CLAYTON. . . Fool Me Once, Shame on Me, Fool Me Twice, Shame On, Who?

By Clayton Watch

Ex-Clayton City Manager Bret Prebula appears to have recycled old budget information from his predecessor, Reina Swartz.

Bret reused old budget data from former City Manager Reina Swartz, which is why he didn't provide Council Member Jeff Wan with the necessary documentation for the budget, despite Jeff's repeated requests on Tuesday, March 5, 2034. You can view the entire meeting, including the tense exchange between Jeff and Bret, starting at 2:22:14, by clicking on the following link: https://claytonca.gov/government/city-council/city-council-meeting-03-05-24/

Additionally, Bret neglected to provide me with the information I requested after submitting a formal Public Information Request (PIR), which he initially denied. This led me to contact the city attorney and demand the information. Interestingly, Bret sent me the requested data after apparently receiving a call from the city attorney, who I’m sure explained the seriousness of his non-compliance.

Upon reviewing the information, it became clear that Bret was not giving the city budget the attention it required. He relied on the previous city manager's data (wish list) when making assumptions and forecasts. I believe he intentionally withheld the information to hide his inability to fulfill the task.

What was he trying to conceal? Were the figures inaccurate? Did Reina's budget contain her personal preferences (wish list), leaving Bret to try and persuade the city council and community that the city was deficit spending to the tune of $600,000+?

Overall, Bret's actions of recycling old information and resisting requests for documentation suggest that he may be better suited for his "next destination" in Suisun City. Perhaps that's why he was interviewing across the state in October/November 2023, knowing that the hiring process would take about six months to complete. Bret resigned on April 12, 2024.

Streamlining and Enhancing Operational Efficiency

Improving the efficiency of city hall is progressing well. The claims made by Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven about the staff being overworked were simply political talk and not based on facts. The current process of "consolidation" that we are undergoing at City Hall will greatly enhance our efficiency and productivity and save us money in the future.

Holly Tillman

The noise created by Holly and Peter at past city council meetings is their attempt to justify their proposed "SALES TAX" and "PARCEL TAX" plans without having a clear understanding of the actual income and expenses at City Hall.

I believe we should allow the City Council and the Citizen Financial Sustainability Committee the needed time to flush things out. Why rush?

How can anyone, especially Holly and Peter, justify increasing our taxes when they didn't reconcile the city's checkbook in over 18 months under their watch? (Peter as the Mayor, and Holly as the Vice Mayor)

Peter Cloven

For the past three and a half years, both Councilmembers Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven have been advocating for multiple tax increases without any knowledge of our income, expenses, or reserves. Why? It appears some politicians seem to prefer passing the buck to taxpayers instead of tackling the tougher issues themselves.

Their actions demonstrate laziness and neglect of their responsibilities. And to think, they were willing to pass on a tax increase to us without fulfilling their duties because, according to them, they didn't have enough time to review the budget.

Having a larger government does not automatically result in greater efficiency. In my opinion, it often leads to increased waste. In the case of Clayton, consolidation, and reorganization of staff roles appears to be the right path to take. Being 98% built out, it’s the right thing to do for our small city.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Experts, or no experts? Which is it?

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 Community Members:

Some of you supported the Olivia (high-density) project and said we should believe the experts on the parking overflow issue as gospel truth. But now, as we review our new city fee schedule, you don’t believe the experts because it’s inconvenient for the non-profit group you support.

As a taxpayer, I’m not interested in subsidizing the CBCA events. There’s a thing called inflation, and the city’s fee schedule needs to be adjusted so that they recover their costs. It’s pretty simple. I don’t think the clamor the CBCA is making is about the money, it’s about politics and power.

For those of you who own properties in Clayton, and want to pay more in property taxes, I say go ahead and float the idea out there for a parcel tax to your fellow neighbors. Let’s see what their reaction is.

If their reaction is positive, head down to City Hall pick up the paperwork start collecting signatures, and place it on the next ballot. Let’s see what happens.

Here’s another idea . . . why don’t you donate directly to the non-profit of your choice and help them out during these inflationary times and leave the hard-working citizens of Clayton out of it?

For those of you who want everything for free; free driveway permit fees, free inspection fees, free business license fees, free facility rental fees, free street closures, and more - you’re looking at this whole issue with blinders on.

Cheers,

Concerned Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

The Debate Over New Taxes in Clayton Should Begin with Facts, Not Fantasies or a Wish List

By Clayton Watch

Some Clayton residents may urge that sales or parcel taxes be placed on the ballot, but this debate should start with facts, not rumors or wishful thinking.

We need justification before asking citizens for more money, not cries that "the city is broke."

Recent history under Mayor Peter Cloven shows city finances were unbalanced for months in 2022. The checkbook hadn't been balanced in months, and he proposed a $400 annual parcel tax on every property owner in town.

First, let's closely examine reserves. Why were they so high? Did we receive the services we paid for? If not, why not? Answers are needed. (I sent a letter to the City Council on March 19th that is attached, but I am still awaiting their response.)

Second, an independent group should review all income and expenses to give us a clear financial picture. A three-member Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee is apparently being formed, hopefully, to shed light on the truth.

As the saying goes, "If the ladder is not leaning against the right wall, every step just gets us to the wrong place faster." That describes Clayton “to a T” in my opinion.

Before any tax increases, we need transparency, accountability, and factual justification. Wise stewardship of public funds requires careful examination, not knee-jerk reactions or unsubstantiated claims. Let us buckle up and do our homework before placing any tax increase before the voters.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Mayor Peter Cloven's Pacel Tax and $30K Community Survey

By Clayton Watch

44% of Clayton Voters Say They Do Not Trust Their Elected Officials--HUM?

Clayton's self absorbed Mayor, Peter Cloven, along with his squad and the city manager, decided it would be a good idea to propose a new parcel tax in this economy (no joke).

However, they were not sure (even though all the voters were) if voters would support a new tax. So, they thought it would be a good idea to spend $30,000 of taxpayer money, they do not have, to hire a consultant to conduct a survey to tell them what we already knew--voters would not support a new tax (living proof, you do not have to be smart to get elected).

It gets even better. They also thought it would be a great idea to create a budget crises in order to convince Clayton voters they must support this new $400 parcel tax. (I guess they thought Clayton voters were to stupid to figure this out.)

Therefore, the city manager at a February council meeting indicated the city would have a budget deficit of $629,000 next fiscal year (this is a lot of money for a city with a $5.2 million general fund). In essence, the city would go from a balance budget to a huge deficit in one year (it is unbelievable Cloven thought people would buy this, but he did).

Then it happened, just as we all knew it would (except for our elected geniuses,) their $30,000 survey said voters would not support any new tax. Of course, after the bad news, they backed off of the new tax and fessed up the real deficit is only $109,000, and then denied they were ever pushing a $629,000 deficit (they really believe we all have short term memory loss).

A lesson on how to destroy public trust. Do you think they are smart enough to figure this out?

We appreciate you for reading this article.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Cloven, Tillman, and Wolf - Survey - Tax Measure

By Clayton Watch

On February 15th, Clayton's Woke Liberal council majority, Cloven,Tillman and Wolfe, voted to spend $30,000 to hire a consultant to survey Clayton residents to determine if they would support a new tax (Councilmembers Diaz and Wan voted against the survey.

The Council wants to put a tax measure on the ballot in November at a cost of another $17,000 to $20,000. Total taxpayer cost for this fiasco is around $50,000.

According to the staff report the city will need a new parcel tax of least $200 per parcel to maintain existing city services. The consultants were hired to determine how much of a tax increase Clayton taxpayers would support/tolerate up to $400 per parcel.

Given the current state of the economy, we don't need to hire a consultant to determine the potential success of a new tax---the outcome will be a strong "No" with another adjective in front of it. This is another complete waste of taxpayer money at a time when they say we have a pending budget shortfall of about $672,000.

Here is the situation: According to the Pioneer, the city goes from a $56,000 deficit last fiscal year and a projected $8,000 surplus this fiscal year to a projected $672,000 deficit next fiscal year.

For the last 35 plus years Clayton has always maintained a balanced budget under the strong leadership of very competent city managers and proactive city councils.

Even during recession years and during the years when the State took huge amounts of money from the cities to balance their budget, Clayton's leaders balanced ours. So how did we get in this mess? How did we go from an $8,000 surplus to a 672,000 deficit in one year? What has changed? Well, we have a new city manager (one year on the job) a novice mayor last year (Wolfe) and a novice mayor this year (Cloven)--- Incompetence? Pretty telling.

Their answer, lets spend $30.000 to hire a consultant to tell them what we citizens already know and then try to raise taxes.

How about cutting cost? How about determining why we have a $700,000 cost increase in one year? I know how we can save $200,000 right away.

Final thought: The woke council majority, say they support more affordable housing in Clayton and at the same time want to raise taxes on homeowners and make the cost of home ownership more unaffordable--Hypocrites.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate