A $5 million package of third-party consulting contracts was pulled from City Council consideration after the item drew scrutiny from some elected officials over its cost and lack of clarity.<\/p>\n
It’s the second time that contracts for the same group of 17 consultants were withdrawn ahead of an authorization vote this year. Council member Mike Siegel, who flagged<\/a> the contracts for further review this week, said the move represented a “victory for transparency and accountability” at City Hall.<\/p>\n What happened<\/p>\n A recent city solicitation<\/a> for the consulting support<\/a> drew dozens of interested firms, 17 of which were recommended for funding<\/a> back in the spring. However, a May authorization for those contracts was withdrawn by staff before council considered it. At the time, Siegel had sought<\/a> to reduce what was then a $7.5 million contract item and require additional reporting on the city’s approach.<\/p>\n Council members were once again poised to vote on the multi-year, 17-vendor contracting package on Sept. 10 for up to $5 million<\/a>.<\/p>\n The city also didn’t respond to questions about why the May item had been withdrawn, why the proposed funding was cut by one-third in the September item or how services would’ve been affected by that reduction as of press time.<\/p>\n Council member Ryan Alter had called for<\/a> added reporting on the contracts and a $2 million reduction. And on Sept. 9, Siegel asked his colleagues for a closer review of the spending item and said he’d vote it down, with the intent of seeking more information and breaking up the package for potential future approval. Later that day, staff reported the item was instead being withdrawn<\/a>.<\/p>\n Staff said more consultants are needed as city management pursues improvements like its “shared service optimization” project, launched last year<\/a> to improve local government efficiency and find cost savings. Austin would face “significant delays in accessing specialized expertise” for that process without the contracts, staff said. The city didn’t respond to questions about the need to secure outside vendors or why using Austin staffers would delay the optimization project as of press time.<\/p>\n While there are often cases when Austin requires third-party assistance, Siegel said the approach to this batch of contracts hadn’t allowed for proper oversight.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are contracts that we need to enter into to provide outside expertise. But I want that to be the exception, not the rule,” he said in an interview before the item’s withdrawal. “To me, when the city manager brings 17 contracts all at once for one big lump sum amount of $5 million without any detail about what the individual vendors are going to provide, that\u2019s way across the line.”<\/p>\n The city didn’t respond to a request to clarify what specific work the vendors would’ve performed under the contracts by press time.<\/p>\n The context<\/p>\n Austin spent more than $100 million on consulting across most departments last year. The practice drew attention in recent months after an internal audit<\/a> found city departments often weren’t justifying or evaluating<\/a> that third-party support.<\/p>\n Partially in response to the audit, council called for a broad review<\/a> of city contracts and grants in May. That led to more detailed reporting<\/a> this summer on the tens of millions of dollars budgeted<\/a> for consultants in Austin’s spending plans.<\/p>\n Council members have authorized a variety of new or expanded consultant spending this fiscal year, including:<\/p>\n $340,000<\/a> for Austin Water finance services<\/p>\n $1.45 million<\/a> for Austin Emergency Management pandemic cost recovery support<\/p>\n $1.75 million<\/a> for Austin Human Resources market reviews and pay evaluations<\/p>\n $3 million<\/a> for Austin Planning advisory support<\/p>\n $5.69 million<\/a> for citywide public safety consulting<\/p>\n