Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Uniforms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends 36-month Cintas uniform contract and approves matching personnel-policy changes
Summary
The committee recommended the board approve a three-year uniform contract with Cintas under Omnia Partners pricing, discussed minimum weekly invoicing and employee opt-outs, and voted to recommend corresponding personnel-policy amendments to the board.
Get email alerts on the Procurement Uniforms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff presented a proposed renewal of the village’s uniform agreement with Cintas, explaining the vendor’s Omnia Partners government-pricing arrangement requires a 36-month term to lock prices. The director explained vendor fees, saying the makeup charge is “a dollar fifty‑eight per garment” and that a jacket’s weekly rental charge is roughly “a dollar eighty‑six.”
Committee members and a public commenter discussed operational details (how many uniform sets employees need, seasonal fluctuations that raise winter charges, and options to permit employees to opt out for an annual reimbursement). Staff said the vendor’s minimum weekly invoice roughly matches current weekly charges (~$90–$95), and that an opt-out by some employees would not necessarily push the account below the vendor minimum because the minimum is set at about 50% of the initial weekly bill.
A committee member moved to recommend approval of the uniform agreement to the Board of Trustees; Daniels seconded the motion and the committee approved the recommendation by voice vote. The committee also reviewed and voted to recommend changes to the personnel policy manual (chapter 5, job classification and clothing/equipment; chapter 10 appearance/behavior) to align handbook language with the new agreement.
Staff said implementation would begin with the current Cintas arrangements for the remainder of the calendar year and any new selection language or opt-out timing would take effect Jan. 1. The committee did not adopt new personnel-policy language at the meeting; it voted to recommend the proposed amendments to the board.

