Scott County supervisors paused consideration of a proposed custodial contract with an outside vendor after staff and supervisors said they needed more information about staffing levels, collective-bargaining obligations and alternatives.

The pause matters because county custodial work is currently performed by county employees under a collective-bargaining arrangement. County staff told the board that short staffing has degraded building cleaning schedules and prompted a review of options to maintain services while meeting strategic goals and possible state property-tax changes.

At the meeting, county staff member Mahesh said the FBG facility services contract “is not going to be on the agenda for Thursday's meeting” and that staff would return later with more information. William Trish, a county employee who spoke during public comment, asked supervisors to consider the effect on existing staff and noted the union contract. “Our contract is good until 2028,” Trish said, adding, “it is kind of wrong to tell someone in 2020 that you're essential, and now 5 years later, you need to leave.”

Facilities staff described persistent vacancies that have left custodial operations short-staffed for months. Tammy, a county staff member overseeing custodial operations, told the board the department has 10 funded positions across locations, is “currently down 4” and has an average staff tenure of about three years. To cope with staffing limits, custodial crews moved to alternating schedules (Monday/Wednesday/Friday and Tuesday/Thursday) so restroom cleaning continues daily while some office-area cleaning is reduced.

Staff said attempts to recruit have included posting through the county applicant tracking system (governmentjobs.com and scraped to other job boards). Tammy told the board the most recent vacancies occurred quickly and that postings were paused while staff evaluate outsourcing and other options. Supervisors discussed hybrid models, the possibility that partner agencies (waste commission, SECC) would follow county direction, and the trade-offs of carrying additional county staff versus outsourcing.

The board did not take a formal vote. Instead, supervisors directed staff to pause the procurement process and return with additional analysis on staffing, contractual constraints and options for maintaining building cleanliness.

The board’s discussion distinguished between ongoing operational shortfalls, direction to pause the procurement, and potential future formal action when staff return with more information. No contract was awarded or canceled at the July 1 meeting.