Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Finance committee approves one-year uniform management contract with Galls, LLC

3750339 · June 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On June 9, 2025, the Madison Finance Committee voted unanimously to approve a competitively selected one-year contract, with an optional additional year, with Galls, LLC for the Uniform Management Program for Fire and Police; alderpersons asked about sweat-free ordinance compliance and the purchasing cooperative used.

The Madison Finance Committee on June 9, 2025, voted unanimously to approve a one-year competitively selected service contract, with an option for an additional one-year term, with Galls, LLC for the Uniform Management Program for Fire and Police.

Alder Rivera asked whether Galls complied with the city's sweat-free purchase ordinance and whether using the Sourcewell purchasing cooperative yielded a monetary benefit compared with issuing a local RFP. Dave, a staff member on the call, said: "My understanding from purchasing staff is that, yes, they are in compliance." On the purchasing-cooperative question, Dave said: "It was a monetary benefit," and added he would have purchasing staff follow up with specific numbers.

The committee discussion noted the contract is a competitively selected service agreement that uses the Sourcewell cooperative pricing. Rivera said she has a longstanding interest in sweat-free procurement and requested additional follow-up information, particularly about rental-uniform contracts that other agencies use. Dave said whether the city will use a purchasing cooperative for a rental uniform contract was "we don't know yet on that." He offered to have purchasing staff provide the specific price comparisons and identify the buyer who handled the procurement.

The motion to adopt the contract was moved and seconded, and, with no objection, the committee recorded a unanimous vote in favor.

The contract was described in the meeting as Legistar 88,495 and as authorizing the mayor and clerk to execute the agreement; no dollar amounts or contract documents were provided during the committee discussion, and staff offered to provide pricing details after the meeting.