Assistant city clerk raises questions about private contracts, guard services and delayed nonprofit funding

Assistant City Clerk Reggie Hill spoke during public comments on June 24 to ask for more detail and transparency about several items on the council agenda, including a contract for unarmed guard services, large downtown street contracts and a multi‑year sanitation contract.

Reggie Hill said he wanted clarity on resolution 01-848 (listed in the meeting materials for unarmed guard services at various city facilities) and whether those guards “are gonna be supporting existing services from MPD, or these are separate services that are gonna be rendered at these places.”

Hill also questioned allocations tied to downtown work and said many residents would prefer investment in drainage projects. “If we poll the city, we would rather see this level of investment go towards drainers,” Hill said. He referenced resolution 21-861 and noted it was larger than a companion contract 21-862, and urged the council to prioritize basic infrastructure.

On contracting with private sanitation providers, Hill raised a specific concern about a proposed $1,500,000 contract with A1 McDuffie Sanitation LLC (referred to in the packet as 01-883) and asked why outsourcing basic public-works services continued when he believed in-house public-works capacity existed. “So I would just like to urge you all to find ways in which we could bring this back to in house. I'm I'm not a fan of privatizing, these resources when we have these existing departments,” Hill said.

Hill also asked about a discretionary award referenced in the packet (Successful Future) that he said had not yet received its approved expenditure and urged the council to ensure there were no delays preventing organizations from receiving allocated resources.

What the council did: the council approved the consent items and a package of resolutions that included procurement for guard services, street work and several purchase orders. The motions were moved, seconded and recorded as passing in the meeting minutes. The council did not provide the additional line‑item detail Hill requested during the June 24 session.

Why it matters: Hill’s remarks highlight citizen interest in how the city allocates funds between capital projects, contracted services and using in‑house staff. He emphasized concerns about transparency of contract locations and the pace of fund disbursement to nonprofits that the council previously approved.

Outstanding clarifications: The council did not provide at the meeting a list of facility locations where unarmed guard services will operate, whether the guards supplement or replace Mobile Police Department coverage, or a timeline for converting contracted sanitation work back to in-house operations. Hill requested those details in his comments.