Colorado Springs council approves $458,000 for South Nevada security

The Colorado Springs City Council voted 7-2 Aug. 11 to approve $458,000 from the Retail Marijuana Tax Fund for a contract with the Colorado Springs Urban Renewal Authority to provide security services in the South Nevada corridor, the council’s meeting record shows. The record does not establish that the contract has been executed, services have begun or money has been spent.

The appropriation brings planned funding to $758,000, including $300,000 previously appropriated, the ordinance says. The additional money will come from the marijuana-tax fund’s available balance. The ordinance identifies the purpose only as security services in the corridor.

The Urban Renewal Authority is the contracting entity. In an earlier council discussion, URA Executive Director Jeriah Walker said the intended provider was Fidelis Security Solutions. Walker described a proposed on-the-ground presence that would communicate with the Colorado Springs Police Department and escalate calls requiring police intervention. He said Fidelis employed former police officers and provided de-escalation training. The proposal also could include a CSPD-funded drone; if that arrangement changed, Walker said the money would instead fund “more boots on the ground,” Walker told the council.

Earlier discussions described the arrangement as a temporary, three-year runway while redevelopment continues, rather than a finalized performance-based contract. The records reviewed do not specify an executed term, staffing level, patrol or shift schedule, deployment sites, oversight body, reporting schedule, baseline, call-reduction target, enforceable benchmarks, incentives or penalties. Walker said the approach could be revisited with Fidelis if it did not make a difference, but the discussion did not establish a documented cancellation right.

At a July 13 work session, URA staff discussed fewer police calls and incidents, new development and stronger business investment as possible measures of success. Councilmember Ken Casey called the contract an “inherently government task” and questioned the lack of specific outcomes, metrics and performance incentives or penalties, according to the work-session record. Those measures were discussed as possible evaluation tools, not identified in the Aug. 11 appropriation as adopted contract requirements.

Supporters described the funding as a temporary response to public-safety needs and limited police staffing. Councilmember Donaldson said the police department could not use the money to fill vacancies because too few applicants were moving through the hiring process, and characterized private security as a stopgap rather than an ideal long-term solution.

Councilmember Gold opposed the appropriation, saying the money would be better spent “actually housing people instead of for private security.” Gold also raised concerns about people experiencing homelessness, arguing that the arrangement could make their movement easier and push people into another council district. The approved measure does not include a housing component or establish that the contract will move, target or otherwise affect people experiencing homelessness.