From: shari engel
To: [email protected]
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: KW1.png
KW2.png
TW1.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn 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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]; 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 Viray
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected] Cc: Butchviray; 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.docx
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 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
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
At last week’s council meeting my partner (Sally Wescott) and I 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); [email protected]; [email protected] 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); [email protected] 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 staff's 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 <[email protected] > 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
[email protected]
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,
CA 92648
On Apr 17, 2026, at 1:16 PM, Paula Schaefer <[email protected] > 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; [email protected]; 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. CMO STAFF); [email protected] Cc: Hopkins, 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 Neal
To: [email protected]
Cc: Russell Neal
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: [email protected]
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: Jan Madnick
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected] 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: Larry Slonim
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Cc: [email protected]
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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
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