CLAYTON WATCH | October 11, 2026

Developer Contributions, Olivia Endorsements, and Clayton's Future: Questions Amy Callaghan Should Answer

Who Is Supporting the Candidates Who Want to Shape Clayton's Future?

A recent social media post has raised questions about Clayton City Council candidate Amy Callaghan's campaign contributions, political endorsements, and position on future housing development in Clayton.

These questions deserve public attention.

According to an October 2, 2026, Form 497 campaign disclosure shared publicly, Callaghan's campaign reported receiving contributions from three individuals identifying their occupations as developer or real estate development.

The reported contributions include:

• Philip Tagami — $1,562.81 

• Leonard Epstein — $2,000.00

• Grant Alvernaz — $1,041.98 (Oakhurst owner)

Total reported contributions: $4,604.79.

Accepting campaign contributions is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing. However, understanding who financially supports a candidate is an important part of making an informed voting decision.

The Olivia Connection

The same social media post also raises questions about Callaghan's endorsements from former Clayton Council Members Julie Pierce, Tuija Catalano, and CW Wolfe.

According to the post, all three voted in favor of the controversial Olivia development, the 81-unit, three-story apartment project currently under construction near downtown Clayton.

Their endorsements do not automatically establish that Callaghan shares every position they previously held. Nevertheless, given Clayton's continuing debate over housing density, traffic, infrastructure, and local control, voters have reason to ask where she stands.

Three Questions Amy Callaghan Should Answer

Clayton Watch believes residents deserve straightforward answers to three important questions:

1. Future Development: Would you support additional high-density housing projects similar in size and scope to Olivia?

2. Local Control: How would your proposed transportation policies affect Clayton's ability to maintain local control over future development decisions?

3. Developer Contributions: Will you commit to evaluating future development proposals independently, regardless of campaign contributions or political endorsements?

These are reasonable questions for anyone seeking a seat on the Clayton City Council.

Clayton's Future Belongs to Its Residents

Decisions made by the next City Council will influence Clayton's character, financial stability, infrastructure, and development for years to come.

Residents deserve to understand not only what candidates promise during an election but also who supports their campaigns and what policies they intend to pursue once elected.

Clayton Watch invites Amy Callaghan to address these questions publicly and welcomes her response for publication.

The election is approaching. The time for answers is now.

Clayton Watch — Keeping Our Community Informed.

Clayton Watch Candidate Questionnaires 

Important Note Before Reading the Candidates Answers

A few people around town, including a college professor and the leader of the “No on Measure M” campaign, have been challenging Clayton Watch’s credibility by suggesting that our flyer mailed to approximately 4,000 residents was somehow dishonest or intentionally misleading.

That accusation is false.

The flyer was created and printed days before the candidate questionnaire was sent to the candidates. Here’s another fact worth considering: the deadline to submit a flyer insert to the Diablo Gazette was September 18, 2026. So if their criticism is based on the timing or content of the Clayton Watch flyer, perhaps they should first get their facts, and their timeline, straight.

At the time the flyer was created, neither of the two candidates had publicly taken a position for or against Measure M or Measure N.

The questionnaire came later. When the candidates were directly asked where they stood on Measures M and N, the candidates stated that they supported both measures.

That raises a legitimate question: Why did the candidates wait until they were specifically asked before stating their positions publicly?

For those claiming the flyer was unfair or misleading, perhaps the focus should be on the actual timeline and why the candidates waited so long to tell Clayton voters where they stood on two of the most important measures on the November ballot.

Clayton Watch stands by its work. We believe residents deserve transparency, accountability, and the facts they need to make informed decisions.

Clayton Watch Candidate Questionnaires And Answers Are Now Available (See below.)

Clayton Watch is now publishing the candidate questionnaires submitted by the four candidates for Clayton City Council.

Each candidate was given the same seven questions, providing every candidate with an equal opportunity to explain their positions and priorities to Clayton voters.

The questions and answers are presented in the same order they were received from each candidate. The candidates’ responses are being published as submitted, without editing or commentary by Clayton Watch.

Click the link for each candidate to view the questions and their complete responses. We encourage Clayton residents to read all four questionnaires, compare the candidates’ answers, and make their own informed decisions before voting.

Kim Trupiano - Date response was received - September 23rd @ 12:36 PM

Maria Shulman -  Date response was received - September 24th @ 1:46 PM
 
Amy Callagham - Date response was received - September 25th @ 8:37 PM

Charlie Schmidt - Date response was received - September 26th @ 2:05 PM
__________________________________________________________________

The letter below was sent to each candidate.

September 20, 2026

Dear Clayton City Council Candidate,

Clayton Voters Want to Hear From You

The November election is approaching, and Clayton residents are beginning to make decisions about the future of our community.

Clayton Watch would like to give each City Council candidate an equal opportunity to communicate directly with Clayton voters — in their own words.

The seven questions below were developed from issues and concerns raised by members of the Clayton community.They are intended to give voters an opportunity to hear directly from each candidate about issues affecting Clayton and its residents.

Rather than asking candidates to download and complete a separate questionnaire, we have included the seven questions directly in this email.

To participate, simply click “Reply,” type your response directly beneath each question, and send the email back to us.

Your responses will be published exactly as submitted, without editing or commentary by Clayton Watch. Each candidate will receive the same questions and the same opportunity to respond.

Clayton Watch currently receives approximately 5,000 to 8,000 views each week, providing candidates with an opportunity to communicate directly with a substantial number of Clayton residents and voters.

We ask that responses be reasonably concise so that voters can easily read and understand each candidate's answers.

Please Respond By Saturday, September 26, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.

Candidate responses will be made publicly available on ClaytonWatch.org and may also be shared through Clayton Watch's other community outreach channels.

IMPORTANT UPDATE TO CLAYTON VOTERS REGARDING OUR 2026 ELECTION FLYER

At the time the flyer was produced, we were on deadline for it to be inserted into the Diablo Gazette, neither Amy Callaghan nor Charlie Schmidt had publicly stated a position on Measures M or N in the campaign information available to the Clayton Community. The flyer nevertheless identified their positions as shown. (See below.) 

We now have their direct, written responses. Both Amy Callaghan and Charlie Schmidt answered YES to Measure M and YES to Measure N in the questionnaire that was recently sent to all candidates.

We believe Clayton voters deserve the most current information available, so we are publishing this update along with the original flyer. The original flyer has not been changed. We are showing it as it was produced and distributed, along with the candidates' more recent responses, so voters can consider both.

Clayton Watch encourages voters to review the information and make their own decisions.

ORIGINAL CLAYTON WATCH ELECTION FLYER

The flyer below is the original version produced several weeks ago and is being provided for reference.

Clayton Watch will continue to provide updates when new

information becomes available.

 THE ELECTION IS ALMOST HERE

Help Clayton Watch Get The Word Out

Your support helps us create and distribute flyers, postcards, voter information, community updates, and other election-related materials to keep Clayton residents informed.

Every contribution helps.

Donate Today

Help us keep Clayton informed.

Top News

By Clayton Watch

THE CANDIDATES ARE SET. NOW LET’S TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES.

Measures M & N — What Clayton Voters Are Being Asked to Decide

Clayton Watch has now completed its individual write-ups on all four candidates running for Clayton City Council, Kim Trupiano, Maria Shulman, Amy Callaghan and Charlie Schmidt.

With the candidate profiles complete, we’re turning our attention to two important financial decisions facing Clayton voters this November: Measure M, a proposed 1% local sales tax, and Measure N, the renewal of Clayton’s existing Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) for another 10 years.

The two measures work differently, require different levels of voter approval, and address different City funding needs. In this article, we’ll explain what each measure does, what it costs, where the money goes, what it pays for, and what happens if it does not pass.

Our goal is straightforward: put the facts and numbers in one place so residents can understand what they are being asked to decide.

---

MEASURE M — THE 1% LOCAL SALES TAX

Measure M asks Clayton voters whether to approve an additional 1% local sales tax.

Clayton’s current sales tax rate is 8.75%. If Measure M passes, the total rate would increase to 9.75%.

THE NEW REVENUE STAYS IN CLAYTON

The additional revenue generated by Measure M would go to the City of Clayton for local City purposes.

It is not a new State or County tax. The new revenue stays in Clayton.

---

WHAT DOES 1% ACTUALLY COST?

One of the easiest ways to understand the proposed increase is to put it into everyday dollars.

For a taxable purchase of:

$5 — 5¢ additional tax

$10 — 10¢ additional tax

$50 — 50¢ additional tax

$100 — $1 additional tax

$500 — $5 additional tax

$1,000 — $10 additional tax

The tax applies only to purchases that are taxable under California law.

Unlike a property tax or parcel assessment, the amount paid depends on taxable purchases. People who live outside Clayton would also pay the additional tax when making taxable purchases in the City.

---

HOW MUCH WOULD MEASURE M GENERATE?

The City estimates that the additional 1% sales tax could generate approximately $1 million annually.

Actual collections could vary from year to year depending on taxable sales activity.

Measure M is a general tax and requires a simple majority, more than 50% of the votes cast, to pass.

---

MEASURE N — RENEWAL OF THE LMD FOR ANOTHER 10 YEARS

Measure N asks Clayton voters whether to renew the City's existing Landscape Maintenance District for another 10 years.

THIS IS A RENEWAL — NOT A NEW DISTRICT

In 2007, Clayton voters approved Measure B with approximately 83% of the vote, authorizing the replacement Landscape Maintenance District for 10 years.

In 2016, voters approved Measure H with approximately 79% of the vote, extending the LMD for another 10 years.

That authorization is approaching its expiration, bringing the renewal before voters again in 2026.

---

WHAT DOES THE LMD HELP MAINTAIN?

Clayton's Landscape Maintenance District covers approximately:

515 acres of open space

27 miles of trails

7 miles of creekside trails and 20 miles of open-space trails

50 street islands and medians

More than 3,000 City trees

The District also covers approximately 2 million square feet of public roadway landscaping.

---

LANDSCAPING AND FIRE MITIGATION

LMD funds are used for authorized maintenance of trails, open space, roadside landscaping, community gateway entrances and other landscape-related responsibilities.

That work also includes weed abatement for critical fire mitigation and public safety.

With Clayton's extensive open-space areas, vegetation management includes mandatory firebreaks and weed trimming along trails, creeks and other areas where reducing potential fuel loads is important for fire safety.

---

LMD FUNDS ARE RESTRICTED

Unlike Measure M's general tax revenue, LMD funds are legally restricted to authorized Landscape Maintenance District purposes.

They cannot be redirected to unrelated City expenses such as police services.

For Fiscal Year 2025–26, the existing parcel assessment generated approximately $1.4 million for District maintenance.

---

WHAT HAPPENS IF MEASURE N DOESN'T PASS?

If Measure N does not pass, the existing LMD authorization will expire.

The City has stated that landscape-maintenance services would then be reduced, with the General Fund responsible for minimum fire-safety requirements.

That could require General Fund dollars otherwise available for City operations to be used for those responsibilities.

---

HOW MANY VOTES DOES MEASURE N NEED?

Because Measure N is a special tax dedicated to a specific purpose, it requires a two-thirds majority for approval.

For historical perspective:

2007 — Measure B: approximately 83% voted YES

2016 — Measure H: approximately 79% voted YES

Measure N asks voters whether to renew the LMD for another 10 years.

It’s your city. It’s your money. And it’s your vote.