City Council Meeting Summary 2-20-24

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

On Tuesday the Council met to discuss two significant items:

- From our last meeting, there were nine strategic goals that were identified:

1. Public Safety, Infrastructure, and accessibility (roads, sidewalks, and ADA)

2. Community Parks and Recreation

3. Economic Development- promoting available spaces, growing number of families into community, improved downtown activity

4. Maintain vibrant police force, maintaining community policing model

5. Balancing the budget

6. Maintain the aesthetic of the City of Clayton (LMD)

7. Disaster Preparedness and Fire Prevention

8. Preserving the historical nature of the town

9. Environmental Sustainability

From there, we formed a mix of two person ad hoc committees among Councilmembers to discuss and present the strategic objective of each.  The intent of this would be discuss and narrow the nine goals down to five.  While all are important issues, like all organizations the City has limited resources and needs to focus and prioritize those most important right now.  After discussion, the Council chose the following five goals to prioritize (not in any specific order):

- Public Safety, Infrastructure, and accessibility (roads, sidewalks, and ADA)

- Community Parks and Recreation

- Economic Development- promoting available spaces, growing number of families into community, improved downtown activity

- Balancing the budget

- Maintain the aesthetic of the City of Clayton (LMD)

These goals will serve as guidance as staff prepares more information regarding financial projections and mid year budget discussions that will occur at our next meeting on March 5.  One thing to note about #4 above regarding the police force.  While I consider our police one of the City's most valuable assets, most Councilmembers felt that we addressed many of the needs of the police at our last meeting when we approved a renewed 3 year agreement with both the Clayton Police Officers Association and the Chief.  

The ad hoc committees among Councilmembers was an opportunity for us to collaborate on our shared visions, especially for those Councilmembers who haven't worked together very frequently.  Unfortunately there were slide presentations created as if they were authored by the committees, but during discussion it was clear that these presentation materials were never seen by either Vice Mayor Trupiano or myself and also attributed to us views that we did not agree with.  This misrepresentation undercut the ostensibly collaborative purpose of the committees.

- We formed an ad hoc committee consisting of myself and Councilmember Tillman to discuss potential solutions or actions that the Council could take regarding the impact excessive parking may create downtown.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Meeting Summary 2-6-24

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

 
On Tuesday the Council met to discuss several significant items:

- We approved an updated agreement with the Clayton Police Officers Association (POA).  The current agreement is set to expire at the end of June and the Council wanted to ensure that an agreement was in place prior to that occurring.  While the details and negotiations were held in closed session, I believe that the POA and the City came to terms that all were satisfied with. 

 
Our recent community survey highlighted what we already knew - the community highly values our police and the Council wanted to ensure that message was received.  With this new three year agreement - members of the POA will receive a 15% increase in year 1, with a 4% increase in year 2 and year 3.

- We received a presentation of the results of the community survey.  The survey was lead by a highly experienced market researcher and supported by diligent and dedicated interns at very low cost to the City thanks to contacts made by Vice Mayor Trupiano.  

Originally staff had proposed conducting similar outreach and engaging consultants to do so at a cost of around $30K that was rejected.

  
The results of the survey were not surprising - public safety and our police, small town feel, and great trails and parks, were among the many things that make Clayton a great place to live.  

There were additional insights that were revealed, including the community's sense of prioritization, and what direction they'd like the City to go in.  There were also a significant amount of free form comments offered that were helpful to read.  This survey will serve as a tool as we move forward with strategic planning.

- We identified strategic priorities and formed ad hoc committees to flesh out these ideas.  At our next meeting we will discuss each further and narrow down the list.  The next step will be to determine if and how these priorities can be operationalized.  Ultimately all will take additional funding or a reprioritization of current funding.

Here are the ideas we gathered for further discussion:

- Public Safety, Infrastructure, and accessibility (roads, sidewalks, and ADA)
- Community Parks and Recreation
- Economic Development- promoting available spaces, growing number of families into community, improved downtown activity
- Maintain vibrant police force, maintaining community policing model
- Balancing the budget
- Maintain the aesthetic of the City of Clayton (LMD)
- Disaster Preparedness and Fire Prevention
- Preserving the historical nature of the town
- Environmental Sustainability

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Meeting Summary 1-16-24

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

 
Last night the Council discussed two signficant items:

- We approved a new contract with our Police Chief.  This concludes multiple rounds of closed session discussion regarding the details of that agreement.  I am extremely happy where we landed and am grateful for the service of our Police Chief.

- We then discussed a potential parking program near the planned 81 unit Olivia Project downtown.  The Council gave direction to staff to come back with an agenda item to establish an ad-hoc committee to discuss potential solutions or actions that we could take regarding the impact excessive parking may create.  

While I think the Council ended up in the right place, how we got there left a lot of room for improvement.  Initially Staff recommended that no action be taken.  

Further, if any action were to be taken, it would be costly, involve hiring more people, purchasing a vehicle, hiring an outside consultant, perform City wide analysis, and tie our hands for future activities.  While these are possible outcomes, they are far from the only ones, and not even highly likely ones.  Rather than present options and elicit discussion on policy decisions, the staff report seemed designed to push towards the desired result of taking no action. 

There was widespread agreement and acknowledgement that if the 81 units are built, it will result in a parking problem.  This problem would most directly be borne by the immediately surrounding areas in Stranahan.  But when faced with concern from residents that has persisted unaddressed for years, staff's recommendation was to do nothing.  It is true that there isn't a specific problem at this very moment, but the challenge that has been identified is a question of when, not if.

The Staff report contemplated hiring 2 additional employees, making the cost of a parking program to be approximately $275K/year in addition to hiring an outside parking consultant at $50-$75K.  This seemed odd as when we implemented the parking program at Regency none of these costs were incurred.  In fact, the only out of pocket cost borne by the City for the Regency program was the cost of installing signage, approximately $750 per sign.  It's unclear why an option similar to what already exists was not presented.

During staff presentation, there was also the implication that if we were to implement a parking program, there would need to be city wide analysis which meant hiring consultants.  I questioned that.  The problem that we are trying to address is not the same at the far west end of town as it would be right in the nearby neighborhoods.  It seemed artificially burdensome to saddle a discreet program for a discreet area with an entire city of administrative bloat.  We should be focused on the problem we are trying to solve, not inflate the scenario to make it unwieldy.

Related to the push for a city wide effort was the idea that if we moved forward in this area that the City would be obligated to move forward in other areas.  This is not so - the Council always has discretion when it comes to matters of parking on City streets.  If there were known issues that existed in other areas, or were expected to exist, then certainly the Council should take action.  And that is what moving this issue forward would do.  It does not create any obligation to take action beyond what was being discussed.

In considering possible solutions, I made a suggestion that a relatively few number of signs restricting street parking could be placed at the entrance of Stranahan.  For our Downtown area, a small number of signs could be posted to prohibit overnight parking.  These could even be established to be effective at a date in the future.  This way, our residents know that their concerns will be addressed without incurring an exorbitant cost to the City.  This is only one possible solution however.  
When the ad hoc committee is constituted more discussion will be had and the Council determine the next course of action.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Meeting Summary 12-19-23

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

 
Last night the Council met to discuss several significant items:

- First the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board met to select a new Chair and Vice Chair.  Board Member Cloven was chosen to be the Chair, and I was chosen to be the Vice Chair.  We then discussed an update to the Plan of Control for the District.  The Plan of Control categorizes geologic hazards and identifies the plan regarding how the District is to prevent, mitigate, and abate these hazards.

The GHAD funding level is insufficient to perform virtually all of the activities specified in the Plan of Control.  In addition, the existing plan is somewhat outdated in that it was created in the early 1990s and does not contemplate replacement of infrastructure.  The GHAD General Manager recommended that we update the Plan of Control prior to preparing a ballot proposal to increase the GHAD assessments for those residences within the District.
The order of operations go something like this: Update Plan of Control
Request approval of additional assessments to support Plan of Control activities.
If residents approve #2, then there would be no further action needed.  If #2 is rejected, then the Plan of Control would need to be severely curtailed and basically all non-administrative functions of the GHAD would cease.  At that point the Board would likely consider terminating the GHAD all together.

The District General Manager will return early in 2024 and bring forward the updated Plan of Control for approval, and updates on the plan to request additional funding from the residents.

- Next at the regular Council meeting, we held a Public Hearing to update certain City ordinances necessary to implement provisions of the updated Housing Element as required by State law.  This has been a very long process going through multiple iterations in front of the Council, the Planning Commission, and with City staff working with California Housing and Community Development (HCD).  The updates were approved 4-0 (Councilmember Cloven was absent).
While there are several areas where I dislike State law regarding housing, the City is still required to comply with the law and by approving these updates to the Housing Element the City is seeking to do so.  We are still pending approval from HCD.

- We then discussed the Audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).  It was noted that for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 the City's General Fund reflected a deficit of approximately $183K.  Through discussion we determined that some context to that figure was missing - specifically the fact that included within the $183K deficit, was spending of over $190K for certain one time purchases was made during the year and these amounts were specifically designated to come out of various ear marked funds.  The General Fund deficit would be extinguished completely had we excluding these one time spending amounts.

- We then discussed the damage to the Cardinet trail from the Jan 2023 storms, and what actions the City has available to it.  Our City Engineer requested an additional appropriate in order to begin design and engineering work necessary to repair the damaged trail sections.  The City has been in discussion with FEMA as well as other State agencies and while the City would need to front the cost of repairs, we would seek reimbursement for around 96% of the costs associated with repairs.   The Council authorized $50K to be spent toward this effort in order to qualify for the reimbursement process.  There will be more information to come in the next few months about how this work will proceed.

- We appointed myself and Vice Mayor Trupiano to the City Sponsored Special Events Committee.

 
- We updated Council assignments for various standing and ad hoc committees.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Meeting Summary and a Year in Review 12-5-23

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

 
Last night the Council met to discuss two significant items:

- We conducted our annual Mayoral and Vice Mayoral selection.  The Council chose Councilmember Diaz to serve as Mayor on a vote of 3-1-1 with Cloven voting no and Tillman abstaining.  Councilmember Trupiano was chosen unanimously to be our next Vice Mayor.

- We also discussed standby pay for Maintenance workers.  Previously when a maintenance call came in after hours, it was an ad hoc process for getting a hold of the appropriate staff.  Adopting a policy for standby pay formalizes a process by which a rotation of Maintenance staff would be designated to be on call and available should any after hours work be needed.  This occurs approximately 2-3 times per week.  As the City is then requiring staff to be available, it is fair that they be compensated for that and the Council unanimously approved Standby pay of $50/day for the staff member that is designated.
***
As I end my rotation as Mayor, I wanted to to take a moment to review some of the things the City has accomplished over the past year. I’ve wrote about each of these as they occurred at my website, jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net however I thought it worthwhile to gather them all in one place.

Quality of Life:

- We approved a resolution in support of Our Neighborhood Voices – a grass roots movement to truly restore local control for housing matters.

- By waiting on approving an increase to speed limits in town, we took advantage this year of a new state law allowing us to preserve our existing speed limits.

- Approved security enhancements for City Hall at the request of our Police Department

- We moved public comment on non-agenda items to the beginning of the agenda to increase predictability allowing more people to participate in our meetings.

Staff Operations and Efficiency:

- We updated our antiquated process for signing physical checks increasing staff efficiency.

- We closed City Hall to the public one day per week to allow staff focused time to work and increase efficiency.

- We polled city staff and asked them what technology or tools they could use to make their work more efficiency and approved funding for several of these items including maintenance and police equipment.

- We updated Council guidelines to reduce burden on staff and formalize how agenda items are brought forward

- Approved implementation of agenda management software to increase efficiency

- Approved implementation of public works communication tool to make it easier for the public to report issues around town and increase staff efficiency

- Executed contract to outsource business license administration to make staff work more efficient

- Completed a comprehensive review of our Maintenance department to establish a service level baseline

- Completed a comprehensive review of the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) activities and assessment of the GHAD overall. This work provides essential documentation as we move forward on how to address service level issues.

- We hired a full time City Manager, and filled other key staff vacancies.

- We approved an update to our Housing Element as required that is pending approval from CA HCD

- We adopted a policy on City Sponsored Special Events to add clarity.
- We prepared an organizational master calendar for all departments to help begin to assess levels of service.

- Revived National Night Out increasing engagement between our Police and residents.

City Finances:

- We updated our Investment Policy and began more robust reviews of our investments shifting o higher yield products.

- We were awarded a 1% interest loan to fund the largest infrastructure work in Clayton since Oakhurst was constructed. This project will install solar for City facilities, replace lighting throughout the City, install electric vehicle charging, and install water efficiency tools to reduce excessive waste.

- We negotiated and approved an updated agreement with Republic Services complying with new State requirements.

- We conducted a fee study and updated our Master Fee Schedule to capture actual costs and provide a mechanism for fees to always match actual costs. Historically this had not been done so by updating our policies we made all future fee activity more efficient.

While these are a lot of things in a single year, there remains a great deal ahead of us. When the people of Clayton re-elected me in 2022, I made a commitment to not push for any tax increase unless it was a last resort. This means going through a comprehensive process to first understand if there was a problem, determine the scope of the problem, the causes of the problem, and evaluate potential solutions. Only then could a course of action be decided upon and executed. I wrote in detail about this assessment process here: https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net/2023/10/problem-solving-and-whats-been-done-so.html

It certainly has been an exciting year and there is more to come. What we took on this year that hadn’t been done previously was to begin to gather the information necessary to assess where we are as a City. Instead of rushing out pushing an idea of an exorbitant tax increase immediately, I took a more measured and prudent approach. Doing this allows us as a City to make smarter choices, have more thoughtful conversations, and ultimately coalesce around a better approach that works for the City.

After we complete these assessments we as a City will need to determine how to align our revenues with our spending and service delivery, and make choices on the levels of each. I look forward to the discussion as we continue to move forward.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Meeting Summary 11-21-23

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

 
The Council met on 11.21.23 to discuss one significant item.  I had a planned trip so I was unable to attend, however I returned and watched the video of the meeting.

- The Council received the quarterly report on the City's investment Portfolio for the as of 9.30.23.  The City's portfolio of investments consists of approximately $14.5M primarily in CDs, US Treasuries, and other State investment pools.  Beginning this year the City has been shifting away from CDs as they mature and moving more into US Treasuries as CDs tend to be more illiquid which is not consistent with our Investment Policy.

During the meeting both Councilmember Tillman and our City Manager expressed an interest in investing in corporate debt ostensibly due to potentially higher yields. This was after repeating the mantra that staff are not hedge fund managers - the same comment made when the Budget and Audit Committee (myself and Councilmember Trupiano) pushed staff to move towards US Treasuries for the purposes of liquidity and yield.  US Treasuries are one of the simplest investments to make.  As such, it seems odd that when it comes to corporate debt there was no similar concern raised.

  
More on point, the Committee earlier this year made updates to the City's Investment Policy and one of the changes was to remove corporate debt as an available investment option.   This was because the top priority of the City's Investment Policy is safety - we purposely give up yield in order to safeguard the assets of the City and the taxpayers.  And while some may contend that corporate debt is virtually as safe as an investment in US Treasuries, and that corporate debt can be highly rated by all of the rating agencies, I'm reminded of the fact that immediately before Enron declared bankruptcy their corporate debt was also highly rated.

Earlier in the month the Budget and Audit Committee met and provided feedback to staff on the same report received at the 11.21.23 meeting.  The Committee requested that the City make available the monthly statements from UBS in order to view the transactions and more detailed information about the holdings of the City.  This will be added to the City's website going forward on a monthly basis.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Meeting Summary 11-7-23

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

On Tuesday the Council discussed several significant items:

- The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board met first and discussed the activities around a potential future assessment increase.  The activities of the GHAD are dictated by what is called the Plan of Control document.  We have determined that the current Plan of Control indicates a level of activity that is unsustainable based on the level of revenues collected each year.  As a result, the Board previously gave direction for staff to pursue an additional levy of households within the GHAD.  Part of that process will be to update the Plan of Control to adjust the scope of activities.  At our meeting we gave direction to staff to divert some of the funds that would be used for informational outreach to update the Plan of Control document.

What the proposed updated document would do is provide a level of activity if the new assessment were to receive approval by the voters in the District, and also have an automatic adjustment of reduced activity if the assessment is not approved.  In all likelihood, without an increase in assessments, the GHAD activities will be reduced dramatically - likely only collecting money in order to pay for the process of collecting money and filing an annual report.

-The Council then reconvened and discussed increasing the scope of work for the Downtown Pedestrian Improvements Project that is adding raised crosswalks with visual signal lights.  An additional intersection at the crossing of Center and Morris St. was added to this project by using previously unencumbered Measure J funds.  Measure J funds are intended for various local projects relating to roads and transportation.

- The Council then discussed whether to continue the use of hybrid meetings allowing members of the public to participate beyond only viewing, and to add comments remotely.  Allowing remote participation is discretionary, and several cities in CA including several in Contra Costa County have eliminated this option as a result of targeted incidents where people would call in remotely and proceed to hurl racist invectives at everyone.  

If any remote participation is allowed, the Council is generally not allowed to restrict that participation based on the content of what people are saying.  Because of the high prevalence of these incidents happening in nearby cities, I felt that on balance the value of remote participation was outweighed by allowing others to have a platform to engage in that type of behavior.  Ultimately the Council decided to preserve the ability for people to comment remotely on a vote of 3-2, with myself and Vice Mayor Diaz voting no.

- The Council then discussed the City Sponsored Special Events Policy.  This was tabled at our last meeting and I asked that it be brought forward for reconsideration.  The revised policy eliminated language that was aspirational or operational - policy documents should be both clear and concise.  Anything superfluous to to the goal of the policy should not be included.  The updated draft recognized this and streamlined the language to make it more clear.

At our last meeting, there was some discussion related to why the ad hoc sub-committee, consisting of myself and Councilmember Trupiano, were writing policy language at all.  I note that when the ad hoc committee to address parking at Regency Gate was formed, I did the exact same thing - I wrote the policy document and the ad hoc committee presented the draft to the full Council for adoption.  At the time, there was zero objections to this - if the committee was able to reduce the burden on staff it was welcomed.  Here it seems the objection by Councilmembers Cloven and Tillman to the Committee writing the policy was more about who was on the committee rather than what was actually being advanced.

The Council approved the City Sponsored Special Events Policy that identifies which events are City sponsored, the available budget, and creates a subcommittee to provide oversight of all City Sponsored Special events on a vote of 3-2, with myself, Vice Mayor Diaz, and Councilmember Trupiano voting yes.  Councilmembers Cloven and Tillman voted no.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Summary 11-3-23

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

Problem Solving and What's Been Done So Far - City Finances
Recently there was a call for “urgent” action regarding the City’s financial situation. Along with various criticisms of a lack of action, or not enough action, it seems strange that now there is a sense of urgency, where there was no urgency over the last several years if not longer. While there may be plenty of blame to go around, it is more productive to focus forward on how we proceed from here. I’ve been writing about what actions the city has taken since I became Mayor quite regularly, however as we approach the end of the year, I think it useful to share the holistic vision with how and the order in which I approach this and all problems.

Step 1: Determine if there is a Problem
Step 2: Understand the Ccope of the Problem
Step 3: Understand the Causes of the Problem
Step 4: Evaluate Potential solutions for the Problem
Step 5: Decide on a Course of Action and Execute

When the people of Clayton re-elected me in 2022, I made a commitment to not push for any tax increase unless it was a last resort. This means going through a comprehensive process to first understand if there was a problem, determine the scope of the problem, the causes of the problem, and evaluate potential solutions. Only then could a course of action be decided upon and executed.

Step 1: Determine if there is a Problem

In terms of financial projections, these are relatively new for Clayton. The first time the Council saw a 5 year forecast was in June of 2021 and it showed The forecast showed a projected deficit at the end of FY 2023 of approximately $200K. This is when I first raised the issue of the City’s financial challenges. Based on the projection we received, I wrote in detail regarding the financial position that the city was in and began asking for input from our residents. This was done in hopes that we would spur conversation and discussion at the city. This would only be the beginning of Step 1. From this point, we should have had substantial discussion with sufficient time to validate the information, brainstorm about causes, and discuss potential actions.

But it wasn’t until late September 2021 that we actually discussed this issue again, and even then it was only to say that we were interested in having that discussion. From September 2021 through November of 2022, the only action the City took was to squander $30K to determine if our residents would support a $400/parcel tax. Before even completing Step 1 our previous Council majority jumped right to Step 5 and floated the idea of a tax that would generate nearly $1.8M per year.

The Council received another projection in February of 2022. Rather than the approximate $200K deficit projected at the end of FY 2023 that was previously indicated, at that point the deficit was projected to be approximately $100K – a significant improvement in just 8 months. And again, in February of 2023, the forecast for the end of FY 2023 the forecast changed. Instead of a $100K forecasted deficit, we were now expecting a surplus of approximately $80K at the end of FY 2023. To be clear, a significant portion of the changes in forecast were related to staffing vacancies. But this goes to Step 2 – we need to understand the scope of the problem because that will have a significant impact in how we discuss the situation and what the potential solutions may be.

Step 2: Understand the Ccope of the Problem

The City clearly has unmet needs. We have been slow to make technology and infrastructure upgrades over time and multiple areas in the City’s operations are decaying as a result of end of life. When I became Mayor one of the first things I did was to direct our City Manager to work with staff and provide a list of what would make their jobs more efficient, or things they wanted to improve their ability to deliver services. And we moved quickly on these items. For example, security at City Hall has been improved with updated cameras and electronic access control. We authorized the purchase of new equipment for our Maintenance team to make their work more efficient. We’ve been pursuing new tools to help with GIS mapping, code enforcement, and permitting to make work in our Community Development Department more efficient. We’ve engaged vendors to make basic processes like managing Council agendas more efficient as well. All of these things were left to languish before the current Council decided to take action.

While these areas are part of the challenges the City faces, they are not all of them. There are multiple areas in the City where structural imbalances are not sustainable at current service levels. The two largest of them are the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) and general maintenance. Understanding all of the areas where the City may be falling short is critical to Step 2.

When I first came on the Council I began asking questions about the GHAD. In fact, at every meeting of the GHAD, I requested that staff prepare a report that outlined the activities of the GHAD, what has been performed and how often those activities are scheduled. And for four years, this was not prioritized so it was never clear the level of deficiency in the GHAD. It wasn’t until I became Mayor and pressed staff to do the work necessary to understand the scope of the GHAD deficiencies that we learned the current state of affairs. After over 4 years, we got this information back in March of 2023.

Understanding the scope of the problem is even more pronounced in the Maintenance area. Immediately after I began asking questions about the GHAD, I made the same requests for our regular maintenance work. And the result was the same – no actual information about the level of effort, when things were being done, etc. Again, it wasn’t until I became Mayor that I pressed for these issues to be brought to the fore. After we hired our current City Manager, I suggested that we keep the Interim City Manager on to perform an actual maintenance assessment. Because the former Interim City Manager was familiar with the City and was a former Public Works Director, they could jump start this work that hadn’t been done after years of requests – assessing where time was spent and what level of effort was needed to do all of the things in the City. After over 4 years, we just received this information back in October 2023.

Step 3: Understand the Causes of the Problem

Given the City’s limited budget and our primary costs and sources of revenue, it’s clear that we have financial challenges. The vast majority of General Fund revenue that the City earns, near 60%, is related to property taxes. Because of the protections from Prop 13, property tax revenue increases are typically limited to 2% per year unless a house is sold. The majority of the City’s expenses are from wages, which have been rising faster than 2%.

From: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/


These two factors combined are the biggest cause of the City’s financial challenges. From 2011 – 2020, average inflation in the U.S. was 1.73%. Starting in 2021, inflation increased to 4.7% and in 2022 rose to 8%. Inflation has come down a bit in 2023 thus far, but it remains significantly elevated from prior years. If the cost of goods, including wages, rises at these levels while revenue growth is limited, this will continue to drive deficits. This goes to Step 3 and understanding the causes of the problem. This is likely not the only cause either. We know that unfunded mandates from the State, including reporting and compliance requirements, have increased the workload on City staff. There are likely other drivers involved as well. But until we understand the causes, any solution offered may not address the actual causes of the problem.

Step 4: Evaluate Potential Solutions for the Problem

This is where a large part of the discussion should occur, and it is also the step that has been largely skipped by those raising concerns. We can see this in the proposals that have been advanced thus far. First it was the ill-conceived $400/parcel tax floated by prior Councils without understanding what our actual needs were. Why was $400/parcel chosen if at the time we didn't understand major costs like those of maintenance and the GHAD?

We can see it in the proposal to appropriate $400K in one time spending for one year of supplemental landscaping work. Why would we choose to spend $400K of reserves with no plan on how to proceed after the first year? These types of approaches are deficient for different reasons. The first is because it jumps to Step 5 without understanding what we are trying to solve for. The second is because it doesn’t contemplate anything other than increased spending.

There is a consistent bias in government – to try and solve problems by spending more of the taxpayer’s money. When a previous consultant proposed adding 4 FTEs across multiple departments, it did so without considering the cost, or the expectation of level of service in this community. When the proposal to spend $400K on one time landscaping work was brought forward, it did so without any contemplation of what alternatives exist. There was no alternative scenario outlining what would happen if we did not move forward with this spend, what action would the City then need to take to reduce service levels and what that would look like. The only thing proposed was to spend more. Understanding the holistic view is the key to any solution evaluation – the people need to know what they are buying, and what happens if they don’t. When engaging in Step 4, evaluating solutions, there needs to be a realistic look at the costs and impacts of various choices so people and the Council can make informed decisions in Step 5.

For example, on the revenue side, the City could attempt to implement a real estate transfer tax, a sales tax, a parcel tax, and/or a special purpose tax. The City could also explore alternate sources of revenue - through rental fees, spurring business growth, investment income, selling City owned property, etc. On the expense side, the City could attempt to reduce spending in certain areas, consolidate or reduce headcount, furlough staff, reduce levels of service, etc. Each option has pluses and minuses and the City should evaluate each of these prior to deciding on a course of action to execute. Step 4 has not even been broached

Step 5: Decide on a Course of Action and Execute

Only after all of the above occurs would it be prudent to make decisions on how to proceed.

Of course, along the way the business of the City does not stop, and we could take meaningful action that would be beneficial to the residents of the City right from the get go. For example, this means things like:

Addressing our Investment Policy. While we had a conservative Investment Policy, it was not being adhered to. We were locked in illiquid investments that didn’t let us take advantage of rising interest rates. We also had an excess amount of cash that was parked in a very low yield government pool of funds. This year we addressed those issues even as the Budget/Audit Committee, made up of Councilmember Trupiano and myself, overcame staff inertia that avoided investing in simple treasuries. The City has over $12M in assets to invest and after we satisfy our safety and liquidity requirements, we should expect a fair yield in today’s interest rate environment. It sounds simple, but from the time I initiated this discussion with staff to the time it was executed took approximately 5 months.

Addressing our Master Fee Schedule. Historically no one could remember when the last time we actually performed a fee study. This means that each year, and in some cases not every year, the fees that the City charged for performing certain services would only increase by a CPI modifier, without respect to the actual cost of performing those services. By performing an actual fee study, we were able to update the Master Fee Schedule so it had automatic risers for inflation, as well as include provisions that captured actual cost so these fees can rise when actual costs rise. This had never been done before but will make all future adjustments more routine. From the time this was initiated to the time it was executed was over 9 months.

Addressing Energy Infrastructure. The City engaged with Climatec to bring forward the largest infrastructure project in Clayton since Oakhurst was constructed. Meeting with representatives from Climatec, myself and Councilmember Trupiano worked through the deal points and what the City was willing and able to do. Together we emphasized that without the California Energy Commission funding source, the project would likely not work. It was in those working sessions that we came to understanding, and Climatec was able to pursue and secure funding for our initiative of approximately $2M at 1% interest. I conveyed the importance of this effort as a top priority to each of the three City Managers that I have worked with as Mayor and I am glad to see the work beginning. To get to this point has been over 9 months of time spent.

All of these things benefit the residents of Clayton, and the City’s financial well being. But if the problem is as dire as is being conveyed by the call for urgent action, then they are not enough.

We need leaders who won't look to raise taxes an exorbitant amount as a first option. And before we do anything else, we need to gain a better understanding of our fiscal picture so we have better information to act upon. This will take more than attending meetings and pontificating at the lectern - it is going to take real nuts and bolts work to dig into what is actually happening. It may be the case that as a community we need to decide if we want to raise taxes, or if we want less services, or some combination of both or something else. But we won’t know that unless we engage in the actual process rather than try to score political points.

A criticism I am hearing now after serving almost 1 year as Mayor is, ‘why haven't all of the problems been solved yet?’ Or ‘why wasn’t more done?’ If you’ve read this far, it is clear that much has been done, and there is more still to do. Many of these issues have been bubbling up in the background for years, but recent economic conditions have exacerbated them. Consider that since 2011, the City's General Fund unassigned reserves has been steadily trending upwards:

And as I wrote above, forecasts for the City are relatively new and as we've seen the City is still immature in how it develops them. So while the high level story from a general fund perspective did not raise alarms, it took some digging to surface some of the underlying financial issues.

It’s taken years just to get information about the amount of work needed at the GHAD and for our maintenance and landscaping. But we are now gaining momentum. Previously there was no appetite to tackle these issues but as we've seen that does not make them go away. We are now starting and will continue to dig into the operations of the City. The Council has directed staff to put together a holistic look at the City’s needs – specifically including scenarios at various levels of funding assumptions. Only from there will the people be presented with a complete picture of the options available.

I look forward to that discussion. The financial challenges of the City were not caused over night and they will not be solved over night either. It will take a concerted and prudent effort to address issues and I would hope that as a Council and community we can work together to understand and address each challenge as we move forward together.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Meeting Summary 10-17-23

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

Last night the Council discussed several significant items:

- We discussed the draft Clayton Local Roadway Safety Plan. This plan is necessary in order to seek certain federal funds for traffic and pedestrian safety improvements. There was detailed discussion around the history of traffic related incidents and injuries, mapped out in an overlay across the city over the last 5 years.


Our City Engineer is seeking feedback from residents regarding any area of concern as it relates to traffic. This could be areas where visibility is impacted, where any potential dangerous condition exists, etc. This information will be collected and assembled in order to guide future potential projects. If you have thoughts or idea that should be incorporated into the final version, please let me know or contact our City Engineer directly at cityengineer@claytonca.gov

- We approved acquiring the Granicus 311 reporting application. This is a SaaS cloud offering that creates a portal where residents can report maintenance related incidents. Incidents are tracked and routed to appropriate City staff. Folks will have the ability to add images, messages, etc. to assist in determining the location and severity of any incident. By allowing residents to report incidents from their phone in a convenient manner, we hope to get a better handle on actual service demand, as well as provide a more timely response.

- We discussed adding an all way stop sign at the intersection of N. El Camino Dr at Southbrook Dr. Currently that intersection is controlled only by a 2 way stop sign in the East/West bound directions. While on a quantitative basis the fact pattern did not support the addition of a stop signs, based on the topography and lack of sidewalks in the neighborhood where residents are often walking in the street, the Council thought it prudent to add the stop signs to mitigate the risk of serious injury in that area.

- We discussed the City Sponsored Special Events Policy. At our 9.19.23 meeting, we formed an ad hoc committee, consisting of myself and Councilmember Trupiano, to draft revisions to the policy as originally presented. After meeting with Councilmember Trupiano, her and I addressed several areas within the policy draft. Originally there was quite a bit of non-policy language included - things like why events are special, historical background on volunteerism, identification of a lack of historical processes, etc. While these things may be true, they are not necessary to writing good public policy.

Policy documents should be both clear and concise. So much so that anything unnecessary to the goal of the policy should not be included. The ad hoc committee kept that in mind when drafting the revision. An additional stated goal of staff and the Council was to reduce the burden on staff time as it relates to Special Events. It contemplated appropriating a small portion of the budget to support these activities, and forming a standing Special Events Committee that would provide oversight to all City Sponsored Special Events within that allotted budget. This would reduce the need for staff time as the Committee would handle much of the logistics of events, either directly or with third parties.

There was disagreement on whether the Committee was needed. While this year the Concerts in the Grove Committee functioned expertly in doing exactly what is being contemplated here - creating operational manuals, organizing events, engaging in fundraising and working with sponsors, etc. with very limited staff involvement, Staff felt they should be on point for making these policy decisions and that having an oversight committee was not a productive use of time.

We did generally agree that going forward the Concerts, 4th of July Parade, Classic Car Shows, and a one time 60th Anniversary Event would be City Sponsored Events. The policy discussion was tabled to a later date so it could be given additional consideration.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Council Meeting Summary 10-3-23

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

Last night the Council discussed a couple significant items:

- We received a presentation by the East Bay Regional Parks District and our Ward 6 representative, John Mercurio. I met John at one of the prior Mayor's Conferences and he had indicated some work the District was doing at the Clayton border near the Clayton Community Park. At that time, I asked if he would be willing to come to the city and do a presentation and he graciously agreed.

The District has land all across the East Bay. The area that they are targeting to develop into open space and trails is adjacent to the Community Park and would also have trails that connect to the Black Diamond Trail. The timing is undetermined, but perhaps in the 2-3 year time horizon. I asked what help the District needs from the City and he indicated that the District would be working with staff on logistics and bringing this park to fruition.

- We appointed myself and Councilmember Trupiano to an ad hoc committee to work with staff in drafting and providing feedback on a Special Event Fee Policy. This is related to the previous ad hoc committee setup to work through the City Sponsored Special Event Policy. Because there will likely be edits and feedback, I thought it would be more efficient to set up the ad hoc committee from the onset, rather than have staff work to draft a policy, only to have it sent back for more extensive updates. In setting up the committee first, it saves staff time, and allows this policy to be brought forward more quickly as it would not need to be agendized on multiple Council meetings. Both Councilmembers Cloven and Tillman expressed concern over this - ranging from wanting to be involved and not liking previous policy decisions the Council has made, to the idea that this is different that what is traditionally done. Unfortunately what is traditionally done also traditionally takes longer so we went with my idea which was supported unanimously.

- We then discussed the reclassification of the Maintenance Supervisor position to a Maintenance Superintendent, and a request to appropriate $400K of reserves to perform median and right of way trimming, and irrigation from the valve forward, for a duration of one year.

Earlier in the year I had discussions with our City Manager regarding the level of service for citywide maintenance. There was an early proposal we discussed to increase spend in this area citing the need for additional resources. At the time I balked at the idea as our City Manager had only been on board for a short amount of time and I did not think there was sufficient information to make that assessment. I suggested that we utilize Ron Bernal, who served as our Interim City Manager immediately prior, and had a long career as a Public Works Director among other things. I thought Ron could do an excellent job, and the City Manager brought Ron on board to do this work. Ron came back to Council last night to present his findings.

I'm glad that the City was able to take the time necessary to do an actual robust assessment. The details can be found on page 31 of the agenda packet. The results of the assessment found that our maintenance team has approximately 18,500 hours of work that needs to be performed. I say approximately because some things that should fall within the purview of the Maintenance team are not done at all and therefore were not included in the current state assessment. Between 6 FTEs in the Maintenance department, subtracting a certain amount of time for vacation/sick leave, holidays, etc., the City has available approximately 9,000 hours of labor. The difference is backfilled by contract labor, though based on rising costs of labor and other budget challenges, the backfill represents approximately 4,000 additional hours. That leaves a shortfall between what should be happening, and the available hours of approximately 5,500 hours.

A shortfall of 5,500 hours means that activity that should be happening isn't. Many times that can be cumulative - for example, putting off trimming in some areas can make it more difficult in the future. Other times it can pose increase safety risks - for example delaying road striping, or sidewalk repairs, etc. Other times deferring work may not have a material immediate impact, but it could contribute to an overall less aesthetically pleasing environment.

Since I've joined the Council I've asked for a schedule of work from various areas, including things like the GHAD which we received earlier this year after four years of requests, and now we have a summary of Maintenance work in the city. I'm disappointed it took this long, but I am glad that we now have some actionable information. What is more important is what we do with the information going forward.

I noted that the staff report that asked for a $400K appropriation from reserves seemed to take a piecemeal approach to resolving this issue, and only on a one year basis. It called for outsourcing for a single year a portion of the maintenance work that focused on trimming and certain irrigation work but not mainline breaks, but it also made mention of the need to hire an additional FTE and create an on call agreement to handle stand by demand. Those latter items were not though, included in the proposal.

The proposal was characterized as a proof of concept (POC), but it wasn't clear what it was trying to prove. If the question was, can we get more work done if we pay more, we don't need a POC to do that, of course the answer is yes. But what happens at the end of that year? We'd be in the same place we are now with no clear direction on how to move forward sustainably. I opposed the piecemeal approach in general. I conveyed that it would be much more palatable to look holistically at areas where we know there are shortfalls so that we can make informed choices about prioritization and the level of service that our community wants and is willing to pay for.

The proposal also did not recognize any other path forward. I would expect any presentation that asks for significant dollars to include alternatives - what does a smaller ask look like? What would be the impact if we did not choose to take this path? Because while the worklist detailed hours spent and the deficit in hours available, it did not make mention of what has been built up over time as deferred maintenance, what currently wasn't being performed, or consider a prioritization of activities to determine what we choose to perform. It also did not present an alternative scenario where if we did not move forward with this outsourcing approach, what action would the City then need to take to reduce service levels and what that would look like. Understanding the answers to these questions is key in evaluating what actions to take going forward.

Ultimately the Council took no action on appropriating $400K as was recommended. Instead, we gave direction to staff to come back with a holistic look at our current service delivery levels and what it takes to maintain that, and what the backlog of deferred activity is. From there, it will be a prioritization and phasing exercise, and ultimately how and what we are willing to pay for it.

Another question we should address, is what level of service the community is comfortable with? Given your perspective, in terms of maintenance, should the City be doing more, much more, less, much less, or about the same? And if your answer is the same, more, or much more, how much are you willing to pay for it? I'm interested to hear your thoughts so please share or send me a note.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Jeff Wan - Town Hall Summary 9-29-23

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. 

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

By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember

Townhall Summary

On Wednesday I hosted a townhall in order to take questions from the community.  Typically during regular Council meetings, Councilmembers are limited in how they can engage with the public.  Dialogue is generally restricted, and we can only address items that are on the agenda.   I wanted to provide an opportunity to have an actual dialogue where folks could ask questions and actually get responses.
 
The event was targeted for 1.5 hours, but went a little over 2.  For the most part the event went well.  There were a variety of questions from participants, ranging from the general budget outlook, specific budget actions as it relates to pension costs, Council behavior and decorum, current and historical activity related to the Olivia project, and questions regarding the newly adopted Master Fee Schedule.
 
Prior to the start of the Townhall, I noticed both Councilmembers Cloven and Tillman were in the audience.  I inquired whether it was permissible that a quorum of the Council was present and Councilmember Tillman indicated she had vetted it and stated that as long as she didn’t participate it was within the constraints of the Brown Act.  This is why I found it odd that throughout the evening, it appeared that Tillman was feeding questions to Tamara Steiner, the editor of the Pioneer.  During the Q&A period, Tillman became so animated that she raised her hand to speak, but then seemed to remember she couldn’t participate and instead appeared to whisper in Steiner’s ear.  I asked rhetorically if that was collusion, though it does call into question the objectivity of the Pioneer when its editor allows herself to be used as a mouthpiece for a sitting Councilmember.
 
There were questions that discussed decorum and my role as Mayor in enforcing it.  Things like cell phone usage, and how Councilmembers engage with staff and others.  To these I generally responded that while I am presiding over the meeting in my role as Mayor, all five Councilmembers are equals and I do not have the ability to direct someone else’s behavior.  In addition, while some may support interceding more forcefully when there are incidents they disagree with, I asked folks to consider if they would feel differently if that were to be applied to incidents they agreed with.  If I were to step in and stop one Councilmember, I would be in position to do that for all Councilmembers and that was not something I think I or others would be comfortable with.
 
There were also questions around the newly adopted Master Fee Schedule.  Some were of a similar flavor that had been asked and answered already in different fora.  Others took objection to my article in the Pioneer where I detailed how the CBCA had for the past 15 years, had charges for use of city facilities waived entirely and simultaneously charged vendors a base rate and a percentage of their sales for the privilege of using those same facilities and streets.  I had earlier made a revenue sharing proposal however it was rejected without discussion and no counter proposal has been made.
 
I have been trying for months to meet with the CBCA leadership to discuss the potential of a new MUA that is mutually beneficial to the CBCA, the City, and the taxpayers of our community.  After proposing several dates, the latest communication I received indicated it may be “a while” due to medical reasons.  I will continue to seek out a time where we can come together and work towards the betterment of our community.
 
With the questions around decorum and the deriding of certain behaviors, I found it incongruous when an audience member loudly stated, “you’re full of shit!”  I identified that comment specifically as an example of the behavior that folks had previously criticized, but no admonishment was forthcoming.
 
Overall, excluding the aforementioned cursing, I thought the Townhall was a productive Q&A session and look forward to more opportunities to address folk’s questions.  Feel free to reach out directly and I will try to address any questions you may have.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate