orders. However, there is no defined list of projects, anticipated workload, or estimated number of assignments. Approving a not-to-exceed (NTE) amount without a clearly defined scope effectively delegates significant discretion to staff after Council approval. This limits the ability of the Council and the public to evaluate how funds will be used and whether the services are proportional to actual needs. Clarification is needed regarding expected deliverables, anticipated volume of work, and how task orders will be prioritized and authorized.
3. Cost Control, Scope Creep, and Performance Accountability The contract is structured as an on-call agreement with work to be assigned through future task orders, combined with the potential for additional time and materials billing. However, the staff report does not provide an estimate of anticipated workload, number of task orders, or expected annual expenditures within the not-to-exceed amount. There are also no defined deliverables, performance standards, or measurable benchmarks such as review timelines or quality expectations. This structure creates a risk of incremental scope expansion without clear visibility or accountability, particularly where “miscellaneous coordination” or similar broadly defined services may be authorized over time.
Without defined task-level ceilings, reporting requirements, or performance metrics, it is difficult for the Council or the public to evaluate whether the contract is being executed efficiently or whether the authorized amount is being reached without corresponding outputs.
Given the $300,000 authorization, it would be appropriate to clarify how task orders will be scoped, approved, and monitored, and what controls are in place to ensure cost discipline and performance accountability over the life of the agreement.
4. Outreach Execution, Data Integrity, and Representativeness The consultant’s role appears to extend beyond technical review into community outreach and engagement associated with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This raises important questions regarding the reliability and completeness of the outreach process, particularly where consultantmanaged events are used to generate the data that informs planning decisions.
For example, during the March 28, 2026 Spring Egg Hunt outreach event at Kennedy Center, there are concerns that the consultant team did not remain present for the full advertised duration and left the event more than an hour early. This is compounded by the heavy traffic and overflow parking due to multiple youth baseball and softball games occuring at James Logan High School, making the outreach difficult to access. While this may appear minor in isolation, outreach events are a primary mechanism for collecting community input. Inconsistent presence or shortened engagement windows can affect who is captured in the dataset and may exclude participants who attend later in the event cycle.
More broadly, the outreach process appears to rely on a relatively small, self-selected participant pool relative to the City’s population. Without clear documentation of methodology, participation tracking, and validation procedures, there is a risk that the resulting input reflects a subset of frequent or highly engaged users rather than the broader community. Because the consultant is both facilitating outreach and synthesizing its results, it is important to establish clear expectations for outreach execution, documentation, and data transparency. This includes confirming event coverage, tracking participation, and ensuring that conclusions presented to the Council are supported by a complete and representative record.
5. Governance and Consent Calendar Placement
This contract authorizes up to $300,000 in spending and establishes an ongoing consultant role that intersects with planning, review, and outreach functions. It is not a purely administrative or routine item.
Placing it on the consent calendar limits discussion of important questions related to procurement, scope, performance, and oversight. Given the breadth of the contract and its role in shaping City processes, it would benefit from transparent discussion.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I respectfully request that this item be pulled from the consent calendar so that the Council can:
- Clarify the procurement and selection process
- Define scope, deliverables, and performance expectations - Establish cost control and reporting mechanisms
- Address outreach reliability and data integrity
- Ensure alignment with resident-focused planning goals A brief discussion from staff would significantly strengthen the administrative record and public confidence in the process so the public and further understand the City's procurement process.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Henry Soong