (D1–D24) and flow-through allocations for private and parochial schools. Informational items presented included monthly financials and purchase orders over $5,000. District legal counsel reported 12 proposed agreed-to suspensions submitted to the board between April 1 and April 20; the transcript lists dates and counts but does not record final disposition for individual cases.

The session closed with scheduling details (an April 29 meeting and a May 6 meeting), reminders about the Learning Leading Awards and upcoming board training at Murphy High's auditorium, and recognition of community representative Royal Richardson. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded; light-hearted banter followed as votes were taken.

The transcript records that action item C26 was pulled "because it is still being litigated," but the record presented does not include final votes or approvals for most individual action items during this work session. The board did list personnel items (C36–C44) under separate cover; those personnel details are not publicly stated in the transcript.