Thurston County approves janitorial contract renegotiation after procurement concerns

Thurston County commissioners approved an amended consent agenda March 3 after a brief debate about a renegotiated janitorial contract and whether the county’s procurement rules were followed. Chair Ty Mentzer called the meeting to order and the board approved the agenda as amended.

Resident John Pettit told the board he was not opposed to contracting but said the county’s procurement policy requires formal competitive bidding for higher-value contracts and urged commissioners to “follow the rules.” Pettit warned that failure to follow procurement procedures had previously led to audit findings and financial consequences.

County staff and the director of Central Services said the janitorial contract is being executed under a statewide/cooperative contract that staff said is competitively procured by the contracting agency and available for counties to “piggyback” under state law. Central Services Director Kim Burnett explained that cooperative agreements allow local governments to use contracts awarded by other public agencies and that the county’s procurement policy explicitly encourages the practice.

Leonard Hernandez, the county manager, and Kim Burnett said the county negotiated service-level adjustments that reduced daytime janitorial coverage and trash pickup frequency in some county buildings to achieve savings. Burnett said the changes include eliminating the daytime porter at the county courthouse and reducing trash emptying in two county buildings from five days a week to three, shifting some duties to facilities maintenance; staff estimated response times for urgent requests would rise from about five minutes to roughly 15–20 minutes. Hernandez and Burnett said those changes produced a net savings of about $81,000 a year (staff also described a gross savings figure of about $100,000 tied to the service changes before accounting for other adjustments).

After discussion, the board approved the consent agenda (items 1–19 with items 13 and 14 removed as previously agreed) by voice vote. No formal vote tally was recorded in the transcript for the consent-item approval beyond the stated voice votes and “motion carries.”

Why this matters: the exchange highlights a recurring tension for local governments between using cooperative/state contracts to gain efficiency and ensuring local procurement rules and audit requirements are visibly met. Public comment flagged the potential for future state audit scrutiny, while staff said the cooperative approach saved time and money and is consistent with county policy. The board did not reverse the contract; staff characterized the move as a budgetary savings measure and said details were discussed as part of broader budget work.