Public and watchdogs question $28 million in Ontario Ranch consultant authority on consent calendar

During the consent-calendar discussion, public commenters called for greater transparency and accountability around item 14, which staff described as a series of professional-services contracts for engineering, utilities, inspection, and traffic work tied to Ontario Ranch infrastructure and phase-two development. Commenters said the item seeks to add "nearly $28,000,000 in authority" for consultant contracts and flagged one new $7,500,000 contract that they said was awarded without competition.

Brad Newman, former city auditor, criticized a specific PSA amendment (he referred to it as the "Moot PSA amendment number 1") that increases a budget line from $100,000 to $10,000,000 and asked why the council would not require competitive bids. "If this is the best team, if this is the best bidder, let them compete," he said, urging the council to pull the item or disclose selection methodology.

City Manager and staff responded that professional-services contracts use a prequalification bench: firms are qualified to provide services and then compete on projects in an expedited way rather than through a traditional RFP for every contract. Staff said funding for the work comes from development-impact fee accounts and argued the approach is consistent with procurement rules for professional services. Commenters also flagged an inconsistency in amounts reported for item 16 (a reimbursement amount described as $450,000 in one place and $495,000 in another) and requested clarification before a vote. Council proceeded to act on the consent calendar after staff explanation; public speakers urged ongoing transparency and more detailed reports for residents.