Committee refers proposed ABM parking contract back to oversight committee after debate over off‑duty police costs and term

The Committee of the Whole on Tuesday voted to refer a proposed contract with ABM for management of the city’s municipal parking system back to the Administration & Enterprise Oversight Committee for further review.

Council Member Cashman, who brought the concern forward, said the contract entailed substantial spending that merited more scrutiny. “This contract is for professional management services for our municipal parking system. It's up to $182,000,000 for a five year period,” Cashman said, noting that amounted to roughly $33,000,000 per year and had immediate budget implications.

In questioning and debate, members focused on the contract’s security line items and how the city accounts for payments to off‑duty Minneapolis Police Department officers. Council Member Wansley cited figures he said were in staff materials and told colleagues the contract included roughly $8.2 million for security in recent years, of which about $900,000 went to off‑duty MPD and $200,000 to off‑duty traffic management last year. “That is really concerning,” Wansley said.

Alan Klugman, director of the Traffic and Parking Services Division, disputed the suggestion that the city’s general fund was paying those officers directly. He told the committee the parking operator pays vendors, including off‑duty officers, from parking fund revenue and that the city’s management fee to the operator is modest. Klugman also said the solicitation established a three‑year minimum term with two one‑year extensions and that staff did not have a way to change that term without rerunning the RFP.

Supporters of moving the contract forward warned that delaying renewal could jeopardize jobs and operations. Vice Chair Palmisano said postponing action could put employees’ livelihoods at risk and noted some components of the operation—credit‑card processing and other functions—were more efficient when run by a large operator.

Members ultimately voted to refer the item so AEO staff could pursue follow‑up work on questions raised, including whether shorter terms could be achieved and whether alternative approaches—such as buyback arrangements for contracting sworn officers—could be incorporated in the contract language.

What happens next: The committee’s clerk recorded the referral to the Administration & Enterprise Oversight Committee to be considered at its Sept. 15 meeting. Staff were asked to provide follow‑up memos clarifying RFP terms, the accounting flow for off‑duty MPD and any options for modifying security and traffic‑management provisions within the current procurement.