A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for security personnel services in City facilities, excluding Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for $25 million and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, for security personnel services in City facilities (GENRL-202161226-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Kniech called this item out at the 12-13-21 meeting for a one-week postponement to 12-20-21.
and witnessing from an unbiased place what exactly is happening every day in these shelters. And so just wanted to put that out there and we'll be in communication. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Council Member Can each go ahead with your comments on resolution one, four, four, four? Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. This is a contract for security services here in our city facilities and I think maybe up to 40 some facilities. So Human services, different buildings. And we have had some history with our service contracts in the city recently, as we saw at the airport where the janitorial staff went on strike, we actually had disruptions to the workplace. The disruptions included, you know, a work stoppage, two separate days. And, you know, in spite of the efforts of everyone at the airport to to provide backup disruptions due to labor unrest are bad for our city and they're bad for business. And so one of the first priorities I have when I look at our service contracts is to make sure, are we doing everything we can to avoid economic disruption? Are we doing everything we can to live up to our city's values in those contracts? Some things are within our control. To set terms for other things have to be determined between the workers and the employers outside the city's control. But the important thing always is that there is a commitment to do those negotiations and those discussions and that we as a city have assurance that there's not going to be disruption. We had a conversation in committee about the Securitas security contract a couple of weeks ago, and we received numerous reassurances that there would be good dialog with the workers and with their representatives, and that has just not occurred yet. I'm disappointed to hear that there is a lot of confusion among workers, and this happens when contracts turn over, right? There is a policy now that says you have a right to keep your job, but there are questions among those workers about the terms that they're going to be keeping those jobs under. And the best way to avoid the disruption that can occur with workers maybe getting cold feet, not being sure if they want to stay on, not being sure what's happening is to work in partnership. It is to sit at the table. It is to work together and to make sure that all the communication is as clear as it can be. To make sure that the parties understand what the commitments have been made and that those commitments are going to be kept and that the workers will have a seat at the table . I'm disappointed that those things have not occurred. And so with that, I am asking for this council to, you know, delay this for one week in the hopes that this company will sit down with the workers representatives and assure us in their next appearance before this council that we will not have disruptions because the conversations and the collaboration have not occurred. This is security contracting. It's not janitorial. It's much more complex to find workers to back up and to be in place. We just can't risk another round of disruption in one of our service contracts where it is avoidable. Where good conversations and good dialog can clarify communication, clarify intent, and wherever possible, get to as much certainty as possible before this council is asked to vote. So for those reasons, I hope that my colleagues will stay engaged in the week that intervenes here and that they will express their similar support for this dialog to continue. This does not require a vote tonight. This is a special motion that we created when we moved our contracts from two reading bills to one reading bill. And so I think it's an important tool. I don't use it often, but this is an example where I think more partnership and dialog is needed. I understand we're near the end of the year and this is an important contract and we always wish the administration brought these things a little quicker to us so we weren't quite under such a tight timeline. But I think the importance of avoiding disruptions that are foreseeable and preventable is important enough to make sure the parties understand the seriousness of getting to the table and talking. So with that, I think the Council President for accepting my motion tonight and invoking of this rule, and I look forward to hearing that some dialog and communication clarifications have been made so that we can feel good that this contract turnover will occur smoothly. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. I thank you. Council president. I want to thank Councilmember for her comments. I want the record to know that she is not alone. I agree and I'm sure others do too. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Council Resolution 144, four. We'll be back before Council for consideration on Monday, December 20th. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Councilmember Hines, go ahead with your comments on Resolution 1438.