Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board to keep current dental provider on June voting agenda after discussion about fluoride and contract terms
Summary
After weighing cost, continuity and contract compliance, the committee recommended keeping the district’s existing dental provider (Mrs. Brewer) on the June voting agenda; the board debated whether to include fluoride as part of the district contract and requested clearer contract hour tracking.
The Upper Adams Business & Operations Committee recommended placing the district’s current dental services contract with Mrs. Brewer on the June voting agenda, after lengthy discussion about cost, contract compliance and whether fluoride application should be included as a district‑funded service.
Miss Hobbs presented three options for 2026–27: keep Mrs. Brewer (current local individual contractor) at the contract price presented (including fluoride) or consider alternatives (Family First or Smiles). Miss Hobbs said the current contract totals $7,500 if fluoride is included; if the provider did not include fluoride the comparable cost would be reported as $2,000 in one scenario discussed during the meeting.
Board members expressed concern that the district has not always followed monthly hour‑reporting and payment terms in the existing contract and asked administration to correct contract compliance and hourly tracking. Dr. Deshawn and Miss Hobbs explained some reported hours included out‑of‑school tasks and paperwork and noted Mrs. Brewer’s continuity and familiarity with students as practical benefits. Representatives (or the presenters) said Family First and Smiles either did not provide full proposals or were unresponsive in the district’s outreach.
On the fluoride question, board members noted that fluoride is an optional preventive service requiring parental consent; alternatives described would bill insurance and write off unpaid amounts for uninsured families. Several board members said they would prefer offering fluoride as an optional add‑on rather than a universal district expense; others supported retaining the current provider for continuity. The board’s consensus was to keep the existing provider on the June 16 voting agenda with an option to remove fluoride from the district‑paid package, and to ensure contractual hours and payment terms are enforced if the board approves the contract.
