C | Approval of Change Order for the Minimum Wage Impact Study Professional Services Contract | ||||||||||||
Mr. Clifton stated that Council had a discussion on December 17, 2019 regarding the study and contract and gave direction to proceed and see it through fruition. Council also directed staff to look for possibilities to add a second contractor or co-author to ensure the findings of the study are balanced and objective. Staff was successful in reaching one entity, the Seidman Institute out of Arizona State University, who is willing to join the study and provide input. Staff was able to make amendments to the contract to include the additional entities involvement and work performance, but it will slow the process down and add to the budget by $20,000. Funding sources have been identified internally should Council choose to move forward with the amendment. The three primary purposes of the study are to provide information on existing and future impacts on business, workers, and economic health; provide best practice information to businesses; and provide best practice recommendations to the city to support businesses. Councilmember Aslan expressed concern that the research design has been decided and the new consultant will not be able to change the design elements that are already in motion. He also expressed concern about recent work by Seidman Institute for APS that resulted in political fallout. Lastly, he is not comfortable taking funds from the Office of Labor Standards to fund the amendments. Councilmember McCarthy stated that the Living Wage Coalition had a suggestion of approaching the Grand Canyon Institute which is a suggestion that he supports. He encouraged Council to consider using the Grand Canyon Institute as the second consultant. Mr. Clifton noted that all consulting firms provide information and studies, each could be deeply evaluated, and past work dissected which will always raise red flags because consultants do not always choose their clients, they are in the business of providing a service. It is noteworthy that Rounds Consulting has a working relationship with the Morrison Institute as well as with the Seidman Institute. The reason staff sought out the Seidman Institute was because they were recommended by the Morrison Institute. The following individuals addressed Council in opposition to amending the contract:
Mayor Evans noted that the work product has not yet been seen, conclusions and assumptions are being made even before there is something to evaluate. This is the first of many studies and there needs to be a place to start from to identify what works, what has not worked, and best practices for businesses to move forward. She stated that she wants the study to continue. Councilmember Salas expressed concern that by allowing a change order to bring in an additional firm sets a bad precedent. She urged Council to not spend any more money on the study and wait and see what the findings are. Councilmember Aslan agreed that no additional money should be spent. His ultimate concern is with the study design and he is not convinced that the findings will be worth discussion. He stated that if another firm is brought in they need to be academic in nature, not economic. He indicated that he believes that the entire study should be scrapped. Vice Mayor Shimoni agreed stating that given the affiliations associated with the consultants he believes that the process should just start over. He asked if Council is able to cancel the contract. Mr. Solomon stated that any work that has been done by the consultant would have to be paid for and the contract allows for cancellation with a 30 day out. |
|||||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Charlie Odegaard, seconded by Councilmember Regina Salas to reject the change order and leave the original professional services contract as is. | |||||||||||||
Vote: 4 - 3 | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
A break was held from 7:47 p.m. through 7:56 p.m. | |||||||||||||