Dejavu: Clayton City Staff Is Trying To Push Through Another Tax Increase

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Clayton Community:

In March of 2022 it was a $200-$400 parcel tax, this time it is a 1/2-1 cent sales tax increase. (The staff must have not read Mayor Peter Cloven's $30,000 community survey in 2022, where the community said “NO’ to new taxes of any kind.) Hello, Council-members Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven.

APPROVE THE TAX OR BUST: The city manager placed an urgent item on the March 5th city council agenda for a 1/2 cent to 1 cent increase in Clayton's sales tax to be placed on the November ballot or have the city move to austerity measures to balance the budget. He presented his 5-year budget forecast that shows a budget deficit of: (-$240,000) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (-$561,181) in FY 2025 (-$572,311) in FY 2026 (-$796,023) in FY 2027 and (-$875,870) in FY 2028.

CRISIS, URGENCY? Because it takes 4 affirmative votes to place a tax measure on the ballot the city manager was asking 4 councilmembers for an on-the-spot commitment to move forward with the tax measure or commit to extreme cuts in city services. He presented this as an “urgent” decision by the council because of a tight timeline to get a tax measure on the November 2024 ballot.
* Create a crisis (huge budget deficit),
* Create urgency (must be done now).
* Red flags? Sound familiar?

WAS THE COUNCIL BLINDSIDED? I read the City Manager's staff report and it was not clear he was going to ask the council to make a decision that night to move forward with a ballot measure. It appears this was a reckless, last-ditch effort to fast-track a tax increase measure. It doesn't look like he even reviewed his forecast with the Council's Budget/Audit Committee before putting it on the agenda.

Asking taxpayers to cough up more tax money is a serious matter (especially in this economy with the cost of everything increasing) and it should never be a spontaneous on-the-spot decision.

In my opinion, he put the council in an awkward position. Moreover, the city manager has been pushing for 3 tax increases for over 8 months.
1) A sales tax increase,
2) A $100-150 increase in the Landscape Maintenance District parcel tax, and
3) An increase in the real estate transfer tax.

This makes you wonder why he waited until it became an urgent matter to get it on the November 2024 ballot. He could have put together his 5 years forecast 2 months ago with his proposed tax measure to give all council members time to review the numbers and make an informed decision-but he didn't.

NO NEED TO PANIC: The good news is there is no need to panic because the city has a General Fund reserve of $7.7 million that can be used to help balance the budget until a well-thought-out solution can be reached. The reason this reserve is so large is that the city has added to it in years when revenue exceeds expenses, creating a net surplus at the end of the year.

Here is an example of historical General Fund performance: FY 2015 +$389,892 surplus, FY 2016 +$204,902 surplus, FY 2017 +$299,222 surplus, FY 2018 (-$250,810) deficit, FY 2019 +$93,674 surplus, FY 2020 +$404,425 surplus, FY 2021 (-$55,589) deficit. As you can see, the numbers jump all over the board. One could argue that in years when the city had a budget surplus we were over-taxed, so it seems reasonable, to slow down, take a "pause" and use some of the reserve money until we have a better understanding of city finances moving forward.

Therefore, we don't need to jump head-first into putting a sales tax increase on the November 2024 ballot. We should thank Councilmember Wan for pushing for a "pause", and not moving forward with a decision at the council meeting. In my opinion, this was the right decision given the uncertainty of Clayton's budget structure.

***CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE REACHED THE HALFWAY POINT. TAKE A BREAK, GRAB SOME POPCORN AND A SODA, AND CONTINUE READING***

IS CLAYTON'S BUDGET DEFICIT REAL? It does appear the city has a structural budget deficit, but there are many solutions to be considered by the council to solve this problem. A tax increase is only one solution and it could be a sale tax increase, a new parcel tax, an increase in the real estate transfer tax, or a reduction in expenses.

At this point, we don't know what the real deficit is moving forward. There are so many different budget deficit numbers being floated by city staff in the last 3 years it makes your head spin. Besides, a forecast is not an exact science and as Councilmember Wan pointed out, the outcome depends on the methodology used and the assumptions made to complete the forecast.

When Councilmember Wan asked for clarification at the last city council meeting, the city manager got defensive and told him it would add no value to the process. In other words, it was on a Needs to Know Basis and You Don't Need to Know.

THE CITY HAS CREDIBILITY ISSUES TO OVERCOME: The city has a credibility gap, caused in part by The Clayton Pioneer, Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and C.W. Wolfe. As you may recall, the Pioneer published a ten-year budget forecast in their February 18, 2022 issue put together by former City Manager Reina Schwartz and supported by former Mayor Cloven, Vice Mayor Tillman, and Councilmember Wolff, because they wanted to push through a new $200-$400 parcel tax.

This false and misleading forecast showed a budget deficit of -$672,366 in FY 2023 and increasing to -$2,179,296 in FY 2031. It was an obvious attempt to create a crisis and garner support for their tax measure--sound familiar?

The gang was silent on the fact this forecast included $500,000 in the city manager's wish list of expenses. Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and CW Wolfe even voted to spend $30,000 of taxpayer money to see if Clayton voters were buying their budget crisis story.

THE PATH FORWARD: This first step is to get a handle on the real budget numbers before we try to solve the problem. The city has approved a Citizen Financial Review Committee (however, it is not officially formed yet) that will be reviewing all the expenses, line-by-line, as well as all the revenue sources.

Please let them do their job and complete their review before we jump to a solution. We have to know the real number before we try to solve the problem. As I said before, there is no urgency because we can use the reserves to handle any shortfall.

THINGS TO CONSIDER ABOUT A SALES TAX INCREASE: A sales tax increase is just one potential solution to be considered in the future, but keep in mind it will impact your budget. It is not just a tax on your bill at restaurants and Safeway, it will be applied on all your internet purchases and car purchases. Note: Tax on auto sales are "return to source taxes", it is where you live, not where you purchase the vehicle. For example, if you purchase a $50,000 vehicle it will add $500 to your bill.

BOTTOM LINE: Let the process work, slow down, take a "pause" and use some of the city's General Fund Reserve money (now at $7.7 million) until we have a better understanding of the city's budget issues and then move forward with a well thought out comprehensive solution. Keep in mind, it will cost taxpayers $60,000 or more to place a tax measure on the ballot and the city will need considerable voter buy-in for it to pass-especially in this economy.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton Pioneer’s Smear Campaign - Business Owners React!

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

There's No Limit On

What a Community Can Do. . . URGENT!

The Clayton Pioneer’s smear campaign against our beloved town has gone too far. As business owners and proud residents of Clayton, we must take a stand before Tamara Steiner hurts all our businesses.

It appears that Tamara Steiner has made it their mission to drag our community through the mud with fabricated stories and malicious lies that will damage our businesses.

Our take on this is that she has been doing this for several years and the residents of Clayton have complained to her over and over to no avail. She needs to start reporting the news and stop trying to make the news.

Please join me and write to Tamara and tell her to knock it off!

Sincerely,

Mark and Laurie Johnstone
Clayton Business Owner

* The attached document details the harmful rhetoric being spread without evidence or justification from the Clayton Pioneer. This misinformation appears to originate from Council Person Holly Tillman and her small group of supporters.

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

Editorial: High staff turnover a sign of Clayton’s decline

By The Pioneer

Clayton City Hall.

CLAYTON, CA (Mar. 11, 2024) — Clayton City Hall is in chaos. It’s time for the Contra Costa Grand Jury to step in for a close look at City Council governance and the behavior of some individual councilmembers.

As recently as 10 years ago, Clayton enjoyed regionwide admiration and respect for its stable government. It had a city manager with an 18-year tenure, low administrative turnover, a balanced budget with hefty reserves and a council that generally ruled by consensus. In short, paradise.

Around 2016, all that changed. A tradition of reasonably civil disagreements over growth and state-mandated, high-density housing devolved into ugly anonymous hate mail and personal attacks on city staff and councilmembers viciously fought out on social media. In short, hell.

Clayton has gone from a “shining city” to rivaling Antioch for comic relief.

A small, vocal and unprincipled anti-growth/anti-change/anti-establishment army calling themselves Save Clayton and/or Clayton Watch declared war on city staff and councilmembers who opted for compliance with state law. The group put their muscle behind Jeff Wan, a current councilmember and last year’s mayor, who openly advocated a “Just Say No” policy to state-mandated, high-density housing and who took a negative view of the city’s history of governing by consensus.

By the time Wan was elected to the council in 2018, the attacks and harassment of other councilmembers and city staff had increased to the point that both the city’s development director and 18-year city manager quit, starting a revolving door of senior staffers.

In the last five years, the city has gone through eight city managers, seven finance managers and five community development directors. Most recently, highly qualified city manager Bret Prebula quit after less than a year on the job and was immediately snapped up by Suisun City.

The public watched as the council majority of Wan, Jim Diaz and, to a lesser extent, Kim Trupiano repeatedly insulted and undermined Prebula during council meetings. More than once, Wan and Diaz bypassed the city manager and issued orders directly to staff in violation of the city’s municipal code.

Fed up with the chaos, Councilmember Holly Tillman has been calling every month since October for an independent investigation of the constant turnover, current council/staff interactions, claims of harassment and charges of Brown Act violations. And every time, she is summarily dismissed.

It’s clear that either an independent investigation and/or a Grand Jury inquiry is in order.

No healthy city runs through 20 people for three senior positions in less than six years.

TAGS: CITY OF CLAYTON, CLAYTON, CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia on Marsh Creek - We Were Bamboozled!

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Clayton Community:

Attention Seniors 55 and over, do you like shuffleboard, bocce, checkers, bingo and playing cards? Well the Olivia on Marsh Creek in Clayton surely isn’t for you, because it has none of these amenities, and is not a 55+ senior housing project.

Let me explain before you go off on me.

Many of us have been mislead by the developer, his consultants, and the city staff from the beginning. This development is not a senior housing project! It’s plain and simple, Resolution #07-2020 only calls for the Olivia development to have seven, (Again Only Seven), affordable, age restricted (55+), housing units, the remaining 74 units have no age or income restriction.

I ask those who continue to spread false information to please reconsider and acknowledge the truth - we were all misled by the developer, consultants, city staff and elected officials, including Mayor Julie Pierce and Council-members Tuija Catalano, and Carl Wolfe.

In order to be a 55+ senior housing project the developer would have had to meet several federal and state guidelines as follows:

1. The Unruh Civil Rights Act contains provisions regulating the establishment of specialized housing designed to meet the physical and/or social needs of senior citizens.

2. The Rumford Act (California Fair Housing and Employment Act) has additional requirements that the developer would have needed to comply with in order for the development to be considered senior housing.

3. The Fair Housing Act specifically exempts three types of housing for older persons from liability for familial status discrimination.

4. Such exempt housing facilities or communities can lawfully refuse to sell or rent dwellings to families with minor children only if they qualify for the exemption.

In order to qualify for the "housing for older persons" exemption, a facility or community must comply with all (ALL) the requirements of the exemption.

The Housing for Older Persons exemptions apply to the following housing:

1. Provided under any state or federal program that the Secretary of HUD has determined to be specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (as defined in the state or federal program);

2. Intended for, and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older; or

3. Intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older.

How Does a Facility Qualify for the “55 or Older” Exemption? In order to qualify for the "55 or older" housing exemption, a facility or community must satisfy each of the following requirements:

* At least 80 percent of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older; and

* The facility or community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as "55 or older" housing; and

* The facility or community must comply with HUD's regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.

(The above is just a cursory outline of what the developer must have demonstrated in order for the project to be considered a 55+ senior housing project.)

As we have discovered, the developer never attempted to comply with any of these requirements and elected to pursue density bonus law and request concessions from the City of Clayton in order to build 81 units, with only 7 of the units being affordable housing units. As a reminder, just in case you forgot, the remaining 74 units have no age or income restriction.

If you’ve made it this far in my post, I think it’s fair to say that this is a complicated matter. I would encourage everyone to research the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Rumford Act (California Fair Housing and Employment Act) to gain more in-depth knowledge on this subject.

There's no shame in admitting we were tricked - but let's not continue the false narrative. Olivia on Marsh Creek is not what we were promised. It is not a 55+ Senior Housing Project.

Important update: The City Council has formed an ad hoc committee to discuss implementing a parking permit program in affected neighborhoods and historic downtown. Stay informed about upcoming committee meetings by contacting Claytonwatch94517@gmail.com - one of our volunteers will gladly answer any questions and welcome your participation.

Best regards,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Contra Costa County Officials - Complaint - Olivia on Marsh Creek

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Contra Costa County Officials:

We write to you today regarding an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention and action.

At issue, is a residential development project named "Olivia on Marsh Creek" at 6170 High Street in Clayton, CA. This project has sparked considerable controversy and complaints from residents during the initial grading phase because of unprofessional construction standards and practices.

We implore you to review the permits granted to the developer, William Jordan, especially his claimed status as an owner-builder.

After a careful review of the facts, it appears Mr. Jordan does not qualify for an owner-builder exemption and has falsified information on his application. We urge you to revoke his permits, issue a stop work order on the project, and impose fines on Mr. Jordan for these infractions.

The health and well-being of our community are at stake, so we hope you will act swiftly to remedy this situation.

According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), these agencies clearly define owner-builder requirements, which Mr. Jordan does not meet.

· The property is not his primary residence, nor has he lived there for 12 months prior, which are prerequisites to filing as an owner-builder.

· Additionally, he plans to construct more than two buildings, exceeding the legal limit for owner-builders.

According to the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), anyone who violates the law is subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees, and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.

Mr. Jordan seems to have misrepresented his qualifications on the application, which constitutes a serious violation. Your oversight on this matter is greatly needed and appreciated. Please take corrective action immediately and hold Mr. Jordan accountable.

We kindly request you send us written verification once you have addressed this disturbing situation. The citizens of Clayton urge you to uphold the law and protect the integrity of our hometown.

We await your swift intervention on this urgent issue. Should we not receive a timely reply, we will need to escalate this issue publicly through social media and local news outlets.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Code Enforcement Online Complaint

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.
_______________________________

Code Enforcement Online Complaint Form 01-25-2024

Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
Code Enforcement Division
Phone: (925) 655-2710
Toll Free Phone: (877) 646-8314

Below is the form used to file code enforcement complaints within the County's jurisdiction. Complete the appropriate information and click the SUBMIT button on the bottom of the form.

COMPLAINANT INFORMATION
Fill in all fields with an asterisk. Anonymous complaints cannot be processed. Your contact information will be kept confidential.

Your contact information is required so the code enforcement officer (inspector) may contact you if more information is needed or to let you know if the reported property violation is not within the County's jurisdiction.

Complainant First Name:

REDACTED

Complainant Last Name:

REDACTED

Phone Number with area code:

REDACTED

E-Mail:

REDACTED

ALLEGED VIOLATION / NATURE OF COMPLAINT INFORMATION

Type of Violation (Check one or more boxes)

Building, Grading, Other

Address of Violation

6450 Marsh Creek Road

City

CLAYTON

DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE NATURE OF VIOLATION/COMPLAINT

January 25, 2024

Dear Contra Costa County Officials:

We write to you today regarding an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention and action.

At issue, is a residential development project named "Olivia on Marsh Creek" in Clayton, CA. This project has sparked considerable controversy and complaints from residents during the initial grading phase because of unprofessional construction standards and practices.

We implore you to review the permits granted to the developer, William Jordan, especially his claimed status as an owner-builder.

After a careful review of the facts, it appears Mr. Jordan does not qualify for an owner-builder exemption and has misrepresented information on his application. We urge you to revoke his permits, issue a stop work order on the project, and impose fines on Mr. Jordan for these infractions.

According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), these agencies clearly define owner-builder requirements, which Mr. Jordan does not meet.

• The property is not his primary residence, nor has he lived there for 12 months prior, which are prerequisites to filing as an owner-builder.
• Additionally, he plans to construct more than two buildings, exceeding the legal limit for owner-builders.

According to the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), anyone who violates the law is subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees, and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.

Mr. Jordan seems to have misrepresented his qualifications on the application, which constitutes a serious violation. Your oversight on this matter is greatly needed and appreciated. Please take corrective action immediately and hold Mr. Jordan accountable.

We kindly request you send us, along with the City of Clayton, written verification once you have addressed this disturbing situation. The citizens of Clayton urge you to uphold the law.

The health and well-being of our community are at stake, so we await your swift intervention on this urgent issue.

Sincerely,

REDACTED
(Plus many other concerned residents.)

Sincerely,

Stanahan Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Manager Meeting on Olivia on Marsh Creek Oversight

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Clayton City Council,

COMPLAINT # 1

It is very disturbing that our City Manager, Bret Prebula, is trying to blame Gary and me, and other Clayton residents for all the questions, concerns, and complaints he is receiving regarding construction occurring on the Olivia site.

Apparently, he sent an email to the entire city council (and possibly others) accusing us of harassing him and city staff over Olivia. It appears he believes asking questions is harassment. I view these accusations very seriously and I am quite surprised he didn’t reach out to us before complaining to the entire city council about these baseless claims. I also find it hard to believe, as a professional city manager, that he thought this approach was a good idea as I have never seen this backward approach work.

Moreover, a city manager would have to be pretty naive not to know that whenever construction would start at Olivia, it would generate a lot of questions, concerns, and community outrage.

This is a housing project the community did not support, a project the community believes the city did not listen to or address their concerns, a project the community believes the city put the interest of the developer above the concerns of the residents, a project that would have an enormous impact on Historic Downtown and our little town, a project residents were so opposed to because of the huge impact it would have on their quality of life, that they filed a lawsuit against the city. Some community members believe the city is in the pocket of a less-than-credible developer.

Based on the above, in my professional opinion, most, if not all, of the questions, concerns, and complaints about Olivia's construction could have been avoided if Bret had been proactive instead of reactive. He created his own mess by his inaction on this project. He should have gotten out in front of this issue by developing and implementing a community outreach program before construction started on Olivia. (Without going into a lot of detail, an effective plan would include, community outreach meetings with impacted residents, enforcement of the COAs, an effective communications plan, and oversight, etc., etc.).

I have to assume his staff advised him of the start date, and instead of getting out in front of this issue, Bret has been chasing it. This is eating up a lot of his time and staff time. He is still not forthcoming with information, and he has handed off communications to Kennedy and Associates. According to their contract, this is not one of their responsibilities.

If you know what you are doing is not working, and you are getting overwhelmed, a good crisis manager would pull resources together, develop a plan to address the situation, and change direction, and not blame others for the outrage. In my opinion, these are all huge missteps on his part.

I also find it hard to believe he does not understand the public's anger when he continually tells them Olivia is an approved project that has been fully litigated when they complain about the lack of oversight. It is never a good idea to put people on the defensive to avoid criticism and start the blame game, especially when you are a public official and are on the public's payroll.

Bottom line, instead of developing an effective community outreach plan ahead of Olivia's construction, he let construction start without any community notification or outreach and then seemed to be surprised/outraged when people had questions, concerns, and complaints. Apparently, he doesn’t understand the value of effective communication.

I would like to put this issue to bed. Therefore, I would ask the city council to encourage Bret to do a reassessment of his harassment accusations and publicly retract these statements, and apologize to Gary and me.

COMPLAINT # 2

On to another serious incident. I attended a meeting on Wednesday, October 18th, at City Hall where Gary Hood, Bret Prebula, Larry Theis, Andrew Kennedy from Kennedy and Associates, were in attendance. Gary arranged this meeting with Bret so we could work out some of the oversight issues we were observing on Olivia.

When Brett agreed to meet on the 18th, I was encouraged by the fact that Bret said he we would have his team (city engineer and a representative from Kennedy and Associates) at the meeting. I have always found it beneficial to have all the players involved at the table.

To me, this was going to be a meeting to discuss Olivia's oversight and get some important information about COA enforcement that we could feed back to the community. As we entered the meeting room my expectations faded. Bret and his staff seemed to be very agitated and unfriendly.

The meeting began with a lecture from Bret saying what we were doing was wrong and causing an unnecessary burden on his staff. He went on to tell us Olivia was an approved project that had been fully litigated. In other words, shut up and move on. I am not sure why he thought this approach would work because it never does—and it didn’t work this time.

Gary pushed back telling Bret we did not come to the meeting to receive a lecture from him, and I advised Bret we were aware Olivia was an approved project and we were at the construction and oversight stage (which I thought was the purpose of the meeting). At this point, Bret gave us a stern warning that if we did not behave, he would end the meeting.

We tried many times to ask Andrew Kennedy questions about their level of oversight and violations of the COA we have observed, (dust/particulate control, lack of perimeter fencing, hydroseeding, and rodent control, which was generating all the questions and community outrage) but Andrew Kennedy was rude and condescending. He proceeded to tell us the developer has complied with all the COA’s and then bragged about his qualifications. I showed him a picture of the dust being generated by a bulldozer on the site, but he got annoyed and did not want to look at it.

Larry was disengaged and busy looking at his iPad until he started scolding us in a loud voice for bringing up gaps in past COA violations. The meeting went downhill from there and Bret did nothing to control his staff or try to de-escalate the situation. Then they loudly called an end to the meeting and Bret shouted “Get out”.

It is apparent to me that Bret and his staff came to the meeting angry, and confrontational and were very agitated that we would have the audacity to question their management of Olivia and point out gaps in COA enforcement. This meeting would have been a good opportunity for Bret to bring us together on Olivia, but he either doesn’t know how or did not want to reach a resolution. Clayton has always welcomed community input, concerns,and questions from citizens. This is usually how a small town works and always has in Clayton.

I am shocked by the unprofessional behavior displayed by Bret and his staff at this meeting and his unprofessional handling of Olivia. I have facilitated and attended many community meetings for over 30 years as a former councilmember and mayor right here in Clayton, and Public Affairs Manager for a Fortune 100 company, with public officials, elected officials, and angry community members. In my experience, Bret’s childish and abusive approach does not work. Normally citizens look to city officials for answers and leadership.

Based on these two incidents, it appears to me Bret could use some additional training. I would suggest the council urge him to receive additional training in the following areas:

1. Anger Management
2. Community Relations
3. Community Outreach Meetings with an Angry Crowd
4. De-escalation Techniques and Skills
5. How to Manage a Controversial Development

(All of which are available through the University of Phoenix Online College or Diablo Valley College,)

Please be guided accordingly and take appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Acquaintances of Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and C.W. Wolfe - Beware

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Neighbors, Friends, and Acquaintances of Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and C.W. Wolfe,

Please tell them their actions have consequences. Those of us that watched the city council meeting on Tuesday, December 5th with great disappointment. What should have been a simple rotation for the position of Mayor once again devolved into the bitter verbal attacks that have become all too common this past year from Council Members Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman.

Instead of professionally conducting the vote for our next mayor, Mr. Cloven opted to give an inflammatory speech detailing why he refused to support Mr. Wan in the past. He then blamed this on Mr. Diaz, claiming he was threatened into not supporting Mr. Wan.

These dubious allegations strain credulity. I have the screenshots of Mr. Cloven's own text message explanation for overlooking Vice Mayor Wan after the 2020 election. Nowhere does he mention being threatened by Mr. Diaz. He cites only campaign rhetoric and lack of support. Yet now he changes his story and levels accusations. Which version should I believe, Mr. Cloven? The truth is plain - your actions were motivated by pettiness and vindictiveness, not threats.

This is not Mr. Cloven's first instance of vindictive politicking. He orchestrated similar maneuvers against Commissioner Frank Gavidia on the Planning Commission. And his supporter Council Member Tillman has now fallen victim to Mr. Cloven's thirst for power, as his machinations prevented her from becoming Mayor as would have occurred under the original rotation.

The community lost out on what would have been our first African-American mayor. Again, Mr. Cloven's actions paved the way for two white men to become mayor ahead of the Asian-American candidate. I cannot ignore the racial undertones here.

Ms. Tillman is now paying the price for Mr. Cloven's naked ambition. It appears he used her to get elected but in reality does not care about supporting diversity in leadership roles.

Mr. Cloven, your divisive politicking has gone on long enough. For the good of Clayton, please resign from City Council immediately so we can move forward with more unity. Let your replacement be someone committed to serving all citizens, not sowing division.

I urge Ms. Tillman to distance herself from Mr. Cloven's toxic example.

Signed,

A 50 Year Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton Non-Profit Group Causes Disruption in City Council and Community

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Clayton Community,

The actions of a non-profit group in Clayton have caused significant issues for both the city council and its citizens, almost resulting in the loss of the right to provide public comments during meetings. This group, known as the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), has been a source of controversy due to the behavior of its members, including their use of profanity and their tendency to dominate city council meetings.

The CBCA was established in 1984 as a community organization that aims to serve the Clayton community. Despite claiming independence from the City of Clayton, California, their past actions and influence suggest otherwise.

One concerning aspect is the control that CBCA members have exerted over the city council for the past 39 years. It is evident that a conflict of interest exists, as four out of five council members have been active participants in the CBCA. Surprisingly, during this time, the city council has never thoroughly examined the Master Agreement Fee Agreement with the CBCA or the City's Fee Schedule, raising questions about their motives.

A former city manager, who served for over 20 years, summarized the CBCA's behavior as self-serving and focused solely on their own interests. They have been known to resort to intimidation tactics to silence anyone who dares to question them.

Furthermore, the CBCA has violated the rules and guidelines governing 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations by endorsing and promoting candidates for City Council and Planning Commission positions. This blatant disregard for regulations further highlights their lack of integrity.

One particular incident that exemplifies their conflict of interest occurred when the CBCA requested that the mayor, chairperson of the planning commission, and the chief of police report directly to them during their monthly meetings. Fortunately, this practice was swiftly halted after a concerned citizen raised the issue in 2020.

It is clear that the actions of the CBCA have caused significant disruption within the city council and the Clayton community. Their behavior raises serious concerns about their true intentions and their commitment to serving the best interests of the community as a whole.

The actions of CBCA members have had a significant impact on all residents of Clayton. Two years ago, Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman, both CBCA members, disregarded tradition by bypassing Vice Mayor Jeff Wan for the position of Mayor. This decision, orchestrated behind closed doors by council members Wolfe, Cloven, and Tillman, occurred not once, but twice. The community was left divided, with many attributing the blame to Cloven and Tillman for their divisive politics.

Last year, two CBCA-endorsed candidates, Bridget Billeter and Ed Miller, were vetted by Clayton Watch, a community watchdog group. Despite high hopes for their election, both candidates were deemed unacceptable by Clayton Watch. Bridget Billeter was found to have major character flaws, including misusing her title and resources to harass Clayton Valley Charter High School, with Holly Tillman's knowledge and support. Ed Miller, on the other hand, was considered unreliable and made inappropriate comments, such as misogynistic remarks towards Councilperson Jeff Wan's wife. During the recent election, volunteers distributing flyers throughout the community faced harassment and surveillance.

Both Billeter and Miller faced defeat, with Miller finishing in last place. Jeff Wan garnered the highest number of votes, while Kim Trupiano secured the second spot.

Following the establishment of the new council, Jeff Wan was elected as Mayor by a 3/2 vote, with Jim Diaz chosen as Vice Mayor by the same margin.

The council wasted no time in getting to work. Their first order of business was to review the city's fee schedule. Upon examination of all city vendors, the CBCA's special use fee agreement was identified as outdated and subsequently terminated after more than a decade without adjustments.

Subsequently, CBCA members began to express their discontent. It became evident from their reactions that they were displeased with the outcome and sought to utilize Clayton downtown for their events without charge.

During city council meetings, CBCA members regularly voiced their opinions during public comments, with some participating via Zoom. For over ten months, both the council and the public endured negative and sarcastic remarks from this group, with no signs of the attacks ceasing.

Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven demonstrated their allegiance to the CBCA by consistently raising concerns and making comments about the CBCA during council meetings. Furthermore, during council staff reports, both Tillman and Cloven consistently brought up the CBCA, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest.

During the October city council meeting, the new fee schedule was approved by a vote. The approval came from Jim Diaz, Kim Trupiano, and Jeff Wan, while Cloven and Tillman dissented.

At the October 3 or 17 City Council Meeting, a former CBCA Board Member utilized Zoom during the public comment period for the city events committee to launch a profanity-laden, misogynistic tirade against Council Member Kim Trupiano.

Throughout the October meeting, Howard Geller, a longstanding CBCA member and former council person, verbally criticized Kim Trupiano. His frustration stemmed from the city's assumption of control over the concerts in the grove and the desire for more transparent financial reporting.

Over the course of the year, it has become commonplace for CBCA members to mock the way Council Members speak or the appearance of Mayor Wan. While it is understandable that CBCA is displeased with the new Master Fee Schedule, it is essential for everyone to contribute their fair share.

The conflict of interest and the pressure exerted by the CBCA board on City Council Members are difficult to overlook. However, this does not justify the use of Zoom by CBCA members to make offensive remarks towards Council Members who are striving to implement necessary changes to ensure the city is adequately compensated for police services, maintenance, and property usage.

During the meeting on November 7th, the use of Zoom for public comments was called into question. While instances of racist attacks in other cities were cited as a reason to discontinue using Zoom, the offensive language used by CBCA members was also a topic of extensive discussion.

CBCA President Carl Wolfe and the board appear indifferent to the use of profanity. They even defend it. The privilege of using Zoom was nearly revoked for Clayton due to a small faction within CBCA that prioritizes politics over charity. Carl Wolfe must take more decisive action to safeguard his organization and the public from such behavior. It is imperative that Carl Wolfe clearly states that all CBCA members must exhibit proper conduct when in the presence of the public.

It is evident that the individuals behind the negative and derogatory comments are all affiliated with the CBCA, including its members and board members. As a 501 c3 non-profit organization, the CBCA should refrain from engaging in political matters. Their behavior indicates an inability to gracefully accept defeat and relinquish control of the city.

Regrettably, the Clayton Pioneer, a biased newspaper owned by Tamera Steiner and her husband Bob, is also associated with the CBCA. This newspaper consistently fails to provide accurate information about the organization.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Holly Tillman - The Most Polarizing Figure Clayton Has Witnessed

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Council and Staff,

I have some serious concerns that need to be addressed. Let's start with Councilwoman Tillman. She promised transparency but has not been transparent at all.

She lied when responding to Mayor Wan's Town Hall recap and her behavior with Tamara Steiner. Many of us witnessed the interaction and she definitely fed Tamara questions to ask.

Her behavior on the dais, accusing other council members of making decisions before meetings, needs to be stopped.

Why hasn't the attorney stepped in? Also, her continued classification of Clayton as racist and unwelcoming is terrible.

Why does she constantly belittle the place she lives?

Her agenda seems to be making a name for herself at the expense of the citizens of Clayton.

She also needs to stop hijacking the council meetings. They are running too long, and no one wants to hear her go on about herself or what her husband does.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Unwanted Advice for Carl Wolfe and Peter Cloven - Sent From the Community

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Mayor,

Here is some unwanted advice for Carl Wolfe and Peter Cloven: If you really believed in bringing the community together, promoting council harmony, inclusiveness, diversity, transparency, following council guidelines and procedures, and "Doing the Right Thing", then you would have selected Jeff Wan as Mayor and Carl Wolfe as Vice Mayor. This would have brought both sides and the community together and is something you said you wanted to do. For the good of Clayton, please reconsider your actions. We don't need more divisiveness.

Disgraceful, divisive, and maybe racist. Is recall an option? Or; civil suit action?

This is not the Clayton I have lived in for the past 30

Signed,

Unhappy Citizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Letter to City Council - Confirming Certified Letter to Dana

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear Mayor Wan and Council Members:

Good morning. I thought it would be a good idea for all of you to know that a certified letter was sent to Dana last week, along with the regular delivery of first-class mail to Bret. I have been made aware the letter, the certified letter, was received, and Dana has responded to me that she will answer all of my questions as soon as possible.

I am hopeful that by notifying you my questions can be answered and expedited sooner rather than later.

I'm concerned that the city may not be enforcing the condition of approval as specified in resolution 07-2020.

Below, please find a copy of the above-mentioned letter.

If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.

Thanks, 

Concerned Citizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Dana Were the Entitlements Met?

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Hi Dana,

I hope all is well and you are enjoying your summer.

I have several questions about how the Planning Conditions (PC) included in the Olivia entitlements were met as follows:

PC # 16 states, “This approval expires two years from the date of approval (expires March 3, 2022), unless a building permit has been issued and construction has diligently commenced thereon and has not expired,” (I do realize that an extension was granted thereby changing the date to 3-3-23.)

• Was any determination made that a building permit was issued?
• Was any determination made that construction has diligently commenced?
• How is “building permit” in PC#16 defined? Does a permit for a utility pole constitute a “building permit”?
• How is the phrase, “construction has diligently commenced” defined?
• Please provide evidence for each of the above.

PC # 35 states, “There shall be no parking of construction equipment or construction worker's cars on residential or business streets at any time. A staging area shall be secured prior to issuance of a grading or building permit as determined necessary by the City Engineer.”

• If a “building permit” was issued per PC#16, was a staging area secured as required in PC#35?
• Was a determination of the necessity of a staging area made by the City Engineer?
• Please provide evidence of such determination.

PC # 36 states, “Truck routes for the import or export of cut/fill material shall be identified and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any permits. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair of any damage to City streets (private and public) caused by the contractor's or subcontractor's vehicles.”

• Were truck routes identified and approved by the City Engineer?
• Please provide evidence of such identification and approval of truck routes.

PC # 37 states, “Prior to construction, the applicant shall ensure that the contractor shall contact the City inspector for a pre-construction meeting. Haul route shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.”

• Has a contractor been selected?
• Has a pre-construction meeting taken place?
• Was a Haul route submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer?
• Was the Haul route approved?
• Please provide evidence of the pre-construction meeting, Haul routes submitted, and approval of said Haul routes.

PC # 47 states, “The applicant shall pay all required fees at the time of building permit issuance.”

• What are the required fees?
• Were required fees paid?
• Please provide evidence of payment.

PC #54 states, “The applicant's engineer shall certify the actual pad elevation for the lot in accordance with City standards prior to issuance of Building Permit.”

• Did the applicant's engineer certify the actual pad elevation?
• Please provide evidence of the above certification.

PC # 77 states, “Prior to City Approval of the plans and issuance of permits, the applicant shall submit a signed operation and maintenance agreement. The agreement shall be the City's standard form and subject to the review and approval by the City.”

• Was a signed operation and maintenance agreement submitted to the City?
• Please provide evidence of the agreement.

PC # 116 states, “Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit plans for plan check that show a minimum of 106 off-street parking stalls for the project (minimum 31 stalls at 6170 High Street, minimum 37 stalls at 6450 Marsh Creek Road and minimum 38 stalls at 6490 Marsh Creek Road), consistent with the revised site plans approved by this resolution.”

• Were plans for a plan check submitted showing the requisite number of parking?
• Please provide evidence of this submission.

I would appreciate a response from you electronically and by U.S. Mail as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Concerned Citizen

cc Bret Prebula, City Manager

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Letter from Citizen to Dana Ayers on Olivia Vesting

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Hi Dana,

Hey, just wondering did the entitlement for Olivia vest before the March 3, 2023 expiration date?

If it did, what is the evidence that the developer met the conditions of approval? Did the city document it? Can I have something that shows the evidence to satisfy the developer met the condition of approval, specifically, was a building permit issued, and has construction diligently commenced as stated in the resolution?

Has any demolition or groundbreaking activities occurred?

Was a recycling plan submitted and approved, and did the builder make a deposit as required in Planning Conditions #8?

Please get back to me,

Concerned Citizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA) - Agreement Termination

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

To the City Council Members,

Mayor Wan should be ashamed of his piss poor handling of the agreement between the City of Clayton and the CBCA, as should Vice Mayor Diaz and Council member Trupiano. To expedite this item to the agenda with a total lack of preparation, factual figures, and a plan shows a total lack of respect to an organization that has supported our community since 1984. The handling of the agreement termination was a total display of ignorance, inexperience and vindictiveness. Again all three of you should hang your head in shame for the shit show you hosted at the last city council meeting.

With that said, I am recalling the agreement that was set to begin on April 1st that I put forth to the city for helping to promote the Concerts in The Grove series. I cannot work with a group of council members that have nothing but their own selfish interests in mind or seek the council of creeps like Frank Gavidia, Bill Walcutt, and Gary Hood (keep pretending that the 3 of you have no connection to them, you’re only fooling your ignorant base that is rapidly shrinking). My agreement is now null and void and I will not provide or share any of my services to help promote the concert series that was also the victim of Vice Mayor Diaz' vindictiveness.

With that said I will continue to serve our community through honorable organizations like the CBCA.

Signed,

A.J. Chippero

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

CBCA Master Use Agreement - Bocce Ball Committe

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Capos: (From the CBCA Bocce Committee.)

This is one of those infrequent times we feel the need to reach out to all players.  This is important.  So we appreciate you sending this to your respective Spring, Summer and/or Fall League teammates (and apologize as some of you will get multiple copies of this email).  This concerns an item on the agenda of the Tuesday March 7 meeting of the Clayton City Council at 7:00.  We know its short notice but only found out about what is below this past Friday afternoon.

The Clayton Business & Community Association (CBCA) operates and maintains the Ipsen Family Bocce Park and runs the Clayton Bocce League.  In other words, bocce is not a City of Clayton function or sponsored activity.

CBCA also puts on the Art & Wine Festival, BBQ Cook-Off, Oktoberfest and Tea With Mrs. Claus.  None of these are City of Clayton functions.

CBCA is an all-volunteer non-profit corporation.  We are an IRS approved 501(c)(3) charity.  Our members donate thousands of hours a year to put on these events.  Our community contributes hundreds of volunteers, who in turn contribute thousands of hours, annually to help us put on these events.

 
The profits from these events are invested back into this community by the CBCA in the form of grants.  Our members vote on who is awarded grants.  Since its inception in 1984, CBCA has donated well over $1 million for school supplies, sports equipment, college scholarships, event scholarships, local theater, arts, and food and clothing to those in need, to name just a few.  Those groups who receive grants help us put on the events that generate the profits to donate to these groups.  This partnership has worked very well over the years.  It is part of what makes this community a place people want to live in and raise a family.

CBCA has also donated thousands of dollars for civic improvements through the City of Clayton, in the form of grants to the City of Clayton and the Clayton Police Department.

The festivals CBCA puts on require city permits for the use of city property and to pay for city services.  Since 2008, CBCA and the City have been working under the terms of a publicly approved Master Use Agreement.  The Master Use Agreement governs how and where CBCA can hold its events, what permits and fees it is charged (and in some instances permits that are waived), insurance requirements, and how much CBCA will pay for "City direct support costs" (primarily police department overtime).  CBCA pays 50% of the estimated cost before the event and, upon invoicing from the city, the balance after the event.

Without warning, the mayor has put on the agenda for the Tuesday, March 7, city council meeting an "action item" (Item 8 (a)) titled:  Consider Termination of Clayton Business and Community Association Master Use Agreement.  The stated purpose is to discuss "the merits of continuing this agreement." 

What the city has in mind is unclear.  This is not about increased permit fees.  This does not appear to be an attempt to renegotiate the Master Use Agreement.  Is this about raising more money from local nonprofits to help the city make ends meet?  Is this about making our events prohibitively expensive to put on?  Preclude certain events altogether?  Whatever it is has the potential to significantly impact what CBCA and its many volunteers do in order for CBCA to continue to deliver on its simply stated motto:  "For The Good Of The Clayton Community."

The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 7 at Hoyer Hall (Clayton Community Library).  Feel free to show up in person and speak up! 

     
You may be asking after reading this:  What does this mean for bocce?  The answer is nothing for now, and we don't know for the future.  But it bears a reminder that bocce happens in Clayton not because the City of Clayton deemed it so, but because of the hard work and financial commitment of the private sector (the Ipsen family) and the community (CBCA).

  
Thank you.

 
CBCA Bocce Committee

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Letter to City Council - Disingenuous Peter Cloven

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

Dear City Council:

I don't know Peter Cloven personally but to me it feels disingenuous to accept the Vice Mayor role without ever casting as much as one vote on any issue as a member of the Council.

Peter Cloven

It is obvious to me after watching the end of the council meeting when Wolfe took over as Mayor he has no clue on how to run a meeting. Also, the "Council Guidelines and Procedures" written by the council many years ago states: " Election to Vice Mayor and Mayor requires supporting votes of three (3) Council Members, but in the interest of harmony unanimous consensus is to be sought and encouraged." It also states: "The Vice Mayor is generally expected to ascend to Mayor." Of course if the Vice Mayor does something against the law he would not be elevated to Mayor. The only thing that Jeff Wan did was to put the best interest of the community above his personal desire to become Mayor. Pretty Honorable. Cannot say that about Carl Wolfe and Peter Cloven. I believe they missed the part about creating harmony.

Looks like devious politics have infiltrated even the smallest of our communities.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

The Grove - More Taxpayer Funded Incompetence

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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 Clayton Watch

Just as you thought it could not get any worse. After two plus years of neglect, the city manager decided to rehab the grass at Clayton's Downtown Park, The Grove. 

The area was fenced off, the shaded grass area was torn up, prepped and new sod was installed, the large grass area was prepped and re-seeded. The fence stayed up for months while the grass areas came back to life. The new sod was looking great.

 
Then, the new sod started dying and a lot of it was already dead. So, I sent an email to Peter Cloven, Clayton's self-absorbed Mayor, regarding this issue and several other issues that needed to be addressed at the park. 

After a week with no response from our mayor (Pretty common occurrence. I guess he is pretty busy making "Who I Am" videos), I sent him a trace. He then forwarded my email to the city manager for a response. 

Here is the city manager's response regarding the demise of the new sod:--taxpayer money. ("There has been a water line break under the turf area; water has been temporarily turned off to dry out the sod so the repairs can be made. As soon as it is fixed, the watering will begin again and we will re-plant/replace as needed. The cost for the repairs are covered from the special assessment for The Grove.") This " temporary" shutting off of water continued until all the new sod turned brown and died (they pretty much figured it was dried out when it was all dead) Great plan! 

In other words, let it die, and then fix the water pipe. After we fix the water pipe and all the sod is dead, then we will go ahead and charge the taxpayers (City leaders probably believe it is not real money because it is being paid for from the special parcel tax for the Grove) to replace all the sod. The lack of good judgement keeps getting worse and Clayton taxpayers are paying for it. What did Cloven do about it? You guessed it--Nothing.

It is no wonder Clayton is facing a budget shortfall.

Signed,

Concerned Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Emails from the Clayton Community - Regarding Flyers

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

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

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a long-time resident of Clayton since July 1996 and live in the Regency Meadows neighborhood.

 

I read the 2-page flyer that was left on my doorstep on 5/23/2022; one side titled, “A Town Divided” and the other side titled, “Weeds Gone Wild!”  Several cited claims were made in both articles, but there were no actionable items to the many claims cited.  What is your ask of Clayton residents?   

 

I have known Peter Cloven since 2018.  Peter is about Peter and was an ass-wipe when I met him and remains an ass-wipe today in his role as Mayor of the City of Clayton. I have no insight nor have I interacted in any way directly with Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Tillman, or Mr. Wolfe.  If there is interest to establish a united front in the Clayton community seeking Peter Cloven’s resignation as Mayor of Clayton, I would support and volunteer my time with this effort since Peter’s term in office doesn’t expire until 11/2024.  It is my position that Peter’s views on what is best for the City of Clayton aren’t aligned with this Community’s views.  With that said, I don’t know if Ms. Tillman, today’s Vice Mayor, would be the worse of two evils as Mayor in the event Peter resigned as Mayor of Clayton.

 

I agree with the claim that the City’s landscaping needs immediate attention.  Parties that drive into the City’s limits accessing from Clayton Road and Oakhurst Drive are under impressed and I find it personally embarrassing as a long-time resident of Clayton.  The matter of the Landscape Maintenance District fund being potentially co-mingled with the General Fund is distressing and should be addressed ASAP.  How can I help?

 

I believe the claim of “…44% of Clayton residents do not trust our elected officials” is understated since I did not participate in any survey related to City of Clayton elected officials and I have firsthand knowledge that many of my personal friends who are Clayton residents also did not participate in any recent survey in connection with questions related to trust of the City’s elected officials.

 

Sincerely,

_____________________________________________

 

Fri, May 20, 1:18 PM
to ClaytonWatch94517

Bill and Gary,

I agree with your assessment of the city.  The landscaping and overall condition of Clayton is a disgrace.   Both the city manager and assistant city manager should resign, and new council members should run for election.  It is time for a change. 

Sincerely

__________________________________________-______

                                                                       Fri, May 20, 9:18 PM

to ClaytonWatch94517

Bill and Gary

As a triathlete, I spend a lot of time training—which includes over a dozen hours running and biking each month—and what I see while I am out has truly reached the level of being disgusting.

In addition to chest-high weeds on the medians, trails and next to sidewalks, there is also trash and graffiti popping up on a regular basis and the roads are in terrible condition.

In that regard, the bike lanes are in such bad shape (due to a combination of poor road surface and debris) that there are parts that are unsafe to ride—which has forced me (and presumably others) out into traffic.  The city will really learn its lesson when a cyclist gets hurt or injured due to those conditions (and, as a defense attorney, I know a thing or two about the subject). 

For what it’s worth, I did some math and, putting aside what they already have in the landscaping budget, for the $30K spent on that ridiculous survey, they could pay someone $15/hr on a full time basis for nearly a year just to pull weeds.

Their inefficiency and incompetence really is remarkable.

Anyway, as someone who has not been shy about voicing my displeasure in the past, I mainly just wanted to say that appreciate your guys’ efforts.

Sincerelyl

______________________________________________

Sat, May 21, 9:50 PM
Gary and Bill,

I just received the door flyer and agree with the points mentioned.   I currently live in the Peacock Creek neighborhood of Clayton and have lived in Clayton for 25 years.  I have noticed an abundance of weeds growing in all of the sidewalk areas and curb seams throughout Clayton.  Our Peacock Creek entrance sign was so overgrown with weeds that I went and pulled out all of the weeds myself last week.

 

As stated in the flyer, our city council seems to be eager to throw our tax dollars at costly and wasteful surveys, consultants and studies.  I am totally against these expenditures.  Furthermore, I have never been asked to provide my vote on any of these surveys, making me wonder how legitimate they are.

 

Another issue I am also strongly against is the proposed renaming of Kirker Pass because the name Kirker was supposedly a bad individual (not proven).  I realize that this is more of a county issue than a Clayton issue, but I have expressed my opinion in an email to county supervisor, Karen Mitchoff.   She stated that county Measure X ($200 million) will cover the renaming expenses.  When we voted on Measure X, it was stated to be a health/safety-related measure and makes no mention of street renaming.  Just another example of diverted/wasteful spending by our local politicians. 

 

Getting back to Clayton-specific issues, I strongly agree that Clayton is not being managed correctly and would like to help in any way.

 

Thanks, Sincerely

__________________________________________________

                                                                      Sun, May 22, 7:56 PM

 

Bill and Gary,

 

I just received the door flyer and agree with the points mentioned.   I currently live in the Peacock Creek neighborhood of Clayton and have lived in Clayton for 25 years.  I have noticed an abundance of weeds growing in all of the sidewalk areas and curb seams throughout Clayton.  Our Peacock Creek entrance sign was so overgrown with weeds that I went and pulled out all of the weeds myself last week.

 

Sincerely

 

____________________________________________

 

                                                                        Sun, May 22, 9:18 PM

 

to ClaytonWatch94517

 

As stated in the flyer, our city council seems to be eager to throw our tax dollars at costly and wasteful surveys, consultants and studies.  I am totally against these expenditures.  Furthermore, I have never been asked to provide my vote on any of these surveys, making me wonder how legitimate they are.

 

Another issue I am also strongly against is the proposed renaming of Kirker Pass because the name Kirker was supposedly a bad individual (not proven).  I realize that this is more of a county issue than a Clayton issue, but I have expressed my opinion in an email to county supervisor, Karen Mitchoff.   She stated that county Measure X ($200 million) will cover the renaming expenses.  When we voted on Measure X, it was stated to be a health/safety-related measure and makes no mention of street renaming.  Just another example of diverted/wasteful spending by our local politicians. 

 

Getting back to Clayton-specific issues, I strongly agree that Clayton is not being managed correctly and would like to help in any way.

 

Best regards,

 

Sincerely

 

_____________________________________________

 

	Tue, May 24, 8:55 AM
Bill and Gary,

Hello,

 

Thank your support and interest in our community. As a long-term Clayton Resident and Business owner, I have noticed many changes in our community. I would argue that we should add to the list: litter, noise, speeding as “Quality of Life” issues that that should be given the highest priority by our government, including the Clayton Police Department. Our small town may be “growing up,” but these are basic quality of life issues that require our immediate attention.  As Wilson and Kelly demonstrated in their 1982 paper, Broken Windows Theory, there is a tangible link between disorder in the neighborhood and incivility and crime. We should avoid mistakes of the “big cities” and address our quality of life crimes now.

 

Thank you,

 

TSincerely

____________________________________________

                                                                       Tue, May 24, 11:55 AM

to Claytonwatch94517@gmail.com

 

I was so happy to receive your green letter on my doorstep. I could not agree more with how rundown with weeds our city has become!!! I called the landscaping dept one week before Easter complaining how over run with weeds our center median is at the corner of Regency and Marsh Creek! I left a msg and it took a week for someone to reply. When they did they promised me they would take care of the weeds the following week. STILL WAITING!!! I’m going to have to call again. Soooo disappointing!!!

Thanks,

 

Sincerely

_____________________________________________

Wed, May 25, 9:01 PM
to Claytonwatch94517@gmail.com

Thank you so much for your recent newsletter.  I have had my suspicions about this latest council for some time now.  It is common knowledge that the certain council person has a major racial chip on her shoulder.  I have been a Clayton resident for almost 30 years and I have always found our Police Department to be some of the most courteous, respectful and  helpful Officers anyway.  If this certain council person doesn't like it here, I would say to her that Concord is just down the road, Pittsburg is  over the hill and Antioch can be driven to in just 30 minutes.  We, the long-time Clayton residents, moved here and continue to live here because we find Clayton to be little slice of Heaven and we want to keep it that way.  I, for one, don't want anything to change, including building "affordable housing" that will do nothing but bring unwanted criminal activity and clogged streets.   Thank you again for your newsletter!!  Keep them coming!!!!

Thank you,

 

Sincerely

____________________________________________

Sun, Jun 5, 11:50 PM
to Claytonwatch94517@gmail.com

Hello,

 

I received your flyer that was placed on my doorstep by someone recently.  After reading it I felt compelled to respond concerning a couple of things that I consider to be inaccurate about your flyer.  Your flyer states that one candidate publicized that our city residents are racist.  You claim that this could not be further from the truth.  Only a non-minority person could possibly come to that conclusion.  I have lived here for 22 plus years and as one of the few African American citizens in this city I must inform you that there is a strong smell of racism here.  Why would I say this?  Well, let start with last year.  There were two occurrences of someone putting an effigy of a hanging Black man in one of the parks.  I know this is true because I found the first one and called the police.  Although they did come and cut the effigy down, there was no follow up investigation and they didn't even do a police report on it as far as I know.  If they did, I was not even interviewed.  In addition to this, I have been doing a 5 mile walk in clayton everyday for many years now.  One day I was walking and a White guy in a van pulled up behind me and asked why I was walking in his neighborhood.  When I refused to answer he threatened to call the police because I was suspicious.  It wasn't until I threatened to kick his ass if he didn't leave me alone that he burned rubber while hurling "N" words out his window at me.     Around about 2015 I was walking across the street on Indian way.  I was in the crosswalk and the light was Green for me.  There was a car stopped waiting to go.  As I passed by the front of that car I heard the engine rev up and I got hit so hard that I flew over his hood and hit the ground hard.  There were witnesses who worked at the golf course who saw what happened.  When the police arrived they told them what they had seen as I was taken to the hospital in an ambulance.  The driver of the vehicle claimed he didn't see me because I am dark.  He was allowed to leave without even being ticketed for hitting me in the crosswalk.  I wound up having to have brain surgery (craniotomy).  I can't help but wonder what would happen to me if I ran over a White person in the crosswalk during the day and claimed I didn't see him because he was bright.  There are many other instances I could site but I won't bore you with it because it is obvious by your flyer that you are biased and living in an entirely different town than the Clayton I live in.  I have had bottles and trash thrown at me by vehicles passing by while they yelled the "N" word.  I have encountered people who I have spoken to that ignored me and I have even known other minorities that have encountered the same things I have.  So, because you have made this error about racism not being in Clayton, a town that even the newspaper reported that there were people from here that travelled to Charlotte for the tiki torch Nazi extravaganza that took place in 2018.  On several occasions I have had to ask Safeway to remove racist graffiti that was painted on its fence in the back which happens to be right next to my house.  On one occasion I was walking home and passed a group of teen boys.  As I passed them I heard one of them ask "When did niggers move in here?"  So, clearly, from a minority standpoint, there is a racist problem in Clayton.  Because of this I consider the rest of your flyer to be less than reliable and have discounted it as more political lies and dribble.  Any future flyers will be thrown in the trash without being read.  By the way, I have never replied to a political newsletter before but this one so disturbed my peace that I had to write back.

 

Regards  

 

____________________________________________

Sun, Jun 12, 4:38 PM
to Claytonwatch94517

I appreciate the info and it disturbs me. I really don’t have an answer and I don’t know what to do. I hate that some of our government doesn’t even live in Clayton. I feel that they want to hurt Clayton cause they can’t afford to live here. It took me and my spouse a lot of hours past the 40hr to earn money to be able to get here. I want to say to them to grow up!  It scares me what they are doing.

Sent from my iPhone

____________________________________________

	Tue, Jun 14, 4:56 PM

Hello Bill and Gary,

 

My husband and I are Clayton residents and have been here since 2013.  Not a long time, compared to some residents, but we certainly call this our home sweet home.  We have noticed a dramatic change in Clayton’s landscaping maintenance, or lack thereof, particularly around the library close to where we live.  We are also alarmed by the graffiti, which these days seems to be everyone (check out the new comments using the “f” word above the creek at the corner of Clayton and Marsh Creek Road.  We are also shocked by all of the garbage around town.  I emailed the City back in March wondering if they were planning to host an Earth Day Clean Up Day in the City, as they had in the past and they said no and when I asked why they said “don’t know.”   I almost thought about organizing an informal clean up around town, but I’m working woman who was particularly busy that month.

 

If you are a group of volunteers who need more voices, please let me know and would love to meet up with you if you host any get togethers.  I was a big supporter of Jeff Wan (still am) and I’m still waiting for him to become Mayor one day.  Hopefully that will happen soon!

 

Looking forwards to chatting/meeting with you in the future!

 

Best regards,

 

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate