Saturday, May 16, 2026
Friday, May 15, 2026
Memorial Day Celebration - Honoring All Who Served
Memorial Day Celebration on Monday, May 25th, 10:00 to 11:00 AM at The Grove in downtown Clayton. You will have the opportunity to personally connect with the families of our fallen service members and local veterans. This year’s ceremony will feature World War II veterans Charles “Chuck” Kohler and Lou Gibbs.
Thursday, May 7, 2026
Featured in the Diablo Gazette, May 1, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------
What the Results Mean for Our City
A System Without a Schedule
Since 2019, I have raised concerns that still exist today. The City does not have a comprehensive inventory or maintenance schedule for many of its assets. We have not clearly defined how often key items should be inspected or maintained. How often should the Library be painted? How often should trees along trails be assessed? How frequently should road markings or sidewalks be reviewed? Too often, the answer is unclear. Instead, the City has relied on an ad hoc approach. When a problem becomes visible, it gets addressed. When it does not, it can go years without attention. This creates gaps where routine maintenance is missed and small issues grow into larger ones. At the same time, the City has increased its reserves. That is a positive step and reflects fiscal discipline. But it also highlights a tradeoff. When maintenance is deferred, costs shift into the future while needs continue to build.
That approach is starting to change. With new leadership and a renewed focus, staff have begun identifying and addressing deferred maintenance across the City. An initial list of projects was recently presented. It is not complete, but it marks a shift toward a more proactive approach. Work is already underway. Weed abatement and landscape maintenance have expanded across major corridors, hillsides, and open space, with more areas scheduled in the coming weeks. Crews are also addressing core needs such as irrigation repairs, removal of dead vegetation, replanting, fence repairs, and ongoing tree trimming throughout the community and along trails. We are also addressing a backlog of safety-related items, including curb painting, replacement of street signs, roadway reflectors, and refreshed striping at intersections and crosswalks. These improvements directly affect visibility and safety for drivers and pedestrians.
Investing in Longer-Term Improvements
Alongside this work, the City is advancing more significant infrastructure projects. We are moving toward more durable roadway repairs through a new pothole contract focused on longer-lasting solutions. This will be supported by a broader pavement project planned for Summer and Fall 2026. Pedestrian safety is also a priority. Downtown improvements will include raised crossings and intersections, along with flashing beacon systems to increase visibility at key locations. Beyond downtown, an ADA-accessible pathway between Four Oaks Lane and Pine Hollow is in design and supported by dedicated funding. Trail improvements, including repairs to the Cardinet Trail, are also moving forward. These efforts reflect a more coordinated approach to safety, accessibility, and long-term reliability.
From Reactive to Routine
The goal is simple. We need to move from an ad hoc system to a scheduled one. That means creating a clear inventory of City assets, setting maintenance intervals, and planning for these needs on a recurring basis. With that structure in place, we can manage costs more effectively and predictably. We have made progress in building reserves. Now we need to apply that same discipline to maintaining what those reserves are meant to protect. Taking care of what we already own may not draw attention, but it is one of the most important responsibilities we have as a City.
Switching gears
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Top Story
HOLD THE HORSES, CLAYTON
Before Any Tax Increase, Show Us the Real Numbers.
For years, residents were told Clayton needed a tax increase, even while the City's books were still being reviewed, corrected, and clarified.
Budget forecasts were often built on questionable baselines, incomplete assumptions, and financial data many residents now believe should have been more carefully verified before being presented publicly as fact.
But were those projections accurate?
Many residents are no longer convinced they were.
Cleanup Is Underway, But the Work Isn't Finished
To their credit, the current Council and staff appear to have spent significant time:
- Reviewing contracts
- Examining prior spending
- Identifying accounting problems
- Strengthening financial controls
That work matters.
But despite those efforts, residents are still hearing mixed and sometimes conflicting financial messages.
The Numbers Still Keep Moving
Residents are now hearing that revenues may be softening, deficits could reach approximately $778,000, and new taxes may be necessary.
At the same time, many are asking a far more important question:
Is this really the right time to discuss a tax increase?
Or should the City first complete the financial cleanup and clearly establish its true revenue stream, actual expenses, and long-term financial position?
Questions About Property Tax Revenue
In California, most properties typically receive annual assessed-value increases of up to 2%, and when homes sell, reassessments often occur at significantly higher market values.
In a stable community like Clayton, property tax revenue would generally be expected to trend upward over time.
So when residents hear revenue may be down, reasonable questions follow:
- Is it a timing issue?
- A county allocation delay?
- A forecasting error?
- Misclassified revenue?
- Appeals or refunds?
- Or something else not yet explained publicly?
Questions About Sales Tax Revenue
It was reported at the last City Council meeting that online sales tax revenues were increasing.
So residents are asking: Why are we discussing a sales tax increase when revenues may actually be performing better than expected?
Residents are not saying the City has no financial challenges. What they're saying is simple:
Before asking taxpayers for more money, the public deserves accurate, verified, and transparent financial information.
Residents Want Answers
- What are the true reserve levels?
- What expenses have already been reduced?
- What new revenues are coming in?
- What liabilities remain unresolved?
- Where do the City's finances actually stand today?
These are not political questions. They are responsible taxpayer questions.
What About Investment Income and Reserves?
- What investment income is being generated from City reserve accounts?
- Why do reserve balances remain strong while deficit warnings continue?
- Which funds are restricted and which are available?
- What previously budgeted projects were never completed or spent?
Those questions deserve clear public answers.
Timing Matters
Rushing into a tax discussion before the financial picture is fully stabilized may be the wrong approach.
The City reportedly still maintains significant reserve funds that may help bridge short-term uncertainty while staff completes the hard work of correcting past issues.
That is one of the reasons reserves exist — stability during periods of uncertainty.
Before Asking Residents for More
Before any sales tax, parcel tax, or assessment measure moves forward, the City should first provide:
✔ Clean and transparent expense reporting
✔ Clear reserve disclosures
✔ Investment income reporting
✔ A corrected multi-year forecast
✔ A public explanation for why prior projections changed so dramatically.
Bottom Line
Residents are not saying "never."
They are saying:
Not yet.
Get the numbers right first. Finish the cleanup first. Then make the case.
Because until the books are clear, credible, and trusted...
Hold the horses.
— Clayton Watch Team
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
News or Nonsense? SFGATE’s Hit Piece on Clayton
![]() |
| Clayton Club |
Courtesy of Clayton Watch: The following letter was sent to Jessica Yadegaran, SFGATE’s food editor, along with several of her editors. Please click the link and review the article for yourself.
We’re not sure why Jessica, along with her friend Tamara Steiner and her go-to source Jay Bedecarré, seem so determined to take repeated shots at our beautiful little city.
The article was filled with questionable claims, selective narratives, and plenty of nonsense. Read it for yourself—and decide.
_________________________
Jessica, You can do better.
The recent SFGATE article on the Clayton Club tells part of the story, but not the whole story.
It leans heavily on selective voices and negative anecdotes, while leaving out the broader reality of what the Clayton Club meant to this community for decades.
A couple important facts worth clearing up:
• Tamara Steiner is a former editor of the Clayton Pioneer, a paper that is no longer in operation, not a current local news source.
• The nearby apartment project is NOT a 55+ senior housing development, that claim has been proven false repeatedly through official records.
Clayton isn’t perfect, no town is. But reducing it to a narrative of division based on a handful of opinions does a disservice to the people who live here.
If you’re going to tell the story, tell all of it.
Correction & Clarification
Tamara Steiner is not affiliated with a current news outlet, her Clayton Pioneer Newspaper went broke months ago, and the referenced apartment project is not a 55+ development.
— Clayton Watch
_________________________
Response from: Yadegaran, Jessica
Wed, Apr 1, 8:09 AM
Hi Clayton Watch,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I knew that the Pioneer shuttered in 2025. We forgot to add ‘now defunct’ or ‘recently shuttered’ there. I will make the correction today.
I will look into the housing project and look on Clayton Watch for the most recent articles. Feel free to forward to me as well. My interview with Jay Beddecarre and a few Mercury News articles confirmed that is was a retirement/senior housing community.
Thanks again
Jessica
Jessica Yadegaran
SFGATE Food Editor
From: Clayton Watch Team <claytonwatch94517@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 7:43 PM
To: Yadegaran, Jessica <jessica.yadegaran@sfgate.com>
Subject: [EXT] Article (Clayton Club)
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
City Council Meeting Summary - Jeff Wan 4-7-26
City Council Correspondence: The excerpts below have been sourced from the website of council member Jeff Wan to share with the Clayton Watch Community. You can access council member Wan's website by following this link: https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net
While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff Wan, Mayor
Last night the Council met and discussed a couple of significant items:
Saturday, March 28, 2026
Top Story, March 28, 2026
Olivia on Marsh Creek: Progress — Or Just Enough to Keep It Alive?
Construction activity has reportedly begun on the long-delayed Olivia on Marsh Creek project, originally approved for 81 residential units.
After years of little to no movement, seeing equipment on site and dirt moving can feel like a big step forward.
And to be fair, progress is a good thing.
But the real question is:
Is this true progress… or just enough activity to keep the project alive?
Because sometimes, moving a little dirt doesn’t necessarily mean you’re moving the project forward.
Good projects withstand good questions. The Olivia project is no exception.
Approved Project — But What Was Actually Approved?
Let’s start with the basics.
Yes, this project was approved.
But what exactly was approved matters just as much as the approval itself.
This is not a 55+ senior housing project.
It’s an 81-unit residential development that includes a small number of low-income units, which were required as part of the original deal.
That means there are commitments tied to this project—real ones.
Not just about building homes, but about how and what gets delivered.
So the question becomes:
- Is what’s happening today consistent with what was originally approved?
- Did the developer diligently move forward with construction in 2022 after receiving a one-year extension?
- And perhaps most importantly, has the developer complied with the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Resolution?
Construction Activity — What Does It Really Mean?
We’re hearing construction has started.
Great. But let’s pause for a second.
What actually counts as “construction”?
Is it:
- Real, measurable progress toward finishing the project
or - Just enough activity to show, “Hey, we’re working on it”?
There’s a growing sense in the community that what we may be seeing is just enough movement to check a box.
And if that’s the case, it leads to a very practical question:
Is this activity helping preserve the project’s entitlements by showing ongoing effort, making it harder for the City to step in based on past inactivity?
That’s not pointing fingers, it’s just understanding how the system often works.
Financial Reality: Does This Project Pencil Out?
According to reliable sources, the developer has indicated that about $10 million has been secured to move things forward.
Now, in today’s construction world… $10 million doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to.
In fact, it appears to be well short of what would be needed to complete even a portion of a project this size.
So naturally, people are asking:
- Is there enough funding to actually finish Phase 1, or 2, or even 3???
- What happens if the money runs out again?
- Are we looking at another stop-and-start situation?
Because nobody wants to see a project sit half-finished for another decade.
Experience Matters: Who Is Building This Project?
There are also questions about execution.
The developer, Bill Jordan, has reportedly only recently obtained his contractor’s license and now plans to build the project.
That raises some fair questions:
- Is there enough experience behind a project of this scale?
- Who’s overseeing the quality and compliance?
- Will seasoned contractors be brought in?
Building a project like this isn’t a learning exercise, it needs to be done right the first time.
Phased Construction — Planned or Improvised?
Originally, this was approved as a single 81-unit development.
Now it looks like it’s being built in phases.
That’s fine, if that was part of the plan.
But if not, then it’s worth asking:
Was phasing originally approved, or is this a shift in strategy?
If it’s being phased now, then:
- Each phase should stand on its own
- Infrastructure needs to be complete
- All original conditions still apply
- And yes, low-income housing requirements don’t get pushed down the road indefinitely.
Parking: The Issue Nobody Can Ignore
Let’s talk about the one thing everyone notices first, parking.
With 81 units, parking isn’t a side issue. It’s a front-and-center issue.
And right now, there are real concerns that there simply may not be enough of it.
So residents are asking:
- Does the plan realistically match real-world demand?
- Where do guests park?
- What happens when overflow spills into nearby neighborhoods and businesses?
Because we’ve all seen how that story ends.
Instead of waiting for complaints later, this is something the City can get ahead of now.
Reinstating a Parking Permit Committee would be a smart, proactive move, not a reactive one.
Affordable Housing: Not Optional
The project includes a small number of low-income units.
That wasn’t a suggestion, it was part of the approval.
So naturally, people want to know:
- Are those units part of what’s being built now?
- If not, when do they show up?
- What ensures they don’t quietly disappear over time?
Because commitments like that matter, to the community and to the integrity of the project.
School Mitigation Fees: Paid or Still Pending?
Another important piece:
- Have school mitigation fees been paid?
- If so, when, and how much?
- If not, when are they due?
These aren’t minor details, they directly impact local schools and infrastructure.
City Responsibility: Who’s Watching the Store?
At the end of the day, this brings us back to a bigger question:
What role is the City playing right now?
People want to understand:
- Is financial capacity being looked at?
- Are qualifications being reviewed?
- Are original conditions actually being enforced?
- Is there active oversight?
Because once a project gets rolling, it’s a lot harder to hit the brakes.
The Bottom Line
This isn’t about stopping development.
Clayton needs thoughtful, well-executed projects.
But it is about making sure things are done:
- As approved
- With proper oversight
- And with the community in mind
So the questions are simple, and fair:
- Is this real progress, or strategic activity to keep entitlements alive?
- Is the project financially solid?
- Is there enough experience behind it?
- Is parking actually adequate?
- Are low-income housing commitments being met?
- Are we addressing impacts now… or later?
Clayton Residents Deserve Clarity
This project may be moving forward.
And that’s fine, if it’s being done the right way.
But before it gets too far down the road, the public deserves clear, honest answers.
Because in the end:
Moving dirt is easy. Building it right, and earning public trust—is the hard part.
The Clayton Watch Team
Thursday, March 12, 2026
Top Story, March 12, 2026
Scare Tactics, Bad Data, and the Truth About Clayton’s Finances
Independent audits and documented financial records tell a very different story than the one you’ve been sold.
For years, Clayton residents have been fed the same alarming story: the city is on the verge of financial collapse. That narrative has echoed at council meetings, in public comments, and in official reports, including coverage in the now-defunct local newspaper formerly owned by Tamara Steiner. But step away from the rhetoric and look at the actual financial records. A very different picture comes into focus.
If Clayton were truly going broke, the city’s independent auditors would be the first to say so.
“The claim that Clayton is ‘going broke’ has become a talking point — not a factual statement.”
Instead, the most recent audit shows a city that has corrected past internal control failures, strengthened financial oversight, and continues to operate with stable reserves. The narrative of crisis simply does not match the documented record.
Where the Narrative Started
The “Clayton is going broke” story has a clear origin. It emerged during the push for a $400 per-parcel tax proposal championed by former Mayor Peter Cloven, Carl Wolfe, Holly Tillman, and former City Manager Reina Schwartz. Residents were warned that without significant new taxes, the city’s financial future was in jeopardy.
That message relied on worst-case projections and fear-based framing rather than Clayton’s actual financial position. Even after the proposal failed to gain traction in a citywide survey, the crisis narrative kept circulating, that Clayton's finances were somehow in crisis.
That rhetoric continued under the next city manager, Bret Prebula, who repeated many of the same claims about Clayton’s financial condition and continued pushing the idea that the city was facing a fiscal crisis. Prebula’s tenure ultimately ended with his departure from the city after a relatively short and troubled period.
The playbook was predictable: manufacture the perception of instability, then present tax increases as the only solution, rather than doing the hard work of actually fixing the problems. The city’s audited financial records tell a different story.
What the Latest Audit Actually Shows
At the City Council meeting on March 3, 2026, the City reviewed its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. The independent audit produced no surprises and no alarm bells.
The fiscal year ended with a manageable deficit that had already been anticipated and budgeted for. More significantly, auditors reported no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in the City’s internal financial controls. That is a meaningful improvement from prior years.
From FY2020 through FY2023, auditors repeatedly flagged serious internal control problems that required corrective action. Those were legitimate concerns.
Under City Manager Reina Schwartz, the city’s books went unreconciled for roughly 18 months — and the city was defrauded of approximately $50,000.
When the fraud was uncovered, no formal investigation was ordered. Then-Mayor Peter Cloven did not pursue the matter. City management let it go. Yet some of the very individuals involved during that period continue to portray the current council majority as reckless.
With new staffing and stronger oversight, those control failures have been corrected. For the second consecutive year, auditors reported no findings. That is exactly what responsible financial management looks like.
The $350,000 Revenue Change — Context Matters
Another point routinely raised in “crisis” discussions involves the Successor Agency, which managed the wind-down of Clayton’s former Redevelopment Agency after the state eliminated redevelopment agencies in 2012. For several years, Clayton received roughly $350,000 annually from the County to administer those activities.
That work is now complete. The funding will decline and eventually disappear.
But here’s the critical context: that revenue was always temporary. It was administrative funding tied to a finite task, not a permanent source of operating income. Its decline was anticipated and built into the city’s financial projections. Calling it a crisis is a deliberate misrepresentation.
The Civil Grand Jury Issue
Another fuel source for the crisis narrative was a recent Civil Grand Jury report. Evidence has since surfaced indicating that financial information used in the complaint process was altered or misrepresented, creating a distorted picture of the city’s finances.
This is not a minor procedural matter. Under California law, submitting falsified information during an official proceeding can expose individuals to potential criminal charges. This issue is now receiving closer scrutiny.
When inaccurate financial data is used to influence an official investigation, it doesn’t just mislead — it undermines the integrity of the entire process.
Stay tuned. More information on this issue is expected to come to light in the coming months.
Leadership and Priorities
Clayton’s financial debates have also exposed a deeper question about where elected officials focus their energy.
For years, some council members devoted significant time to outside organizations, regional boards, community groups, and advocacy efforts, while key city priorities went underfunded and underattended. Some spent years engaged with organizations like ABAG or groups like CBCA, while infrastructure maintenance, long-term financial planning, and basic community upkeep were treated as afterthoughts.
Others pushed controversial development proposals like Olivia on Marsh Creek, marketed as a 55-and-over senior housing development that would supposedly generate minimal traffic and require fewer parking spaces. That claim was later discredited through research published by Clayton Watch. The reduced parking rationale leaned heavily on a study from a senior housing project in Pennsylvania, used to justify lower standards for a Clayton project that was not legally restricted to seniors.
Clayton Watch’s research exposed those inconsistencies and raised serious questions about the project’s justification. It was pushed through by a long-time council member and former mayor, Julie Pierce, who served nearly 28 years, with little clear rationale to show for it.
Serving on a city council is not a social or networking exercise. It demands consistent focus on the city itself: responsible budgeting, maintained reserves, investment in infrastructure, and careful stewardship of public resources.
The Bottom Line
The “Clayton is going broke” narrative is a political instrument, not a financial reality.
The city’s independent audit says otherwise. Clayton maintains over $7 million in reserves. Internal financial controls have been corrected. The decline of temporary redevelopment funding was planned for, not a surprise. There is no crisis, there is a manufactured story designed to drive fear and justify policy changes that never needed to happen.
The real question isn’t whether Clayton is going broke. It clearly is not.
The real question is: why have certain individuals worked so hard to convince residents that it is?
A city sitting on over $7 million in reserves was told it was going broke. Someone was counting on residents not checking.
As more information surfaces regarding the financial data submitted during the Civil Grand Jury process, the public may soon have a much clearer picture of how that narrative was constructed, and by whom. Providing false or misleading financial information in an official proceeding is not simply poor judgment. It can carry serious legal consequences.
Stay tuned.
Clayton Watch will continue to research the facts and report what the public deserves to know.
The facts are on the record. The audit speaks for itself. The residents of Clayton deserve nothing less than the truth.


