A request for information returned zero contracts in effect between City of DeKalb and Arcenio Cruz for janitorial services he provided during calendar years 2018-2025*.
Cruz wasn’t a city employee. He was a vendor, an independent provider of janitorial services. He sent the city several invoices each month. According to annual city treasurer’s reports, Cruz received payments totaling as much as $52,600 in a single year for his work and averaged $43,400 annually across the 8-year period examined.
And the city is unable to produce a contract covering any part of the time frame.
Such an arrangement likely violates city rules. According to DeKalb’s purchasing manual, staff must obtain budgeted services via contracts that are signed by authorized representatives of both city and vendor. It’s easy to see why: a duly-executed agreement contains important provisions like confidentiality agreements and insurance coverage requirements; it also establishes who provides supplies and equipment, and sets terms for contract cancellation.
Probably the work should have been bid and/or approved publicly by the city council, too. Annual payment totals met the $20,000 threshold that triggers a council vote.
It’s too late for that vote now. Arcenio Cruz’s name disappeared from invoice reports in late 2025.
However, the aforementioned records request has yielded a current contract with DeKalb Janitorial, signed at the end of 2024, for a bit under $15,000 per year.
The documentation doesn’t explain why the city signed a contract with DeKalb Janitorial but never with predecessor Cruz. It’s also not clear why the expected cost under the new contract is only one-third that of the old “informal” arrangement for the same type of work, nor whether staff can be expected to bring the matter to council when costs cross that $20,000 threshold.
*Arcenio Cruz actually appears as a payee in annual treasurer’s reports — on and off — as far back as 2011. I selected the 2018-2025 time frame for the records request because it’s the longest unbroken period of his tenure and it follows the initial 2015 publication of the city’s purchasing manual. Also, the city staff who allowed the arrangement are still employed so accountability, theoretically at least, remains an option.