Council declines to approve crossing-guard contract after procurement, attendance concerns

The York City Council on Tuesday declined to approve an agreement with All City Management Services to provide school crossing-guard services for the 2025–26 school year after extended questions about the procurement process, vendor performance and relative cost.

Councilwoman Betsy Buckingham introduced the resolution authorizing the agreement. Councilwoman Gianescu urged the council to reject the contract, saying the administration had failed to run a timely request-for-proposals (RFP) process and that the vendor’s prior performance included an absentee rate cited at about 15% in a company letter. “This is disappointing,” Gianescu said, adding she had asked about an RFP in February and April and been told it was forthcoming. She said a local vendor had submitted a lower bid and that awarding the contract to a local company could improve coverage.

Business Administrator Robertson said the procurement evaluation considered more than unit cost, including services and benefits to guards. She said the incumbent has provided the service for 10 years, is established nationally and offered a higher hourly pay to guards. Robertson said the low bidder did not currently provide crossing-guard services and would be starting a new line of business if awarded the contract. Robertson also said the incumbent began operations for the school year before council approval to avoid a lapse in coverage and that the city had not experienced a gap in service on the first day of school.

Council members questioned timing and transparency. Gianescu noted the contract’s stated annual cost of $642,978 and said a local bidder’s proposal of $598,680 saved $53,298. Councilors asked whether the procurement followed the city’s Article 136 preference process; Robertson said Article 136 points were applied but did not guarantee award. Robertson also acknowledged a 60-day termination clause in the existing contract and said she had no evidence of a penalty for an early termination under the circumstances described.

Public commenters urged consideration of local vendors and volunteer options. Resident Ray Marshall asked whether volunteer crossing guards had been explored. Manuel Gomez and other residents recommended that council members follow opportunities in the procurement portal to monitor bids and timelines.

After debate, the council called the roll. The motion to approve the contract failed on roll call; the council recorded majority “no” votes and the resolution did not move forward.

Because the incumbent provider was operating when the council declined approval, Robertson said the city would work with the current vendor to ensure coverage while any procurement or transition proceeded. Solicitor Flowers told council members the office would review timing and termination questions if the council sought to pursue a different contractor.

The item will not be approved at this meeting and may return to the council later if the administration presents a revised procurement or recommendation.