Top News!

 Clayton Watch · Candidate Record Review · No. 1

The Peter Cloven Record: What Clayton’s Books Show

A review of the City’s financial oversight during Peter Cloven’s term as Mayor

An update on the Clayton City Council election. Five residents have pulled papers to run. As of today, none have submitted the completed paperwork required to qualify for the November ballot.

Those who have pulled papers: Peter Cloven, Councilmember Kim Trupiano, Mayor Jeff Wan, Planning Commissioner Maria Shulman, and Amy Callaghan.

Over the coming months, Clayton Watch will examine the public record of each of these candidates and publish what we find, from City records, our own files, and other background material. We will do this for every name on the list.

We begin with Peter Cloven, who previously served as Mayor of Clayton. 

Every item below comes from documents on file 
at Clayton City Hall. Nothing here is our characterization of events; it is what the City’s own records say.

VOTED YES

Peter Cloven voted to approve the Olivia development on Marsh Creek over resident objection.

The project was approved with inadequate parking spaces for 81 units, below the City’s own parking standard. Residents raised the shortfall at public hearings. Peter Cloven voted yes, not once, but twice to move the project forward.

18 MONTHS

Under Peter Cloven, the City’s checkbook went unreconciled for more than 18 months.

Reconciling the checkbook is the most basic financial control a city has. Without it, no one can say what the City holds or where it went. Peter Cloven presided over the Council throughout that period, and he did nothing about it.

$50,000

Under Peter Cloven, $50,000 of the City’s money went missing.

The City manager reported roughly $50,000 unaccounted for. It sat undetected for months. Peter Cloven was Mayor when it was reported, and the records show no audit, no investigation, and no action taken by Peter Cloven.

NO ANSWER

Peter Cloven could not state what the City held in their investment accounts.

Asked on the record about Clayton’s accounts and investments, Mayor Peter Cloven was unable to answer.

VOTED NO

Peter Cloven voted against the City’s budget.

The budget funds police, roads, and services. Peter Cloven, presiding as Mayor, voted no. He said he was drinking out of a firehose.

$30,000

Peter Cloven proposed the $30,000 community survey, then voted to fund it.

Residents had already made their position clear, no new taxes. They support the police, and love this town. Peter Cloven proposed spending $30,000 to ask again, and voted yes to waste our tax payer money on a survey, so he could justify raising our taxes.

$400 / YR

Peter Cloven urged the Council to move forward with a $400-per-year parcel tax on Clayton homeowners.

He argued for asking residents to close a gap the City’s own unreconciled books made impossible to measure. He took the easy way out and failed to do the hard work.

What Peter Cloven’s successors did differently

The current Council identified unneeded contracts and produced a complete accounting of the City’s income and expenses. That is ordinary financial oversight. It was not attempted under Peter Cloven.

This is not the first time

Peter Cloven pulled papers in the last election cycle and did not file them. The record above was available then, as it is now.

Why the Peter Cloven record matters now

Clayton is a small city. A $50,000 gap is real money here, and 18 months without a reconciliation is not a clerical lapse, it is the absence of a control. Peter Cloven presided over that period. Residents are entitled to weigh it.

Every document cited is public. Request it from the City Clerk, or ask Clayton Watch and we’ll point you to it.

By Clayton Watch, FPPC ID #1471612. Statements about Mr. Cloven’s record are based on public City records; conclusions are the opinions of the committee.

Top Story

Clayton Watch Political Action Committee

Why Clayton Watch Went Quiet on the Civil Grand Jury Report — Until Now

For nearly a year, Clayton Watch Political Action Committee has raised concerns
regarding Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2505, Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns. Those concerns center on what Clayton Watch believes are factual inaccuracies, omissions, and interpretive statements that do not align with the underlying public record.

Because Civil Grand Jury reports carry significant authority and become a permanent part of the public record, we believed it was important to proceed carefully, responsibly, and based on verifiable facts.

Why We Took Action

Before taking any formal action, Clayton Watch spent months reviewing:

• - Audited financial records
• - City Council minutes and agendas
• - Staffing timelines
• - Brown Act requirements
• - Revenue planning actions taken by the City
• - California Civil Grand Jury procedures and standards

Only after completing that review did we conclude that portions of Report 2505 raised legitimate questions concerning factual accuracy, omissions, and narrative framing.

What We Did

Contrary to what some may believe, Clayton Watch did not immediately go public, contact the media, or launch political attacks. Instead, we pursued every available avenue for review.

After completing our research and analysis, Clayton Watch formally notified:

• - The Superior Court
• - The Presiding Judge
• - County Counsel
• - The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
• - The Civil Grand Jurors' Association

In addition, we submitted a Public Information Request seeking records relating to the preparation of Report 2505. That request was denied.

Only after taking those steps did Clayton Watch file a Petition with the Contra Costa County Superior Court seeking review of concerns surrounding Report 2505.

The Petition was ultimately denied. However, the denial was not based on a determination that the underlying concerns lacked merit. Rather, Clayton Watch was advised that available administrative remedies should first be exhausted before judicial intervention would potentially become appropriate.

We followed that guidance.

As a result, Clayton Watch then filed a formal Administrative Complaint through the Civil Grand Jury complaint process, requesting review of the procedures used to gather, verify, review, and approve Report 2505.

It is important to understand that Clayton Watch used the very same Grand Jury complaint process through which concerns regarding local government are brought before the Grand Jury in the first place. Grand Jury investigations do not simply materialize on their own. They begin with information, allegations, complaints, or concerns that are presented to the Grand Jury for consideration.

Whatever information or concerns ultimately led to Report 2505 becoming the subject of an investigation necessarily entered the system through that same process. Clayton Watch sought no special treatment and requested no extraordinary remedies. We simply used the same established procedures available to every resident of Contra Costa County, and asked that our concerns receive the same fair, impartial, and meaningful review afforded to others.

In short, every available avenue — judicial, administrative, legislative, and informational — was pursued before speaking publicly in greater detail.

Why We Went Quiet

Many residents have asked why Clayton Watch appeared to go quiet regarding the Civil Grand Jury matter.

The answer is simple. We were advised to exhaust every available remedy before escalating the matter further, and that is exactly what we did.

We also intentionally refrained from publicly discussing many aspects of the Administrative Complaint because the complaint process emphasizes confidentiality. We believed it was important to respect that process and allow the system an opportunity to review the concerns internally before discussing them publicly.

This has never been about political theater. It has always been about accountability, fairness, accuracy, and protecting the integrity of the public record.

Why This Matters

Civil Grand Jury reports carry significant authority. They influence public opinion, shape political narratives, impact reputations, and become permanent parts of the public record while carrying the appearance of judicial credibility.

It is true that Civil Grand Jury reports are recommendations and are not legally binding. In practice, however, the reports often have a much greater impact.

The Civil Grand Jury gets to fire the first cannon. The report is released, headlines are written, and narratives quickly form in the court of public opinion. Only later do the affected agencies and officials have an opportunity to respond through formal written replies, and by then far fewer people read the responses than read the original headlines.

That reality makes accuracy, fairness, and factual verification especially important. Even though the recommendations themselves are not binding, the public perceptions created by an official Grand Jury report can have lasting consequences for communities, public institutions, and individual reputations.

The concerns raised by Clayton Watch are not about whether the Civil Grand Jury should investigate government. It absolutely should.

The question is whether every institution entrusted with public confidence — including the Civil Grand Jury itself — should be willing to address legitimate concerns regarding accuracy, fairness, and accountability.

We believe the answer is yes.

Where Things Stand Today

At this time, Clayton Watch is consulting with legal counsel regarding potential next steps. Two avenues are under active consideration:

1. Writ of Mandate — seeking judicial review by petitioning the court to compel action, which would name the Civil Grand Jury as the responding party.
2. Legislative Reform — petitioning the State Legislature to change the laws governing the Civil Grand Jury, in order to strengthen oversight, transparency, and accountability within California's Civil Grand Jury system.

In addition, Clayton Watch has contacted the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office and encouraged it to review whether the information presented in connection with Report 2505 was accurate and properly verified. The integrity of the Civil Grand Jury process depends upon the accuracy of the information presented to it, and upon the public's confidence that official reports are based upon verified facts. (The letter sent to the District Attorney's Office is available for public review below.)

Because transparency matters, we are making the underlying documents available for public review. We encourage residents to read the filings, examine the supporting exhibits, and draw their own conclusions.

📄 Read the Petition Filed with the Superior Court: View the Petition

📄 Read the Administrative Complaint and Supporting Exhibits: View the Complaint

📄 Read the Letter Sent to the District Attorney's Office: View the Letter

Clayton Watch will continue to pursue every appropriate avenue available, including administrative review, consultation with legal counsel regarding a potential Writ of Mandate, and discussions concerning possible legislative reforms. This effort is not about relitigating past disagreements. It is about ensuring that official reports carrying the authority and credibility of the Civil Grand Jury are factually verified, procedurally fair, and free from unsupported narratives or unverified information originating from sources advocating a particular outcome.

Our hope is that, by pursuing this matter responsibly and through the proper channels, future Civil Grand Jury reports affecting Clayton, or any other community, will be guided by accuracy, fairness, and accountability, rather than becoming sources of unnecessary division or avoidable harm to a community's reputation.

As developments occur, we will continue to keep the community informed.

Accountability is not an attack on the Civil Grand Jury. Accountability is what gives the Civil Grand Jury its credibility in the first place.

Acknowledgment

Clayton Watch would like to recognize and thank Gary Hood, Bill Walcutt, and the other members of the Clayton Watch Committee for the many hours spent reviewing public records, examining financial documents, researching applicable laws and procedures, preparing filings, and documenting the issues discussed in this article.

This effort has always been driven by a commitment to facts, fairness, accountability, and the belief that engaged citizens play an important role in promoting transparency and public trust.

Clayton Watch also extends its appreciation to the many residents who have followed this issue, shared information, and encouraged a thoughtful, fact-based discussion about accountability and the integrity of the public record.

— Clayton Watch Political Action Committee

Top Story

Civil Grand Jury Watches Government, But Who’s Watching Them?  

By David King, Diablo Gazette / Photos Added by Clayton Watch 

2025/2026 Civil Grand Jury with the Board of Supervisors

The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury is annually impaneled to investigate city and county governments, special districts and certain nonprofit corporations to ensure functions are performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner. Recommendations resulting from these investigations are listed.

This year, a just released report 2602 is a highly critical Civil Grand Jury review of Contra Costa County’s Internal Audit Division (IAD), concluding that the County’s internal auditing system is outdated, lacks independence, and does not comply with professional auditing standards or California law and says the current structure undermines both independence and public accountability.

Among the Findings
The Grand Jury says the County’s internal audit operation has major structural problems.

One of the more egregious findings is the Internal Audit Division has not had an outside quality review in more than 25 years, even though auditing standards require one every 3–5 years.

It cites examples indicating the audit division is functioning in what the report calls a major conflict of interest and “independence impairment.”

Oversight from the Board of Supervisors is described as weak and largely symbolic.

The audit division operates under a governing administrative bulletin written in 1975 that has never been modernized to reflect current standards.

The County does not publicly post completed internal audit reports or annual audit plans online and lacks several standard safeguards expected in modern government auditing.

Jury Recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends sweeping reforms, including:

* Creating a dedicated Audit Committee and adding outside/public financial experts.
* Ending the practice of auditors helping prepare the County’s financial reports. 

* Requiring quarterly reporting to supervisors.
* Publishing audit reports publicly online.
* Bringing the division into compliance with Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and Government Accountability Office (GAGAS) standards.

The County must respond to the Court regarding recommendations offered by the report.

Last year when the Clayton City Council had to respond to its Civil Grand Jury Report 2505. The Council responded with an emphatic “no” to most of the report’s recommendations, citing the investigators used inaccurate figures, dismissed audited figures and other information provided and misunderstands local government procedures and functions.

In addition, believing the report was detrimental to the City’s reputation, the local Political Action Committee, Clayton Watch, submitted a petition to the Court requesting a correction or amendment to their report.

Did they do it? It doesn’t appear so.

“The new Pinole Civil Grand Jury Report 2604 shows what good oversight looks like: facts, benchmarks, and transparency,” said Gary Hood, a member of the Clayton Watch and Clayton resident who filed the petition.

“Last year’s Clayton report did the opposite. It started with a conclusion, then worked backward and failed badly to support it.

“Maybe it’s time for the Civil Grand Jury to look in the mirror. A watchdog should be held to the same standard it demands of everyone else. Political influence has no place in the process. The public deserves independence, objectivity, and facts. And maybe it’s time someone on the judiciary side of the street did their job. Who watches the watchdog?”   

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:

✔ Verified revenue projections
✔ 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

News or Nonsense? SFGATE’s Hit Piece on Clayton

Clayton Club

Funny how some reporters can spot a restaurant story from 30 miles away, yet somehow miss the facts sitting right in front of them. The latest SFGATE piece on Clayton Club reads less like journalism and more like a drive-by hit piece on a small town that deserves better. When recycled sources, old grudges, and half-checked claims become the foundation of a story, readers are left with fiction dressed up as reporting. Don’t take our word for it—read the article yourself and decide whether it was news… or nonsense.

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)

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

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.