Don’t Blindly Accept the Report - Learn the Facts

By Clayton Watch

After the Grand Jury report was released, Clayton Watch responded swiftly with a detailed, fact-based rebuttal.

A few days later, Vice Mayor Jeff Wan published an even more comprehensive analysis, directly addressing and dismantling many of the report’s claims.

To those still accepting the Grand Jury report at face value — we urge you to examine the evidence for yourself. Wan’s analysis clearly demonstrates that the report is filled with inaccuracies, misleading statements, and logical inconsistencies.

Even the title of the report raises serious concerns. How did such a biased and inflammatory headline pass approval by the foreperson and supervising judge? That alone casts doubt on the credibility of the entire process.

It’s time to stop blindly accepting the report’s narrative and start demanding accountability from those who influenced and fed misinformation to the Grand Jury.

Specifically, it’s time to hold former City Manager Bret Prebula, Councilmember Holly Tillman, former Councilmember Peter Cloven, and Clayton Pioneer owner Tamara Steiner accountable for their roles in misleading the Grand Jury and the public.

For those who haven’t seen Vice Mayor Wan’s letter, we’ve included it below for your review.
_______________________________________

On the Grand Jury Report Regarding Clayton 

By Vice Mayor Jeff Wan

Recently the Contra Costa County Grand Jury issued a report regarding Clayton.  And while the City will respond to the report as required, I wanted to offer my own thoughts as it is a matter of community interest.

Overall, it's disappointing to see the amount of time and taxpayer resources spent on a report that not only gets several matters of fact wrong, but also relies on these errors to draw conclusions not supported by any evidence.  While the report did identify certain matters of fact correctly, it contained a significant amount of errors and left out context that would impact a reader's understanding of the information presented to such a degree that the report is not useful.  In addition, the Grand Jury's recommendations venture into the realm of policy making, something they were certainly not elected to do.

The report focused on four areas: Turnover, Agenda Setting, Financial Management, and Committee Activity.  I'll touch on each area below and illustrate substantial flaws in each area.

On Turnover:

From the report:

First, this table has three factual errors.  The first is that Gary Napper is missing - he retired effective at the end of July 2019.  Second, Ikani Taumoepeau name is spelled incorrectly.  Third, our former Police Chief Warren also served as an acting City Manager during the time period chosen.  The Grand Jury report also misspells the name of our former Community Development Director.  This is consistent with the level of diligence performed by the Grand Jury in issuing their report.

Second, while the turnover in City Managers is undesirable, it is not accurate to imply that all turnover is for the same reasons.  Some have left due to retirement, others seeking career growth, others for higher compensation, and others because the role may not have been a good fit. In some cases when a person separates, there are Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or information subject to attorney-client privilege that is unable to be shared publicly. For example, if there were inappropriate behavior, it would need to be addressed but that action would likely be taken in a way not able to be shared publicly. In short, trying to create a narrative that people are leaving for the same reason, is misleading and false.

Beyond misleading however, is inflating the number of people who have left to sensationalize a narrative. For example, the claim that the City has gone through twelve City Managers. In reality, including the resignation of our last City Manager in early 2024, the real number is four (five if you include our current City Manager) which is inclusive of the retirement of a person with 17 years of tenure (Napper, Taumoepeau, Schwartz, and Prebula). The only way that the figure comes to twelve (actually fourteen if using the Grand Jury's own stated methodology) is if those serving in interim and acting roles were counted. But this is intentionally misleading as these are different roles. There is a reason the title is “INTERIM City Manager”, and not simply “City Manager”. They are literally different roles - the difference in title is a pretty good clue of that. 

Those who take on interim roles intend to only stay in the role as long as is needed to find a person on a permanent basis. In fact, many of the people who take on interim roles are retirees who are restricted from working over a certain number of hours. 

In addition, including in this list folks like Hoffmeister, Warren, Walcker, McEachin, and Rubier lacks sufficient context as to be misleading.  While technically these individuals did serve as Acting in the role of City Manager - they did so all for a very short time during times when the City Manager was on vacation, or during transitions between full time employees and interim employees.  In each case none were actually selected by actions of the Council.

Later the Grand Jury report asserts the consequences of turnover as follow:

Following a similar pattern, the assertion makes errors of fact, and errors of omission.  The Grand Jury report asserts potential savings of $151K to $165K.  This is derived by comparing the amount paid to a contractor, 4 Leaf Inc., to the salary range of a new position created ($226K - $75K = $151K, $226K - $61K = $1655K.)  Even taking the comparison at face value, this assertion would be wrong as it does not include the benefit load of a full time employee, which in Clayton is approximately 20% - 30%.  This is an error of fact.  

In addition, code enforcement was not performed by the Community Development Director as the report asserts - this was performed by a different role.  What this means is that the comparison is not apples to apples and the potential savings are unfounded.  It turns out that the code enforcement role performed by 4 Leaf was performed so well that the City ended up hiring the individual to continue code enforcement on a full time basis as an employee.

It is also important to note that the Council only hires the City Manager, and the City Attorney.  All other positions of the City are hired by the City Manager and Council has no role in that process.

The next conclusion the Grand Jury draws is just as spurious:

While the original information that the firm, HdL stated was an estimated 2,000 businesses, this was based on false information provided by a former City Manager.  When the current Council pressed HdL on this analysis, the actual figures turned out to be something different.  City staff had previously represented that the City had approximately 1100 active businesses in the City.  Extrapolating from there, HdL estimated that through their efforts they could discover an additional 900 businesses and therefore expand the pool of licensed businesses.  If this were possible, it would increase City revenues.  

After review, it turns out the information that prior City leadership (no longer employed with the City) overstated the actual number of businesses in the City.  The actual number is closer to 500.  This information was available as of March of this year and presented during a Budget and Audit Committee meeting, and then later at a regular Council meeting on April 1st.  That the Grand Jury omitted this information which contradicts the conclusions drawn by the Grand Jury.

On Agenda Setting:

In this section, the Grand Jury makes a critical error - they treat Council Guidelines as binding rules which they are not.  The Guidelines represent norms that have been adopted by the Council, but they are not controlling, nor is there any rule that requires they must be followed at all times.  This should have been obvious to the Grand Jury since they are literally called "guidelines".  Perhaps the item under Council Values that states "Humor is an important tool" could have been a clue, or the statement in the Guidelines that says, "Traditions are respected but not always binding."

From the Grand Jury report:

Even here the Grand Jury continues to make errors of fact when it states that things occurred contrary to these Guidelines.  The Guidelines clearly state that it is the Mayor's discretion as to which meeting a requested agenda item will appear.  Exercising this discretion is well within the scope of the Guidelines.  

In addition, the Guidelines also require a written description to be provided - and in the example provided they identify that this did not occur until March of 2024.  This contradicts the claim that a formal agenda request was made in the Fall of 2023.  During the calendar year 2023 when I served as Mayor, I never received any written request as called for by our Guidelines.  However, during the course of such verbal requests, the nature of the request changed multiple times.  It ranged from a 360 degree review, to toxic or hostile work environment, to turnover, to overstepping, to training.  This highlights the importance of a written request - so appropriate planning and staff time could be utilized in preparing agenda items.

Given the turnover during 2024, it's not surprising that the City's priorities were on staffing and continuity, not entertaining requests that changed each time they were made.

To be clear, our City Attorney is able to take action independently if they have evidence or suspect any action that presents risk to the City. Without being prompted, our City Attorney has in the past offered counsel and advice unsolicited in areas they felt appropriate, and has given direction on other matters as well. Our City Manager has authority to engage a third party for up to $30K without any other approval from Council that could be used to engage a third party investigation should they so choose. Both of these roles exercise independent judgment and did not taken any action related to the request for investigation. 

What the Grand Jury report neglects to mention is that upon taking the role of Mayor in December of 2024, Mayor Trupiano reached out to Councilmember Tillman in an effort to address her previous requests for an investigation into fellow Councilmembers and training.  A result of that meeting was an agreement to propose an ad hoc committee in order to facilitate a governance training workshop for Council and staff.  Councilmember Tillman stated that this ad hoc committee and training satisfies her previous requests.

The leaps of logic and false assertions of fact by the Grand Jury continue:

First, the meetings being referenced here were established by the Interim City Manager, not the City Manager.  The distinction in titles is significant.  

Second, only those committees formed by formal action of the Council are subject to the Brown Act.  If the Interim City Manager calls for a meeting to discuss agenda setting, prioritization, etc. and includes less than a quorum, and certain members of City staff, that does not constitute a Meeting per the Brown Act.  To assert as much is incorrect on the law.

Third, two members who are less than a quorum of the Council can meet with whomever they choose (excepting on those topics that they represent a standing committee) and it would not be a covered meeting by the Brown Act.

The rest of the conclusions drawn in this section rely on this erroneous application of the law.  There was no Agenda Setting Committee, there were agenda setting meetings.  There was no change in policy because no actual policy was adopted.  Policies are not captured in the Council Guidelines, as those are guidelines, not controlling policies.  As there was no committee, it clearly could not be subject to the Brown Act.  Basically every assertion of fact and conclusion in this section is false.

On Financial Management:

The Grand Jury report in this section fairs no better in terms of accurately describing the facts regarding the Financial Sustainability Committee:

While members of the Financial Sustainability Committee did speak at our 4.1.25 meeting, the statements made were not that of the Committee itself, rather from individual members speaking as individuals.  This was clarified during the meeting - that the Committee has taken no action in terms of adopting any kind of report to Council.  Therefore the Council did not hear a report of the Committee's activities as the Grand Jury asserts.

As the Grand Jury identifies, a quorum of the Committee was not achieved until 4.16.24.  During the first 6 months of a quorum existing, the Committee met twice.  Hardly sufficient experience to review performance, and again, the guidelines cited by the Grand Jury are not binding.  

When we get to the section on addressing the deficit, the Grand Jury's report fares even worse when it comes to identifying the facts:

Every single figure cited by the Grand Jury in the table above is wrong.  All of the City's audited financial statements can be found on the City's website here:  https://claytonca.gov/finance/accounting-financial-reporting/audited-financial-statements/

For FY20, here is the relevant page from the City's audited financial statements (ACFR):

Here for FY20, the Grand Jury misstates the Revenue, Expense and "Net Surplus".  I put "Net Surplus" in quotes because that is not an actual term that is used in financial reporting for the City.  Instead, the correct term is "Change in Fund Balance".  They do this for every year presented in the table.  Consider, that 100% of the figures that are used are wrong.  Excerpts from each of FY21, FY22, and FY23:

 

And while I have previously identified significant issues in terms of finances that the City will need to address, the fact that the Grand Jury so obviously misstates the facts casts doubt on any conclusion they may draw.

The actual General Fund results as assembled from the audited financial statements are as follows:

The above table is inclusive of a prior period adjustment made during the FY22 audit regarding the FY21 year of approximately $52K.  FY22 and FY23 reflect receipt of ARPA funds.

When talking about increasing taxes, the Grand Jury had this to say:

The Council in fact, did not adopt a reserve policy to reduce its reserve to 40% of General Fund expenses.  What the Council did during the 3.5.24 meeting was to adopt a reserve policy that established that "the minimum target reserve of the General Reserve will be maintained at forty percent (40%) of General Fund Operating Expenditures."  There is a stark difference between adopting a policy to reduce the reserves, and a policy that reduces the minimum target percentage.  Keep in mind that the current reserves have historically been near 100% of general fund operating expenditures and adopting the new policy does not prohibit the City from maintaining a higher level of reserves which it currently does.

The second assertion, that the City has declined to take any revenue enhancement measures, is also false.  Back in early 2022, the City conducted a survey regarding potential support for a tax measure in Nov-22.  The results of the survey were clear - that residents were satisfied with the quality of life in Clayton, generally not aware of the financial challenges facing the City, and that there was not sufficient support to pass a ballot measure increasing taxes.  While it was always the case that the City needed to do more diligence in assessing the situation, the survey results solidified that fact.  Rather than pursue a tax measure without all the information, we as a Council have been doing the work over the past two years to determine what is actually needed.

In addition to this information gathering, 

• The City has updated its investment policy and engaged a third party for more managed services which should yield higher returns.
• The City has updated its master fee schedule to bring more current the costs associated with providing services for rentals, uses, and administrative services.  This included adding a special event fee for larger events that consume more of the City's resources.
• We engaged HDL to assist managing our business license renewal process, including efforts to determine if there were additional businesses operating in the City that required a license in an effort to increase revenue.
• We renegotiated our waste management service agreement with Republic Services to bring us in compliance with new statewide mandates for recycling.

All of these things are revenue enhancement measures and the statement by the Grand Jury is false.  While only focusing on raising taxes, the Grand Jury ventures into areas of policy making.  This is what the Council was elected to do, not the Grand Jury.

In addition, the Council did take action in 2024 directing staff to work towards a tax measure to be placed on the November 2026 ballot.  We did this at our 3.5.24 meeting, the minutes are as follows:

For the Grand Jury to assert that the Council has declined to take any revenue enhancement measures is demonstrably false.  When I spoke with the Grand Jury, I provided all of this evidence.  It appears they did not consider the information that I provided.

On Committee Activity:

In asserting that committees take action without Council approval, the Grand Jury states the following:

As the Negotiation Committee was an Ad Hoc committee, no agendas nor minutes are called for, and this has not been the practice of the City.   Given the matter was of public interest, I did publish ongoing information about the negotiation efforts here and here and here and here.  I also wrote about it in two local papers, discussed the issue in a townhall, among other avenues.  To imply that there was something secret going on is inconsistent with the evidence.

In fact, the offer made was not rejected, it was identified as unchanged from prior discussions and as a result no action was taken.  The Ad Hoc Committee invited further discussion but none was offered.  Neither the City nor the ad hoc committee heard back after that.  The Ad Hoc Committee in fact did not take any action on behalf of the City as a Committee is not authorized to do so.  The Grand Jury attempts to equivocate on what constitutes taking action, however, declining to take action to bring something forward is not equivalent to taking action. Otherwise the list of what is declined would be infinite.

Regarding Committees reporting out, the Grand Jury states the following:

The Grand Jury identifies that attendance at various Committees occurred and criticizes the lack of detail provided, citing the "requirement" in the Council Guidelines that Committees shall keep the rest of the Council informed.  The Grand Jury neglects to consider that in the same guidelines it states that if any Councilmember wants more information, they are responsible for requesting it.  There were no such requests that were denied.  

The Grand Jury goes on to criticize the move to written Council reports as lacking in transparency.  On the contrary, having a written record is far superior than a verbal statement that is unsearchable, and often drifts into matters of no substance or things unrelated to City business.

The Grand Jury does criticize the number of Special Meetings, and how minutes are posted.  Often times because of the City's small staff, especially for committee meetings, scheduling has been challenging, and preparing materials timely has been challenging.  The decision to agendized something as a Special Meeting or a regular meeting is often made at the staff level in addition to preparing the actual agenda based on prioritization of ongoing demands.  

Consider that our last Budget an Audit Committee meeting (4.21.25) was agendized as a Special Meeting.  This time and date was known for weeks, however due to staff's work on preparing materials, the information was not published 72 hours in advance - closer to 70 hours.  Nevertheless, it contained an agenda item for public comment on non-agenda items, and was treated exactly as a regularly scheduled meeting would be.

I agree that less Special Meetings would be preferable and staff is working towards preparing materials more in advance.

The same is true for minutes.  In operation, the Council does not take minutes, nor publish them - that is the role of staff.  I and other Councilmembers have encouraged staff to post prominently and timely the minutes of all of our meetings.

Regarding the findings:

As I've demonstrated above, the findings identified by the Grand Jury are either factually wrong, misleading, lacking context, or some combination of all three.  It is unfortunate that taxpayer dollars were squandered in this effort.  

It's also odd the time periods chosen for the review.  In conducting any kind of review, the time period in question is typically held constant to give a consistent picture of what is being discussed.  In this case, the Grand Jury chose different time periods for different areas of their report.  This haphazard approach was taken for a reason that is not provided by the Grand Jury.

Regarding the recommendations:

Given the level of factual errors and omissions, it would be imprudent to base actions upon such poorly crafted recommendations.

Budgeting for Clayton’s Future - Don't Miss It - Tuesday, May 6th at 4:30 PM

Kim Trupiano, Mayor

The City of Clayton officially began its budget process at the April 21 Budget and Audit Committee meeting. This marks an important milestone, as it will be the City’s first time adopting a two-year budget.

We remain committed to addressing both immediate and long-term needs while working within our financial limits. Our goal is to maintain the high level of service our community values. Throughout the process, we will evaluate priorities in key areas such as landscaping, parks and trails, public safety, road and infrastructure improvements, staffing, training, and planning for future events.

While budgets can be tight, they also offer flexibility. Our approach will be thoughtful, prudent, and focused on making meaningful impacts. This is one of the most important efforts we undertake each year—as a City, a Council, and a Community. Despite the new two-year format, there will continue to be opportunities for mid-year reviews and adjustments as needed.

A look at the upcoming Budget Workshop agenda and projects:
• Revisit and reflect on Council goals, building on last year’s goal-setting efforts.
• Review community feedback from last year’s survey and ongoing input.
• Hear department updates and priorities for the next two years.
• Assess the City’s current financial status and projections, including the General Fund, the Landscape Maintenance District Fund, Reserves and long-term obligations, and Capital improvement and infrastructure needs.
• Review results from our new Investment Advisory Services agreement with UBS, now managing the City’s investment portfolio.

Current and Upcoming Projects:
• Roadway Paving for 2026 – Finalized at the April 1, 2025, City Council meeting.
• Clayton Community Library Refresh Project – Scheduled to begin later this year or early next, in partnership with the County Library and Clayton Community Library Foundation.
• Final Phase of the Climatec Project – Includes installation of a solar array and EV charging station to achieve a Net-Zero Energy site for the Library, City Hall, and Maintenance Facility — reducing energy costs and the City’s carbon footprint.

We encourage community members to attend the May 6th City Council meeting, which includes a Budget Workshop, beginning at 4:30 p.m.

My goal is always to be as transparent and accountable as possible with the community, so if you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact me at kimt@claytonca.gov or 925.673.7324.

City Council Meeting Summary - Jeff Wan 4-15-25

Jeff Wan

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.

------------------------------------------------------------

On Tuesday the Council met to discuss the results of the annual audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. Unfortunately there was a scheduling miscommunication and the City's auditor was not in attendance. As a result, we tabled the discussion to a future meeting.

There was also a closed session with no reportable items.

Clayton City Council - From the Desk of Kim Trupiano 4-1-25

City Council Correspondence: The excerpts below have been sourced from the Diablo Gazette to share with the Clayton Watch Community. You can access the article in the Diablo Gazette's website by following this link: https://www.diablogazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Diablo-Gazette-APR-25-16pg-D1.pdf

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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Clayton Community Library Celebrates 30 Years 

Clayton Library

Thank you Joyce Atkinson, Jeanne Boyd (posthumously) and Diana Bauer for dreaming big and making the hope of a library in Clayton a reality over 30 years ago. These women, with the help of the Clayton Branch of the AAUW (American Association of University Women) decide in 1989 that the Clayton community needed to build a library. They formed a steering committee made up of many organizations across the community and in July of that year formed the Clayton Community Library Foundation, created to raise money for the project.

Over the next five years fundraising takes place, including book sales, crab feeds, and a multitude of grant applications resulting in one large grant of $2.8 million from Prop 85 in 1991. A groundbreaking ceremony happened on March 12, 1994, and later that year, the City approved $542,000 for book collection. After all of the demanding work, extraordinary vision and determination, on March 4, 1995, the Clayton Community Library opens its doors.

It is because of the efforts of these three women and lots of other volunteers and donors who supported the library then and continue to do so today, that we celebrate 30 Years of the Clayton Community Library this month.

Today the library is testament to the community and visited by thousands of people a year who will find, besides a vast assortment of books and publications, a variety of activities and classes including Tai Chi, Chair Yoga and Meditation, Story Time for children, Art Classes and Teen events, Book Clubs and so much more.

To coincide with the 30th Anniversary of the library, the City will be embarking on a refresh project later this year that will include new paint, carpeting, improved lighting, furniture and other design elements and CCLF is hoping to have some celebratory events throughout the year to commemorate the anniversary. Also, save the date for the next Book Sale, on May 17 and 18 (May 16 for members only).

The Clayton Community Library stands as a testament to the strength, commitment and caring that so many of our residents perform day in and day out to make our community a better place. Thank you Joyce, Jeanne and Diana for being shining examples of that.

Other City News

Each month the City is awarding an Unsung Hero Award to someone making a significant difference in our community. We honored Linda Pinder for the month of January and Paul Jordan for the month of February. For March, we will be honoring Joyce Atkinson, Jeanne Boyd (posthumously) and Diana Bauer. If you have suggestions about future Unsung Heroes, please feel free to contact me at 925.673.7324 or kimt@claytonca. gov.

City Council Meeting Summary - Jeff Wan 3-18-25

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

At our last Council meeting we discussed several significant items. The majority of time was spent on the Biennial Pavement Assessment Report, which I will go into further details below.

- We received a report on the mid year budget. There were a few increases in spending that were authorized by Council (painting/carpeting at City Hall, and a new riding lawnmower), but other than that the results at mid year were in line with expectations. There were various puts and takes, the most significant being increases in contractor spend that was offset by lower compensation expense due to staff vacancies.

Excluding the general fund appropriation ($230K) that was approved with the adoption of the budget, overall the City is projecting a deficit of approximately $110K at year end.

- We discussed a potential pilot program for sidewalk repairs. Sidewalks in front of residents property are the responsibility of the property owner, however the sidewalk if primarily on City property. As a result, if sidewalks create a hazardous situation, the City is potentially liable along with the homeowner. Combine this with the fact that sidewalk repair is often very expensive, the City is seeking ways to mitigate risk and assist homeowners in fulfilling their responsibility.

There was general consensus that the City was not interested in subsidizing the cost of sidewalk repairs directly. We considered a few different options that included the City facilitating the repair and billing the homeowner, as well as exploring joining other neighboring cities' sidewalk repair program that utilizes a network of qualified professionals. A larger program may provide benefits of scale. Ultimately the Council gave direction to staff to seek more information and report back.

- Most of the discussion was around the pavement assessment report we received. Overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the City is approximately 73. The scale is out of 100, and is divided into four general condition categories. Pavements in “Good” condition have a PCI above 70, pavements in “Fair” condition have a PCI between 50 and 69, pavements in “Poor” condition have a PCI between 25 and 49, and finally pavements in “Failed” condition have a PCI below 25. Here are examples roads with different PCI values:



While a score of 73 is considered "good", it also reflects consistent and steady declines over the last 10 years.



The table above shows the current score of 73, with a score of 85 in 2016. This table also illustrates the work that has been done on City streets. We typically do work every two years in order to get slightly lower costs with larger scale. The work scheduled in 2020 was postponed due to COVID.

Picking the streets to work on is a bit counterintuitive. At first it may seem logical to pick the streets that are in the worst condition. However, rehabilitating these streets is also the most costly. With limited funds, the entire pool could be consumed with 1 or 2 streets, leaving the rest of the streets in the city to continue to deteriorate through normal wear and tear. As a result, it is often more cost efficient to do maintenance on a streets in better condition, as maintaining current conditions is less expensive in the long run, and more areas of the city could be improved.

The City uses a program called StreetSaver. This program is designed to maximize PCI overall in the City based on the amount of funds available. Because it costs more to rehabilitate streets in poor condition often StreetSaver will not select the streets in the worst condition for maintenance and rehabilitation work.

Given the steady decline in PCI overall, it is important to determine what level of funding is necessary to maintain the current road conditions. Each year we receive approximately $1M in our share of gas tax, and other state and local funding. We accumulate these funds and every other year pick streets to do maintenance on in order to improve the road condition and the overall PCI.

Based on analysis, in order for the City to simply maintain a PCI of 73 that it currently has overall, the City would need to spend approximately $13M over 5 years, or $2.6M/year. Our funding is approximately $1M/year.



Unless the City is able to spend a significantly greater amount on street maintenance and rehabilitation, the conditions of roads in the City will continue to decline. At our current rate of spending, this is the projected outcomes on overall road conditions:



Total general fund revenues for the entire year are projected to be just under $6M. As we enter the budget planning process, we will need to begin a discussion with the community regarding what level of overall services, quality of streets, and maintenance of the City is desired, and what we are willing to pay for.

A link to the detail by street PCI for both the 2025, and 2023 years can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sUUWREdNL1FC1iccvXJghYzsAv5IhBd4/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103891531140515892067&rtpof=true&sd=true

- The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board also met and adopted a resolution declaring the intent to increase the overall assessments in the District in accordance with Prop 218. Ballots will be mailed to properties in the district no later than 4/18. There will be a public hearing on 6.3.25 to determine the results of ballots received. More to come on what this means for the GHAD.

City Council Meeting Summary - Jeff Wan 3-4-25

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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Last night the Council met to discuss one significant item:

- We authorized the recording of a noise abatement agreement for Oakhurst Golf Course. City ordinance prohibits landscaping work before 7am, however due to the nature of golf course operations Oakhurst has always had an agreement with the city that allows them to start earlier. The prior agreement had expired and the City renewed it with updated terms last night.

The new agreement has a 36 month term, and provides that no maintenance activity shall be performed prior to 5:30am. It also specifies later start times around certain areas of the course to reduce the noise impact to nearby residences. The agreement provides an avenue for complaints and a resolution process as well, and includes a provision that a survey of adjacent residences towards the end of the term of the agreement will be conducted in order to collect feedback for any future modifications.

Clayton City Council - From the Desk of Kim Trupiano 3-1-25

City Council Correspondence: The excerpts below have been sourced from the Diablo Gazette to share with the Clayton Watch Community. You can access the article in the Diablo Gazette's website by following this link: https://www.diablogazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Diablo-Gazette-MAR-25D.pdf

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.

------------------------------------------------------------

The City Of Clayton Kicks Off Full Events Calendar This Spring

Mayor Trupiano

There is so much happening in Clayton this spring including several events, a new restaurant, and outdoor activities, all right at our doorstep. 

“Noises Off” performed by Clayton Community Theatre runs March 13 – 24 at Endeavor Hall. 

The Art & Wine Festival sponsored by Clayton Business and Community Association returns April 26 and 27 to downtown Clayton. 

Concerts in the Grove kicks off its 18th season on May 17 and continues every other Saturday thereafter through August 23. Fan favorites like Pride & Joy and East Bay MUDD are back again this year at The Grove downtown Clayton. 

Take the Clayton Garden Tour, sponsored by the Clayton Historical Society & Museum on May 16 and 17. 

A new dining option at Enye Latin Table which just opened in February, explores the vibrant flavors of Latin America. It’s a wonderful addition to our downtown dining offerings. 

Our City has 27 miles of hiking, biking, and walking trails, five community parks, one dog park, and equestrian staging all on over 500 acres of open space. For a complete list of our trails, visit the City’s trail system page at Claytonca.gov. We also have maps available for the entire trail system for $2.00. 

Unsung Hero Award 

Each month the City is awarding an Unsung Hero Award to someone making a significant difference in our community. We honored Linda Pinder for the month of January and on March 4 we will have honored Paul Jordan for the month of February. If you have suggestions about future Unsung Heroes, please send them to me directly kimt@ claytonca.gov. 

In other City news: Our City is nearly ready to begin the recruitment process for a permanent Police Chief. At our February 18th City Council meeting, we reviewed and approved a new salary schedule for this position. We also agreed to make additional changes to that salary schedule if necessary when the recruitment process ends. 

Also, at our February 18th meeting, the Board of the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) selected a new Chair, Jeff Wan and Vice Chair, Richard Enea. 

After reviewing the annual engineer’s report, we determined that for the District to be able to make the necessary repairs, provide maintenance, and build a reserve, a ballot measure was in order to increase the assessment rates in the district. 

The board approved moving forward with a ballot measure this spring with a proposed schedule of new rates for district residents. There will be a community outreach program to address questions and concerns and increase awareness about the District funding challenges. More information on this will be coming in March. 

At the February Budget & Audit committee meeting, co-chairs, myself and Vice Mayor Wan, reviewed the City’s midyear budget and determined that there were several items that needed to be included in the presentation before it comes to the full City Council on March 4th, including an in-depth summary and analysis of where the City is and the anticipated financial outcome for the end of the year, ending on June 30, 2025. The City staff is also actively working on the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget and the Budget & Audit committee will review that soon. 

Finally, our job search for five open positions resulted in over 200 applications and our City staff is reviewing those now and getting ready to schedule interviews. Staff has remarked that there are some outstanding candidates amongst the applications and they are hoping to have all positions filled by May. 

If you would like to reach me, please contact me at 925.673.7324 or kimt@claytonca.gov. Stronger Together!

Clayton City Council - From the Desk of Kim Trupiano 2-18-25

City Council Correspondence: The excerpts below have been sourced from the Diablo Gazette to share with the Clayton Watch Community. You can access the article in the Diablo Gazette's website by following this link: https://www.diablogazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/DiabloGazette-FEB-25D.pdf. 

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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Addressing the Needs of the City

Mayor Trupiano

As we embark on a new year in the City of Clayton, one of my highest priorities was to ensure that our City Administrative Team has the support that they need to be successful now and in the future. Many residents may be surprised to know that our entire City staff is made up of just 26.6 employees, 13 of which are employees in the police department (11 sworn officers, two civilian). That leaves just 13.6 employees to manage the City’s other departments: HR, Finance, Maintenance and Community Development. We have often supplemented our staffing by the use of consulting firms, which has had a short-term benefit but is not the same as having consistent, yearround, full and part-time employees.

Back in July, our then Interim City Manager proposed a reorganization of the duties of the staff and the creation of new positions including a new Assistant City Manager/ Administrative Services Director, who would oversee HR and Finance, elevating the positions of City Clerk to include Assistant to the City Manager and promoting our Accounting Technician to full time Accountant. The Council approved those changes, including the outsourcing of our Community Development Services until we could determine exactly what the needs of the department and community would be. 

After an extensive review process by the Budget & Audit committee and a number of City Council meetings and discussions, the Council unanimously approved the following changes to the city’s staffing line up on January 21, 2025: 

• Fill the full-time Administrative Clerk and part-time/hourly Community Services Leader (formerly Facilities Attendant) positions, both of which are already budgeted in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 

• Reclassify the Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions with a Senior Planner 

• Add a Management Analyst position to support the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Accountant and City Clerk as needed 

• Add a Community Development Technician to oversee complaintbased code enforcement issues, handle temporary use permits, special event permits, park and facility rental applications, and aid the Senior Planner. 

Filling these positions will provide our City leadership team with the support that they need to be successful and to provide our residents and community with the services that they require. For a complete outline of the positions, job descriptions and salary schedules, please visit www.claytonca.gov/fc/ agendas/council/2025/01212025. In addition, our staff has diligently worked on getting these positions posted and they can be found here: Job Opportunities | Sorted by Job Title ascending | Clayton, City of (CA) Careers.

Officers Save Life - I would also like to recognize the outstanding work done by Officer Wiggins and Sergeant Enea of our Clayton Police Department. On January 25, they responded to a distress call by the husband of a woman who was in her car and had stopped breathing and had no pulse. They administered CPR until Con Fire arrived who resumed CPR until they could get a pulse. Because of their quick response and efforts, this woman is alive today. The City honored them with a Certification of Appreciation, for exceptional bravery, quick thinking and unwavering dedication to duty, exhibiting the highest standards of public service resulting in the saving of a life.

Remember, We are Stronger Together. 

Please feel free to contact me at kimt@claytonca.gov or 925-673-7324. 

City Council Meeting Summary - Jeff Wan 2-18-25

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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Councilmember Wan

Last night the Council met and had one significant item on the agenda, however the meeting had extensive discussion on some other topics.

- We discussed a renewal of a noise abatement agreement with Oakhurst Country Club.  Due to the nature of golf course operations, several maintenance activities occur daily and at early hours in the day.  Things like mowing the grass and resetting tee boxes and greens take place before play begins, which is typically at sunrise.

Current City ordinances prohibit certain noise creating activities like mowing lawns prior to 7am each day.  Because time of use for the golf course starts at 7am, maintenance has always happened prior to that time.  Historically there has existed a noise abatement agreement which granted Oakhurst permission to operate certain equipment at earlier times in the day - with the focus on areas away from homes, though not entirely.

The noise abatement renewal did not change any of the existing provisions substantively.  We later determined that the wrong version of the agreement was included in the agenda packet.  In addition, there was feedback provided by residents regarding Oakhurst maintenance operations, alleging operations outside the time permitted per the noise agreement.  As such, the Council tabled this until a later date and asked our City Manager to approach Oakhurst to see if there were other provisions that could be adjusted.

- We discussed the salary schedule of the Police Chief position which is currently vacant and being filled on an interim basis.  The Council agreed to increase the salary schedule by 4% consistent with the agreement that was in place with the prior Police Chief.  When the recruitment period ends, we will discuss with the City Manager whether any additional changes need to be made to attract qualified candidates.

The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board also met and discussed a few significant items:

- We selected a new Chair (myself) and Vice Chair (Boardmember Enea)

- We received the annual engineer's report which indicated several areas where maintenance was recommended.  Without adequate maintenance, the risk of damage due to Earth movement increases.  Without additional funding however, the GHAD would need to use between 2-3 years worth of funding from the future to cover the cost.  Without additional funding, I did not think it was prudent to spend all of the remaining GHAD funds on maintenance that may not add value, and would need to be performed on a repeated basis.  Rather, I thought it was more important to take steps to increase the revenues so as to make the GHAD more solvent.

- We discussed the process for a ballot measure to increase GHAD assessments.  A notice would be sent to all residents in the GHAD, and ask them to approve a rate increase.  The amount of the increased assessment would vary based on the type of residence.  Votes are counted on a per residence basis, with a greater weight going towards those residences of higher value or at higher risk of being impacted.

The Board gave direction to pursue the rate increase, including the establishing of a reserve, and determine whether a citizen oversight committee was possible with this type of assessment.  If the voters of the GHAD approve the rate increase (towards the May/June timeframe), then the GHAD would be funded sufficiently to perform the operations it was intended to.  If the voters reject the rate increase, that would cause nearly all GHAD activities to cease.