Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vendor pitches off‑duty police scheduling system; council asks about costs and controls
Summary
Jobs4Blue described a vendor‑run scheduling and payroll service for off‑duty police details that charges vendors an ~8% fee and promises to front payroll and provide certified payroll reports; councilors pressed the vendor on double‑booking, no‑shows, nonprofit rates and data access.
A private vendor told the Clifton City Council about a system that would manage off‑duty police detail scheduling, collections and certified payroll reporting, promising administrative relief for city staff at no upfront cost.
Mike Babolskin of Jobs4Blue described how the vendor runs a call center and web portal that allows construction and event vendors to book off‑duty police details, pay through the vendor’s escrow/collection system, and receive certified payroll and invoice reports for the municipality. The company proposed an administrative fee retained by Jobs4Blue (described in the presentation as roughly an 8% take on vendor invoices) and said it would front payroll so police are paid on the city’s payroll schedule while the company collects from vendors.
Council members asked how the system handles unexpectedly long jobs, no‑shows, shortages and nonprofit rates. Babolskin said the platform requires post‑job validation by officers (including time entry and optional photo vouchers), can flag vendors with late payments or repeat problems, and supports department‑specified rules (for example, exempting some civic groups from fees). He said the vendor absorbs mistakes that are its fault and offers audit trails, check‑in reminders and automated conflict‑checks so officers cannot double‑book themselves.
Officials also asked how the city would avoid paying the 8% fee when it books internal city jobs; Babolskin said municipal jobs can be handled internally through departmental access to the system so the city would not be charged. Several council members praised the potential to free staff time and reduce receivables, while asking for contract details, department access controls and examples of how nonprofit or municipal jobs would be billed.
No final procurement vote occurred at the meeting; councilors asked administration for the contract terms and a follow‑up briefing.
