Council Meeting Summary 7-15-25

City Council Correspondence: The excerpts below have been sourced from the website of council member Jeff Wan to share with the Clayton Watch Community. You can access council member Wan's website by following this link: https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net

While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Jeff Wan's City Council Updates

On Tuesday, the Council met and discussed several significant items:

- We held a public hearing regarding real property assessment increases for the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District. This was the annual increase of the levy of real property tax assessments at the Diablo Estates Assessment District. The city administers certain functions for the group of homes similar to an HOA manager and the assessments cover those costs. The City is allowed to raise the assessment each year by CPI which would have been 2.22%, however based on the needs of the District, the Council decided to increase the amount by 2.0%.

I asked a question about the projected interest income attributable to the District. It was budgeted at zero, however it appears that the interest income associated with the reserve balance may not have been applied. Staff will do an inception to date look and come back with more information.

- We adopted two resolutions approving the new Memorandum of Understanding with the City's management employees and updated the associated salary schedule update. This is consistent with the ongoing negotiations with City staff.

- We adopted a resolution updating the job descriptions of Police officer and Senior Maintenance Worker. This brings more current these job descriptions as they haven't been updated in some time. We also created a new job description for Seasonal Maintenance Worker - Temporary Position. This role will better allow the City to manage it's seasonal workers.

- We adopted the annual appropriation limit that is required by State law. This was a perfunctory action based on a mathematical formula established by the State.

Public Information Request 7-8-25

To the Clayton Community,

A Public Information Request (PIR) was filed with Contra Costa County by the Clayton Watch Team in response to serious concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the Civil Grand Jury report on the City of Clayton. After identifying substantial evidence that the report is deeply flawed — including factual inaccuracies, key omissions, and misleading conclusions — we felt it was necessary to pursue official answers and documentation.

As part of our effort to hold the Grand Jury accountable and restore public trust, we submitted a formal letter to the Presiding Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Below, you will find a copy of that letter, along with two responses we received from the Court’s Chief Counsel and another from the Public Information Officer.

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

7-8-25

Hon. Terri Mockler
, Supervising Judge
Contra Costa County Superior Court
725 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553

Dear Judge Mockler,

Under the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq., we are requesting an opportunity to obtain copies of public records with respect to the Contra Costa County 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury. Specifically, we are requesting a copy of all the referral/complaint forms filed against the City of Clayton for the 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury investigation and Report 2505, dated May 16, 2025, titled “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns” with the names of the persons filing the referrals/complaints redacted.

The California Public Records Act requires a response within ten business days If access to the records we are requesting will take longer, please contact us with information about when we might receive copies of the requested records.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify us of the appeal procedures available under the law.

Please email the records requested to: claytonwatch94517@gmail.com

Thank you for considering our request.

Bill Walcutt
Clayton Watch
Political Action Committee
FPPC ID #1471612

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

Courts Response:

From: Media Information <mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 12:33 PM
To: claytonwatch94517@gmail.com
Cc: Media Information <mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov>
Subject: Public Records Request

Good afternoon,

The Court has received your request for public records, attached. Thank you for your inquiry. This office coordinates these requests and responses thereto.

Please note that the California Public Records Act does not apply to the courts. (See Gov. Code § 7921.000 et seq.; Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300, 309.) Rather, requests for judicial administrative records are governed by Rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court. Responses identifying documents are ordinarily due within 10 days, or July 24, 2025. However, the rule permits the Court to extend that deadline by 14 days in certain circumstances. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 10.500(e)(8).) Accordingly, the Court extends its deadline to provide an initial response to August 7, 2025. You will receive a response on or before that date.

Thank you,

Matt J. Malone
Chief Counsel and Public Information Officer
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov
925.608.2607

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

Courts Second Response:

From: Media Information <mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov>
Date: Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Subject: Response to Public Records Request
To: claytonwatch94517@gmail.com <claytonwatch94517@gmail.com>
CC: Media Information <mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov>

Good afternoon,

This email constitutes the Court’s response to your request for records under California Rule of Court 10.500. Specifically, you have requested “a copy of all the referral/complaint forms filed against the City of Clayton for the 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury investigation and Report 2505, dated May 16, 2025, titled ‘Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns’ with the names of the persons filing the referrals/complaints redacted.”

The Court has no judicial administrative records responsive to this request that are not otherwise exempt. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 10.500 (f)(5) [exempting from disclosure records protected under state or federal law]; see Cal. Penal Code sections 911, 915, 924, 929; McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1173 [confidentiality of grand jury proceedings and materials].) Redacting names does not impact the application of Rule 10.500(f)(5) where the materials themselves are confidential. Processes for any challenge to/appeal of the Court’s decision may be found in Rule 10.500(j) of the California Rules of Court.

Thank you for interest in the work of the Court.

Matt J. Malone
Chief Counsel and Public Information Officer
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov
925.608.2607

Clayton City Council - From the Desk of Kim Trupiano 7-1-25

City Council Correspondence: The excerpts below have been sourced from the Diablo Gazette to share with the Clayton Watch Community. You can access the article in the Diablo Gazette's website by following this link: https://www.diablogazette.com/2025/07/diablo-gazette-july-2025/

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.

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

Mayor Trupiano

Clayton Community Progress

For the first time, the City of Clayton adopted a two-year budget following several Budget & Audit Committee meetings, a community workshop, and a final presentation to the City Council on June 3rd. The budget passed unanimously 5-0—a milestone not reached in years. 

Budget Overview 

In Year One, the initial projected deficit was $129,000. After rigorous review, this was reduced to approximately $82,000 by the end of the council meeting. Cost-saving decisions included holding the line on the Senior Planner salary range and passing credit card processing fees to users. If anticipated CPI-related revenue increases materialize, the deficit may fall to around $60,000. 

Year Two’s larger projected deficit of $725,000 is primarily due to the scheduled dissolution of the Successor Agency for redevelopment. With all obligations fulfilled, its operations will cease next fiscal year, phasing out $510,459 in associated revenues and expenditures. The remaining $210,000 shortfall stems from anticipated increases in salaries, services, and supplies. 

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 

The City Engineer presented the five-year CIP through 2028–2029, emphasizing road paving, sidewalk, and ADA repairs. The next major paving project is slated for 2026. 

GHAD Assessment Vote 

The Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) board, comprised of the City Council, received 565 ballots (38.1% return) from Oakhurst property owners. The proposed assessment increase passed with 51.1% support. This secures funding for long-overdue maintenance, repairs, and monitoring, and allows reservebuilding for future emergencies. Special thanks to Vice Mayor Wan for championing GHAD efforts. 

Grand Jury Report 

While I disagree with many findings in the recent Civil Grand Jury report, I recognize that improvement is always possible and remain committed to transparency and progress. The City and Council issued a formal response to the report at the end of June. Workforce Updates In a public hearing required by AB 2561, we shared progress on staffing. Seven of eight vacancies have been filled in the past four months, including hiring new Police Chief Jeremy Crone, who was sworn in on June 17 and began work June 23. Welcome, Chief Crone! 

Infrastructure Projects 

Work is underway in the library parking lot as part of the final phase of our Climatec sustainability project. This includes installing solar panels at the maintenance yard and an EV charging station at the library. Completion is expected by the end of summer, with a project update scheduled for our August 17 meeting. 

Community Events 

• 4th of July Parade: Friday, July 4, 10:00 a.m. Rotary Pancake breakfast at Endeavor Hall from 7 to 10 am. 

• Concerts in the Grove: Every other Saturday, 6–8 PM. Next concert: July 12th. (see our ad on page 12 for a complete list of bands.) 

• Classic Car Show: Every other Wednesday, July 2, 16 and 30, 6–8 PM, downtown.

You can visit our city website for more information on each of these events. Claytonca.gov/our-city 

Finally, thank you to VFW, Post 1525, and the USMC for a memorable and well-attended Memorial Day Ceremony at The Grove Park. It is always an honor to be a part of this remembrance.

Special Meeting Reveals the Truth: Clayton Council Responds to Civil Grand Jury Report - Holly Tillman Isolated and Exposed

To the Clayton Community,

We are writing to bring attention to a matter of great concern regarding the recently issued Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury report on the City of Clayton, and to highlight what unfolded at the special City Council meeting on June 24, 2025.

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

Clayton Watch Report - June 26, 2025

In a decisive supermajority 4–1 vote, the Clayton City Council approved its official response to the Civil Grand Jury’s politically charged and deeply flawed report. Led by Mayor Trupiano and Vice Mayor Jeff Wan, with support from Councilmembers Jim Diaz and Rich Enea, the Council delivered a clear and fact-based rebuttal that dismantled the report’s inaccuracies and exposed its evident bias.

Once again, Councilmember Holly Tillman stood alone in opposition.

Despite having spent over 15 months calling for an investigation, Councilmember Tillman attempted to backpedal, requesting a “softer tone” and offering edits that none of her colleagues supported. Her shift in tone reveals the uncomfortable truth: the investigation she called for is now undermining her own credibility.

Vice Mayor Wan presented the legal facts with clarity, while Councilmember Tillman offered no substantive rebuttal, only emotional appeals and theatrical rhetoric.

Even more concerning, Councilmember Tillman publicly stated that she would submit her separate response to the Civil Grand Jury.

Under California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, official responses must come from the governing body. Any attempt to submit an individual letter, especially using city letterhead, would be legally invalid and potentially expose the City to liability.

This incident raises serious questions:

* Why is Councilmember Tillman consistently isolated from her colleagues?
* Why do none of her fellow councilmembers, across diverse viewpoints, support her positions?
* Is she using the City of Clayton as a political springboard rather than serving its residents?

According to reports, Councilmember Tillman has expressed interest in running for higher office, including governor. Her behavior increasingly suggests a strategy built on conflict, not collaboration, one focused on self-promotion and photo ops, rather than public service.

Adding to the concerns is the direct involvement of Clayton Pioneer owner Tamara Steiner. For two years, Ms. Steiner has used her platform to push for a Grand Jury investigation and has provided exclusively favorable coverage of Councilmember Tillman, while ignoring or disparaging other councilmembers.

Tamara Steiner has participated in past Civil Grand Jury orientation media panels, including one alongside current Civil Grand Jury Foreperson Peter Appert. At the time, Appert was a juror, not the foreperson. Sources report that she engaged directly with participants, offering input, posing questions, and exceeding the neutral role of a panelist.

Steiner’s influence in Clayton runs deep, bolstered by her and her husband’s long-standing leadership roles in the Clayton Business & Community Association (CBCA), he as a former CBCA president, and she as a vocal presence in city affairs. However, when the City Council revised the CBCA’s special event fee structure to make it more equitable for all organizations, their privileged position was diminished. 

In apparent retaliation, Steiner’s reporting became increasingly combative and one-sided. Just recently, she was seen distributing printed copies of the Civil Grand Jury report at a CBCA General meeting, just days before the Council’s official vote, further blurring the lines between journalism and personal agenda.

Further complicating this matter is that Councilmember Tillman’s husband, Matt Tillman, currently serves as Vice President of Membership for the CBCA. This direct connection between a sitting councilmember and an organization deeply entangled in the political narrative creates a clear conflict of interest.

The CBCA is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, which prohibits political activity under IRS regulations. Any partisan behavior coordinated through or influenced by CBCA leadership places the organization’s nonprofit status at risk.

Finally, the Grand Jury report makes over 18 separate references to the CBCA, while omitting other community organizations entirely. This disproportionate attention, combined with the above connections, demands serious scrutiny.

It is also worth noting that Peter Appert, the current Civil Grand Jury foreperson, is affiliated with a nonprofit organization in Lafayette that closely mirrors the CBCA’s structure and mission. That similarity, paired with the report’s excessive focus on the CBCA, raises even more red flags.

Was this report guided by objective inquiry or shaped by preexisting relationships and organizational bias?

If you want to see the full picture for yourself, without spin or speculation, the following resources provide direct access to the meeting, the City’s official response, and key background information.

Don’t take anyone’s word for it. Watch, read, and decide based on the facts:

* Watch the Full Meeting and Judge for Yourself: Watch the Special Meeting (https://claytonca.granicus.com/player/clip/111)

* The Civil Grand Jury Complaint: (https://contracosta.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/2505-smallcitybigconcerns.pdf)

* Read the City’s Response to the Civil Grand Jury Report: (https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3433549/Response_to_GJ_Report_2505.pdf)

* Learn why Holly Tillman has lost the respect of her peers and much of the community: The Truth About Holly Tillman (https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/a-record-of-division-troubling-behavior.html)

* See Holly Tillman in Action (Short Videos): She’s shockingly rude and belligerent, dominating every conversation, snarling accusations, never listening, and bulldozing anyone who dares challenge her. (https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-in-action-her-words-not.html)

* Holly Tillman: All Talk, No Action: She makes big promises but never delivers. It's all noise, no results. (https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-all-talk-no-action.html)

The June 24th meeting was not just another council session; it was a turning point. The Council majority stood united, grounded in facts, law, and the will of the people. Councilmember Tillman stood alone, disconnected, defiant, and exposed.

At Clayton Watch, we believe in truth, transparency, and accountability.

We believe public office is a place to serve, not a platform for political ambition. We encourage every resident to stay informed, ask tough questions, and demand better leadership.

Clayton deserves better,

Sincerely,

The Clayton Watch Team

Special Meeting - Please Be There - Starts at 5:00 PM