St. Petersburg is changing towing companies for the first time in 32 years, and Council member Mike Harting is questioning how the city awarded the contract.

The city’s contract with Tri-J Co. Towing and Recovery expires Sept. 30. Harting told City Council Sept. 17 that the administration plans to award the work to another company without a Council vote.

“I bring this up for just the attention of my fellow council members, and I bring it up without enough knowledge because it seems to be somewhat time-sensitive,” Harting said.

The contract is worth about $15,000 in direct city spending, below the $100,000 threshold requiring Council approval. But the contractor also collects payments from drivers and insurance companies for police-directed tows.

“The contract itself, as I understand it, is not really that valuable to the city,” Harting said. “But the value in the contract, as I understand it, is in the services that the citizens or the insurance companies then pay for.”

Harting said that business could be worth millions of dollars and that drivers could also pay more. Pinellas County caps a standard police-directed tow at $153. Harting said Tri-J bid $130, compared with $150 from the company selected by the city.

“So we’re going to be charging the citizens more as a result of our relationship with the tow truck company, and this is thousands of cars a year,” Harting said.

Harting said the solicitation initially included towing large city vehicles, including fire trucks and sanitation vehicles, and that Tri-J submitted the lowest bid. He said the heavy-vehicle work was later separated and the bids recalculated, resulting in another company winning the contract.

It was unclear during the meeting when that change occurred. The city’s procurement code prohibits changing bid provisions after bids are opened if the change would prejudice fair competition. It also prohibits dividing purchases to avoid procurement thresholds. Harting did not allege the city violated either provision.

Council members also questioned why the city used an invitation to bid rather than a request for proposals (RFP), which it used for towing services in 2021.

A procurement staff member said an invitation to bid is generally used for a defined commodity, while an RFP is used when the scope is still being developed. Asked why the city changed its approach, staff said they would look into it.

Harting also questioned why the contract would not come before Council: “I’m glad to be wrong on this, I think historically, this has come to Council,” he said. “I have been told that this definitely won’t be coming to Council.”

Council member Gina Driscoll asked that the City Attorney’s Office participate in Harting’s meeting with staff, and Council Chair Lisset Hanewicz asked the administration to provide the current invitation to bid, all bids received and the 2021 RFP for towing.

Harting was not available for comment before the publication of this story.