Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board reviews three‑year Aramark custodial contract; staff says it remains cost‑effective

Conewago Valley School District Board of School Directors · May 5, 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

The district presented a three‑year custodial services contract extension with Aramark (2026–2029), citing an approximately $100,000 annual increase from last year tied to CPI; staff said outsourcing remains cheaper than maintaining in‑house custodial payroll and benefits.

Conewago Valley staff presented a proposed three‑year extension of the district’s custodial contract with Aramark covering 2026–2029 and flagged an additional cost of just over $100,000 compared with last year’s contract. Dr. Perry said the agreement includes annual CPI adjustments (staff cited roughly 2.8% last year) and that the contract remains a net savings versus hiring district custodial personnel once salary, benefits and overhead are counted.

Administrators said Aramark provides day and night custodial coverage across buildings and that a local Aramark account manager in Upper Adams supports the district. Board members asked about Aramark’s performance and responsiveness; staff said the vendor has been responsive to corrective actions, with typical turnarounds of 24–48 hours for reported issues during weekdays.

The presentation did not include a precise current headcount per building but noted that some facilities (e.g., CTE) retain on‑site staffing carried over from before contracting. The administration said it would provide more detailed staffing counts if the board wished to review them prior to final action.

Next steps: item included for board consideration on the consent/finance agenda; staff said they believe the contract remains cost‑effective compared with creating similar in‑house staffing capacity.