The Department of Administrative Services told the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 22 that it recommends hiring five service maintenance worker I city employees to provide custodial and general maintenance for the city's new 130,000‑square‑foot facility rather than continuing an external vendor contract.

Department staff said the recommendation follows an internal staffing study and meetings with project managers and the mayor. The request would fill two previously budgeted service maintenance worker II positions (including a foreman vacancy created by an internal promotion) and add five service maintenance worker I roles to perform custodial duties and basic maintenance tasks such as changing light bulbs. The presentation noted the city's civil service process requires a competitive test for these civil‑service positions and the administration intends to start that process in October so hires could be in place in December or January.

Staff presented an explicit cost comparison: the current vendor contract that covers City Hall, the Senior Center and the police department was described as generating about $68,000 in contract cost annually for roughly 48,000 square feet under the existing scope. For the new 130,000 square foot facility, the vendor estimate was described as roughly $400,000 per year at an $8.25 rate (presentation language). Estimated staffing costs for five city employees were shown as about $500,000 a year, inclusive of salaries and benefits and assuming three hires at the starting step and two at a higher step; that figure assumes family insurance benefits are included in projections and was described as a “maximum” projection that could be lower depending on employee insurance elections and pay step placement. Staff noted the five positions are steelworker bargaining‑unit positions and that the union contract will be renegotiated this year.

Administration reasons for in‑house staffing emphasized operational control: employees would have “higher ownership” and be available for emergency response per union obligations, could help with facility rentals and room setups, and could perform simple maintenance while on custodial rounds. Staff also said city employees would simplify oversight compared with managing a vendor whose personnel and schedules can vary, and they would address access requirements for secure police areas; the presentation referenced a certification or screening requirement for access to police areas and said employees must pass checks and training before obtaining access.

Council members questioned alternatives and continuity: Councilmember Schnetzer asked about a hybrid model using vendors for non‑sensitive areas and city staff for secured areas; staff said a hybrid model had been discussed but could increase scheduling complexity and overall cost and reduce the single‑point management the department prefers. Councilmember Jones asked whether there would be a gap between the vendor contract and new hires; staff replied the current vendor contract includes six‑month renewal clauses and the department expects no breach or financial penalty related to terminating/renewing vendor service during the transition. Councilmember McGregor asked who cleans the police station now and whether there had been problems with the vendor; staff said current services are at a low service level for existing facilities and that the new facility will require a higher level of service that the administration believes is better provided by city employees.

The committee did not take formal action at the Sept. 22 meeting; staff framed the presentation as a budget preview and confirmed there would be no supplemental appropriation requested immediately because salary savings in current accounts were expected to cover the start of hiring. The administration stated it would begin the civil‑service hiring process in October and stagger onboarding to match facility opening.

Speakers quoted in this article are the Department of Administrative Services director (presenting), Facility Superintendent Adam Grove (noted in the presentation), Chief Spence (referred to regarding secure police area access), and council members who questioned the staffing proposal: Councilmembers Schnetzer, Jones and McGregor.