HomeMy WebLinkAboutCreate a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Review and Make Re 2000 Main Street,
� Huntington Beach,CA
f t� _•• 92648
; City of Huntington Beach APPROVED 7-0
`-LINTY r r`
File #: 26-457 MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Travis Hopkins, City Manager
VIA: Travis K. Hopkins, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Carlina Thomas, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject:
Approve the Recommendation by the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to End the Request for
Proposal (RFP) for Creative Strategy, Branding, Merchandising, Media, Communications, and
Film Industry Development Services Process and Not Award a Contract
Statement of Issue:
In April, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Creative Strategy, Branding,
Merchandising, Media, Communications, and Film Industry Development Services. At the April 21
City Council meeting, the City Council established an Ad Hoc Committee to review the proposals
received in response to the RFP. After all parties conducted independent evaluations, City staff and
the Ad Hoc Committee met to discuss the submitted proposals.
Following its review, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends discontinuing the current RFP process and
not awarding a contract at this time to allow for additional evaluation, refinement, and development of
the City's overall strategies and objectives related to these services.
Financial Impact:
There is no financial impact to the City as a result of the recommended action.
Recommended Action:
Accept the Ad Hoc Committee recommended action to discontinue (close) the RFP process.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommended action and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) in April 2026 for Creative Strategy, Branding,
Merchandising, Media, Communications, and Film Industry Development Services. The City received
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/13/2026
powered by Legistar"464
File #: 26-457 MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026
eleven proposals from firms offering a broad range of services and strategic approaches.
To evaluate the proposals, the City Council formed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Mayor Pro
Tern Butch Twinning and Councilmembers Pat Burns and Don Kennedy.
Following its review, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends closing the current RFP without awarding a
contract at this time. The recommendation is intended to preserve and further develop the creative
concepts and opportunities identified through the RFP process while allowing for additional planning,
coordination, and refinement of the City's long-term objectives.
The Committee believes the initiatives outlined in the RFP can be more effectively developed and
implemented through additional collaboration with City partners, greater utilization of internal City
staff resources, and a more targeted and strategic use of outside consulting services.
Environmental Status:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), administrative activities of governments that will
not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment do not constitute a project.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/13/2026
powered by Legistar"465
From: drvnersonCalearthlink.net
To: 5uoolementalcomm(asurfcity-hb,org
Subject: General Comment:Lack of Transparency and Rampant Cronyism
Date: Saturday,May 16,2026 2:40:47 PM
The lack of transparency by this city council just continues,as does the questionable
management of city funds:
• Councilmembers McKeon, Burns Van der Mark,former councilmember Peterson,and
former city attorney Gates were all fined by the FPPC for failure to disclose one or more
gifts from the Pacific Air Show in their filings. (This is the very same Pacific Air Show that
got an egregious settlement agreement approved by all of the above people except Mr.
Peterson.) Mr. McKeon tries to blame this on a city agreement with Pacific Air Show
despite the fact that the violation took place before he was a council member.
• The ad hoc committee composed of city councilmembers has apparently just decided to
scrap the RFP for PR services that,just several weeks ago,they were prepared to award
to Wolfhaus for$720,000. I guess the public outcry over cronyism was finally enough to
make them reconsider, but if the current decision is that there are"more efficient ways
to do this",shouldn't that have been figured out before even considering the sweetheart
deal? Make you wonder what else slides through if there's no public outcry.
• The city has been fined$170,000 plus a monthly fine of$50,000 for every month it does
not have a compliant housing plan. HB was fortunate to avoid back-dated fines that
could have been as high as$100,000 per month going back to March of 2023.
• The city is staring down a fine of$960,000 for legal fees in the loss of the book banning
case,which the city council continues to pursue despite resounding losses in the vote
on Measure A,wherein the citizens clearly stated they did not want book banning.
• The city council decided to take$15,000 away from local charities All for Kids and
Robyne's Nest and give that money to Save the Brave,a Temecula-based non-profit
without disclosing that Councilmember Andrew Gruel is executive director of the
organization.While both All for Kids and Robyn's Nest have a documented history of
providing services in Huntington Beach,Save the Brave has no such track record. Per
their web site,they host an annual event at Sea Legs and have a planned fundraiser at
Mr.Gruel's restaurant.Additionally,Save the Brave's program of treating PTSD via fishing
trips with other veterans is not recognized at a valid treatment for PTSD by the VA—the
world's leading authority on treatment of PTSD. Nor is there any documentation of how
many HB veterans are being served.Given that the Oak View community is the reason
that HB qualifies for the CDBG grant money, it would seem to be logical to use that grant
money to support the Oak View community, as both All for Kids and Robyne's Nest do.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Lack of transparency,cronyism,and a willingness to use public
money to advance their personal agendas seems to me to be the common thread.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION - Meeting Date: 5/19/2026 Item No. 16 (26-457)
We deserve better.
David Rynerson
Huntington Beach
From: Paula Schaefer
To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);5uoolementalcommCa)surfcitv-hb.orq
Subject: Vote YES on Agenda Item 26-457
Date: Monday,May 18,2026 2:32:47 PM
Mayor and Council Members:
Vote Yes on agenda item to close the RFP process for the Creative Strategy proposals.
This will put a stop to the ridiculous contracting efforts that you approved in the past few
months. I hope that there are no more $30,000 contracts to the likes of Wolffhaus in the future
to avoid the public relations nightmare that you brought on yourselves. I am pleased to see that
the ad-hoc committee has proposed disbanding.
This was a tremendous waste of the City Council's time and City Staff time. Unfortunately,
for the 11 firms responding to the RFP, you have also wasted their time.
Paula A. Schaefer
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach,CA
tz: 92648
City of Huntington Beach
APPROVED 4-3.
,P rat•"�or'r (GRUEL,VAN DER MARK,
WILLIAMS-NO)
File#: 26-373 MEETING DATE: 4/21/2026
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Subject:
Item Submitted by Mayor McKeon to Create a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to review and
make recommendations on the Request for Proposals for the Creative Strategy, Branding,
Merchandising, Media, Communications, and Film Industry Development Systems
Recommended Action:
Create a City Council Ad Hoc Committee consisting of three Council Members to review the process,
received proposals and provide a recommendation on the approach for this project.
Attachment(s):
1. McKeon Ad Hoc Committee to Review Creative Strategy Proposals - Memo
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/15/2026
powered by LegistarTM
423
f �r CITY OF
3` 3 = HUNTINGTON BEACH
to
' -a--.-ry► ' City Council Meeting — Council Member Items Report
To: City Council
From: Casey McKeon, Mayor
Date: April 21, 2026
Subject: Create a City Council Ad-hoc Committee to review and make
recommendations on the Request for Proposals for the Creative
Strategy, Branding, Merchandising, Media, Communications,
and Film Industry Development Systems.
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a firm to build Creative Direction
Strategy, Branding, Merchandising, Media, Communications, and Film Commission
Systems into the City and train City Staff to operate these systems. This RFP is
requesting qualified firms to provide a methodology for building: a creative strategy &
communication infrastructure, branding approach with ownership of the City's Intellectual
Property, merchandising program, media and communications programs, and film
commission with industry attraction strategies.
The program provides the City many opportunities to improve communication with
Huntington Beach residents, businesses, and visitors. This includes revenue generation
and capture for the City and businesses.
I propose creating a City Council Ad-hoc committee consisting of three Council Members
to review the process, received proposals and provide a recommendation on the
approach for this project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Create a City Council Ad-hoc Committee to evaluate the RFP and provide
recommendations anticipated to be complete in 30 to 45 days days.
2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I www.huntingtonbeachca.gov
424
From: ghari engel
To: 5uoolementalcomm(asurfcity-hb.orq
Subject: FORMAL FILING:Supplemental Communication for Items 26-324 and 27(Meeting Date:April 21,2026)
Date: Thursday,April 16,2026 10:57:02 AM
Attachments: JCW1.onq
JCW2.onq
TW1.onq
You don't often get email from sengelhb@yahoo.com.J earn why this is important
Dear City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager,
I am writing to formally place on the public record for the April 21, 2026, City Council
meeting my objection to the ongoing procurement process involving Wolffhaus (File
26-324 / RFP #140902).
The administrative record for this project contains a pattern of"last-minute"
justifications that suggest a coordinated effort to bypass city and federal guardrails to
ensure a predetermined outcome for a specific vendor.
1. Misuse of Federal Office and Illegal Endorsement (Item 26-324) The city's
"technical justification" for this vendor relies on a letter from Kristin Walker, who
explicitly identifies himself as the Reliability Technology Branch Chief at the
Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. By utilizing his
Department of Defense (DoD) title and 25 years of federal experience to
endorse a private enterprise, Mr. Walker has committed a prima facie violation
of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. The city cannot legally accept a bid predicated on a
violation of federal ethics laws.
2. Coordinated Administrative Irregularities and Cleanup Public record disclosures
indicate a frantic effort to bypass city business requirements. The Wolffhaus
business license application was received on April 6, 2026—the same afternoon
the Walker letter arrived—yet was backdated to February 1st. Furthermore, the
use of an automotive tire shop address (17011 Beach Blvd) as the headquarters
for a $720,000 media audit should have triggered an immediate due diligence
stop. Instead, it appears the city is willing to do whatever it takes to justify hiring
a shell entity.
3. Objection to Political Interference via Ad-hoc Committee (Item 27) I formally
object to the proposal in Item 27 to create a City Council Ad-hoc Committee to
review RFP proposals. Given the documented federal ethics violations and
licensing irregularities, the vetting process must remain with non-partisan,
professional City Staff. Allowing a political committee to "hand-pick" a vendor
whose entry into this process is already ethically compromised would constitute
a gross failure of the city's procurement integrity.
Formal Demand: I demand that the Kristin Walker letter be struck from the record and
that any vendor utilizing illegal federal endorsements or irregular licensing be
disqualified. If the city persists in utilizing these compromised documents to justify a
$720,000 expenditure, I will proceed with a formal referral to the Department of
Defense Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Command Counsel at Redstone
Arsenal.
Respectfully,
Shari Engel, Resident, Huntington Beach
From: Russell Neal
To: suoolementalcomm( surfcity-hb.orq
Subject: Creative Contract
Date: Thursday,April 16,2026 1:39:29 PM
Upon reviewing this issue, my greatest concern is the urgency of having a process in place that
is at least "good enough" to capture the value from July 4 activities in HB. A perfect, long
term plan can come later, but it would be a shame if whoever gets the contract cannot deliver a
short-term system that can be implemented in time to capture the opportunities offered by this
once-in-a-lifetime event.
Perhaps a limited scope short term directed procurement could be coupled with a longer term
RFP.
Russ Neal
Huntington Beach
From: Carol D,
To: 5uoolementalcomrr a)surfcity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)
Subject: Strong NO for Agenda#27,#26-373
Date: Friday,April 17,2026 6:47:16 AM
Dear Mayor McKeon and City Council Members,
I am strongly opposed to Agenda#27, 26-373, which would create a 3-member ad hoc
committee to review and recommend the bids for the$720,000 project initially proposed by
Wolffhaus (one of the bidders!)to provide PR, branding, media, merchandising for the city.
This reeks of cronyism. First, you accept an audit for$30,000 from an acquaintance of one of
the city council members who clearly does not have the background needed for such a multi-
faceted undertaking. Then to ensure that this contract is awarded to Wolffhaus (or possibly
another friend?), you are now recommending a 3-member committee to decide which firm to
use for this large expenditure! Let me guess,will this committee consist of Casey, Pat and
Don, who all appear ready to give Wolffhaus the contract?
I urge you to consult with ALL members of the council regarding this decision on how to use
our taxpayer money. Be transparent with the public and issue the contract to the best firm
with the expertise to accomplish the objectives.
Thank you,
Carol Daus
30-year Huntington Beach resident
From: Tina Virav
To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFFI;Suoolementalcomm(aa surfdty-hb.org
Cc: Butchvirav;Nelson And Sara Wescott
Subject: APRIL 21 COUNCIL MEETING,ITEM 27 26-373
Date: Friday,April 17,2026 1:01:47 PM
Attachments: RFP RESPONSE.doot
You don't often get email from tinaviray@verizon.net. Learn why this is imoortant
Honorable Councilmembers attached is a document that discusses the City's brand,
Surf City, Huntington Beach. We understand that an RFP is under consideration to
recreate a City brand and hope that we can provide some insight to the discussion.
Thank you,
Owners
Surf City Store
Tina Viray, Nelson Wescott, Sally Wescott, Asterio Viray
k%sleadastoe Btu)
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
At last week's council meeting my partner (Sally Wescott) and
presented corrections and clarifications to the document presented by
Wolffhaus. I would like to address the current actions regarding
"branding"of the city.
Thirty plus years ago the City decided to brand "Surf City, Huntington
Beach". We, Tina Viray and Nelson Wescott were licensed to create,
promote, and merchandise that brand. We have done so with great
success. Millions of branded products have been sold.
Just as Mercedes, McDonalds, or Volkswagen would not discard a
proven brand for a new one, neither should the City.
In the beginning, we had close coordination with Ron Hagan and Jim
Engle of Community Services. Over the years, through attrition and
reassigning responsibilities for coordination through various City
departments, that coordination has diminished and we in essence
operate on our own.
Given the fact that the City has a successful, trademark protected
brand; our question is "How does this RFP affect our license agreement?"
"Are there things you would like to see us improve?" We have always and
continue to be open to new ideas and ways to improve.
I believe the elements included in the RFP exist in HB in the form of the
Visitor's Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, BID, Beach Concessionaires,
Surf City Store, and Matt Liffreing Media Services.
Thank you, Tina Viray, Nelson Wescott, Sally Wescott, Asterio Viray
From: Shirlee Krause
To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);citv.manager surfcity-hb.orq;suoolementalcomm(alsurfcity-hb.orQ
Subject: Unbelievable RFP Ad Hoc Committee!
Date: Friday,April 17,2026 3:38:54 PM
Good Afternoon:
Do you all actually believe the majority of Huntington Beach ("HB")residents just fell off the
turnip truck backwards -OR- do you think we do not understand the difference between the
professional steps involved when objectively considering all who respond to an Request For
Proposal ("RFP") or those who appoint the fox to babysit the henhouse?
Who is the "Einstein" on HB's City Council ("HBCC") who thought up the plan to create an
Ad Hoc Committee ("AHC") instead of having the well-qualified City's staff decide among all
proposals submitted?! Your AHC, which would be comprised of certain City Council
Members ("CCM") is akin to appointing relatives, business partners, et al., to decide who
walks away with $750,000!
I (as well as all the people I plan to share this ridiculous scenario with) see what appears to be
either total ignorance on the part of our CCM or something I'd rather not put into words!
You all must realize that you shouldn't be playing hard and fast with taxpayers' money--as
seen too often by past lawsuit stupidities! You may be pulling the wool over some HB
residents' eyes, but not all of us were "born yesterday!" In fact, I believe there are many HB
residents who have actually submitted proposals to many RFPs (as have I) or have evaluated
them for governments (state and federal), state universities, and corporations who follow strict
RFP procedures.
I shall leave you with the thought that all your future endeavors to put aside proven,tried and
true business practices will be closely monitored by those who care about the welfare of ALL
HB residents!
Sincerely,
Shirlee Krause
HB Homeowner and
29-Year Resident
From: Paula Schaefer
To: McKeon,Casey;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);suoolementalcomm( surfcity-hb.orq
Subject: Re:NO on Agenda Item#26-373 Creative Strategy RFP
Date: Saturday,April 18,2026 10:21:02 AM
Mayor,
Your process of subverting staffs role to perform the initial review of the proposals negates
any effort of transparency that you think is achieved by having the entire city council vote. It's
obvious that the full city council will vote on this matter-that's the role of the city council.
Why don't you follow typical RFP process and allow staff to review any proposals with only
the acceptable proposals forwarded to the city council for a vote?
On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 10:48 PM McKeon, Casey <Casey.McKeon@surfcity-hh.org>wrote:
Thank you for your email Paula.
All Council members will of course be involved in the process The Ad Hoc committee
would allow three Members to be able to discuss and review the proposals with Staff and
provide assistance with the review process.
The Committee would simply provide a recommendation and not make the final decision
which would of course be made by the entire Council at a Public City Council meeting for
full transparency.
Have a great evening.
Casey McKeon
Mayor
City Council
Office: (714) 536 - 5553
Cell: (714) 794—5322
casey.mckeon@surfcity-hb.org
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,
CA 92648
On Apr 17, 2026, at 1:16 PM, Paula Schaefer<pas92649@gmail.com>wrote:
Mayor and Council Members:
The RFP process reeks of cronyism and patronage using City taxpayer
funds to burnish your image prior to upcoming elections.
To date, you have tried to ram a $720,000 contract as a sole-source
process. When the sole-source effort failed - spectacularly - you
reluctantly issued an RFP. However, rather than relying on City staff to
conduct the initial review of any submitted proposals (which would be
the appropriate procedure) you plan to form an ad-hoc committee of City
Council members who will review the proposals.
These actions do not engender any confidence this entire process has
been given any careful thought or planning. Finally, if approved by the
entire City Council, it will solidify the public's perception that this RFP is a
"done deal," and the eventual contract will go to Wolffhaus.
Is this really how to "run the City like a business?" Have you considered
the reputational damage to the City of your efforts to date?
Paula A. Schaefer
Paula A. Schaefer
From: Pat Goodman
To: McKeon.Casey;suoDlementalcomm()surfcity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)
Cc: Vigliotta.Mike;Hopkins.Travis
Subject: Please Pull Item# 18 Approve and Adopt Minutes,Correct Item#27,Approve#28-26-379
Date: Sunday,April 19,2026 10:22:54 AM
Dear Mayor McKeon and City Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to address three specific items at Tuesday's meeting.
Item #18 - Approve and Adopt Minutes (April 7, 2026)
Please pull Item #18 from the consent calendar and correct the record before
approving the April 7, 2026 minutes. The minutes attribute a statement to
Mayor McKeon that the Wolffhaus contract was not subject to a Request for
Proposals. That statement is incorrect, and the minutes should reflect the
following corrections:
1. "City Charter Section 13" does not exist. This citation must be
deleted or corrected. I could not find such section that governs
professional services procurement.
2. Budget status does not eliminate the RFP requirement. Under
HBMC §3.03.060, competitive proposals from at least three qualified
firms are required regardless of whether funds are available.
3. No specific FY 2025-26 budget line item was identified in any
supporting document or discussion to fund this contract. The public is
entitled to know precisely where this money is budgeted.
Council members are free to speak their minds, but when statements entered
into the public record are factually incorrect, the minutes must reflect the
accurate legal and factual record. I ask that these corrections be annotated
in the April 7 minutes.
Item #27 - Ad Hoc Committee for Branding and Marketing RFP
If the Council moves forward with a branding and marketing contract, I urge
you to revise the proposed structure and make up of the review committee. A
self-appointed ad hoc committee should not be reviewing and selecting
proposals. Instead, please direct the City Manager to:
• Convene a staff-led RFP review committee
• Evaluate all proposals against objective, published criteria
• Present the top three recommendations to the City Council and the
public prior to any contract award
All proposals and staff analysis should be made publicly available before the
award meeting. No council member should serve on the review committee.
Any council member who has a personal or business relationship with a firm
among the top three recommended finalists — or who has publicly expressed
support for a specific vendor— should recuse themselves from the contract
award vote. These steps will go a long way toward restoring public trust.
Item #28 - 26-379
Please vote yes on Item #28. Councilmember Williams' proposal goes to the
heart of the problem exposed by the Wolffhaus contract. Clearly establishing
and communicating the City's procurement procedures will be educational
for the Council, staff, and public alike — and will help prevent this situation
from recurring.
A Final Word on Governance
We often hear that the City should be run like a business. The Wolffhaus
contract is an example of what goes wrong when that analogy is taken too
far.
A private business exists to create value for its owners and can move quickly,
informally, and without public process. A city government exists to serve all
residents equally, and is accountable to the public (voters and taxpayers)
through law, transparency, and democratic elections. The rules governing
how a city spends money and awards contracts are fundamentally different
from those in the private sector— and shortcuts that may be acceptable in
business are often illegal in government.
The Council majority has now had more than three years in office. The public
expects — and the law requires — that its elected officials understand and
follow proper procurement procedures. These rules exist not only to protect
taxpayers, but to protect elected officials themselves from appearances of
favoritism, conflicts of interest, and misuse of public funds.
I would also encourage the Council to adopt cost-benefit analysis by
independent financial professionals as a standard tool when evaluating
revenue-generating projects. Objective data leads to better decisions.
Huntington Beach is a remarkable city— with world-class beaches, excellent
parks and libraries, strong public safety, and neighborhoods people actively
seek out. Residents, visitors, homeowners, and businesses all benefit from
what makes this city exceptional. Governing it with the transparency,
accountability, and rigor it deserves is how we protect that value for
everyone.
Pat Goodman
From: Pat Goodman
To: McKeon.Casey;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMG STAFF;suoolementalcomrr a)surfcity-hb.orq
Cc: J-lookins.Travis;Vigliotta.Mike
Subject: Concerning Practice of Self-appointed Ad Hoc Committees-No on#"s 26 and 27
Date: Monday,April 20,2026 12:09:31 PM
Dear Mayor McKeon and City Council,
I find the self-appointed ad hoc committees proposed in agenda items #26 and #27
(April 21, 2026) troubling, as they conflict with the transparency essential to
democratic government. The city council's role is to set policy and direction for staff
— not to operate through informal, self-selected bodies.
Item #26 is unnecessary. Staff should submit the requested reports directly to the
city council for presentation at a public meeting, where open discussion can take
place and the public has full access.
Item #27 Please direct the City Manager to appoint a committee of professional
staff to assess the branding and marketing proposals. The committee should return
their top three recommendations — or a full ranking of all submissions — with written
justification for each. This approach ensures transparency and protects the council
from any appearance of self-dealing, favoritism, or impropriety.
Taking such actions will begin to restore trust in the city council.
Thank you.
Pat Goodman
Huntington Beach, CA
From: Russell Neat
To: guoolementalcommCalsurfcity-hb,orq
Cc: Russell Neat
Subject: Item 27,and 26-379
Date: Monday,April 20,2026 1:47:41 PM
There are two underlying issues with respect to the proposed Creative Strategy RFP. The first
is the urgency of getting something done in time to take advantage of the upcoming 4th of July
opportunities. The second is meeting concerns about openness and fairness of the bidding and
awards process for this contract.
The RFP currently on the table is a compromise which meets neither concern. It is too slow
for the first and too fast for the second.
I propose splitting the procurement into two parts. The first would be a directed procurement
to Wolffhaus for the limited scope of the 4th of July plan.
The second would be an RFP for the whole, long-term Creative Strategy Plan without the 4th
of July time pressure. More time could be allowed for development, of this RFP,
consideration of community input, and for bidder response.
If this approach is acceptable, we could perhaps move on to things more productive and less
acrimonious.
I do not think the proposed open discussion session concerning related matters is compatible
with the format of a Council session and do not believe any good can come from it. I suggest
focusing on reaching a workable compromise such as I have suggested and moving on.
Thank you.
From: Charlie Jackson
To: suoolementalcomm(a)surfcity-hb.orQ
Subject: Against items 26 and 27
Date: Monday,April 20,2026 3:34:33 PM
Dear Huntington Beach City Council
Forming Ad Hoc committees to focus on tasks that should be done by a normal,standard process can only serve one
purpose.To hide the decision process behind a dark curtain.
The Ad Hoc committees will be closed meetings,without verifiable minutes. There will be no transparency. The
Ad Hoc committees will be highly politically motivated. The results will be cronyism at its worst.
Charlie Jackson
25 year Huntington Beach Resident
From: an Madnick
To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);5uoolementalcomm(alsurfcity-hb.orq
Subject: Item 27
Date: Monday,April 20,2026 3:43:02 PM
It sometimes seems as though we citizens just need to copy and resend our comments on some of the issues you
actually discuss in public at the CC meeting. That being said,I'm frankly incredulous that Mayor McKeon would
think it appropriate to propose an Ad Hoc committee of you council members to review and evaluate the RFP
proposals which have been submitted regarding the previous agenda item#22. REALLY?????
First of all,YOUR feelings on this matter are already in public view as you pushed for giving Wolfhaus almost a
quarter of a million dollars with no proof of prior successes in helping any city "rebrand"back to a welcoming city.
Is there anyone who believes YOU would consider all of the bids equally and fairly? I don't know about others,but
I don't.
I've heard that at least 40 companies have submitted their proposals---probably quite a few that are local. We
have a city staff whose job parameters include evaluating such proposals and then submitting them to the Council
for approval--NOT an Ad Hoc committee made up of you on the council.
Finally,just the fact that you,Casey,pushed the item to hire Wolfhaus would suggest that you,and other council
members who publicly pushed for this contract,should recuse yourselves from considering this company at all.
Certainly you will receive many comments regarding this highly inappropriate move. Let's see if you acknowledge
this misstep and move on in accordance with our City Charter---especially as you love to flaunt it!
Thank you,
Jan Madnick
44 year resident
Huntington Beach City Council Meeting April 21, 2026
Agenda Item No.227 (26-273)Proposed Ad Hoc Committee
Please pull this item and allow the City Staff to do their jobs in
evaluating the RFP's for this project without interference from
a proposed politically appointed Ad Hoc committee that
wreaks of cronyism. Their resulting recommendations could
then be presented to the ENTIRE City Council for approval.
Please pull this item.
Sincerely,
Harry McLachlan, H.B. resident
From: Laay.5lonim
To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFFl
Cc: guoolementalcommCa surfcity-hb.orq
Subject: Re:Agenda#27,26-373,HBCC Mtg.4/21/26
Date: Monday,April 20,2026 4:38:07 PM
Please substitute this 'amended' letter for the ones sent at 1:54pm today,
reflecting my desired revisions. Thanks!
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 1:54 PM Larry Slonim <larry.slonim.80@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor McKeon and City Council Members,
We are strongly opposed to Agenda#27.26-373, which would create a 3-member ad hoc
committee to review and recommend the bids for the $720,000 project initially proposed by
Wolffhaus (one of the bidders!)to provide public relations, branding, media, merchandising
for the city.
This reeks of cronyism. First, you accept an audit for$30,000 from an acquaintance of one
of the city council members who clearly does not have the background needed for such a
multi-faceted undertaking. Then to ensure that this contract is awarded to Wolffhaus (or
possibly another friendly acquaintance?), you are now recommending that an ad hoc review
committee made up of totally partisan city council members decide which firm to hire for
an OUTLANDISH, not-to-exceed fee!
The lack of fiduciary due diligence and accountability are the biggest reasons for our
objection. The suggested price tag, which is nearly TRIPLE that of what was previously
subsidized by the city for the EIR supporting the Pacific Air Show, is another one!
Lastly, proposing this during an election year is tremendously suspect!
The city ought to form a vetted, RESIDENT ad hoc committee to work with the city
manager and 'experience-related' city staff to review the RFP process and
the submitted bids, and then make recommendations to the city council for public
consideration and a vote.
Wolffhaus' preliminary Audit and Report, page 17, made the following, paraphrased
observation: our city council's negative-based political agenda is destroying/damaging
the reputation and economic well-being of HB. Residents have been telling you this 'for
free' since you first took office in 2023! The approach taken with the current proposal
only perpetuates HB's negative PR and image,while throwing another$720K down the
drain. You/we cannot afford to keep doing this! It's NOT how a respectful, responsible
government functions.
Larry and Susan Slonim
Huntington Beach Homeowners and Voters since 1980
From: diannef22Cavahoo.com
To: suoolementalcommCalsurfcity-hb.orq
Subject: Agenda Items 25,26,27,New(28)
Date: Monday,April 20,2026 4:38:36 PM
Item 25: Please vote to defeat this item. After reading the background information, it
seems like quite the convoluted stretch to try to make a connection between
Huntington Beach and President Theodore Roosevelt. Furthermore, Theodore
Roosevelt was a Progressive and a Conservationist. This Council has actively tried to
restart oil drilling in HB and intended to allow a massive light show to disrupt the
wildlife in Central Park. Nothing in Theodore Roosevelt's biography matches with the
goals of this Council and this item is clearly an attempt to distract from what you have
been and will be doing.
Item 26: Please vote to defeat this item. It is NOT the job of the Council to be
reviewing the City's lease portfolio. If there is a desire to look at the leases, pass an
item asking staff to compile the information and make recommendations to the
Council so the Council can discuss all of the information at a public meeting, not
behind closed doors in an ad-hoc session. Please return to basic good governance.
Item 27: Please vote to defeat this item. Again, this item is attempting to use a closed
door, ad-hoc committee to do the work of City staff. It is the job of City Staff to write
RFPs and to receive, and evaluate the subsequent proposals. After the professional
staff has evaluated the proposals, they will present their findings to the Council for
public discussion and guidance for the staff to proceed. In this case in particular, it
seems the resulting contract will be in the neighborhood of$700,000 and moving
forward on that requires public input and public discussion.
New Item (28?): I am very much in favor of this item. It is clear that Wolffhaus
engaged with the City due to his personal relationship with at least one
councilmember. Even after all these weeks, the Wolffhaus website is still not up. Is
that the kind of prompt, responsive work we should expect if the contract is issued to
his company? I am very interested in watching the discussion of this item to make
sure the public has a full understanding of what has transpired so far with our money
and what some councilmembers were ready to just give away without any competition
or public discussion.
Thank you,
Diane James