Top Story, March 28, 2026

Olivia on Marsh Creek: Progress — Or Just Enough to Keep It Alive?

Construction activity has reportedly begun on the long-delayed Olivia on Marsh Creek project, originally approved for 81 residential units.

After years of little to no movement, seeing equipment on site and dirt moving can feel like a big step forward.

And to be fair, progress is a good thing.

But the real question is:

Is this true progress… or just enough activity to keep the project alive?

Because sometimes, moving a little dirt doesn’t necessarily mean you’re moving the project forward.

Good projects withstand good questions. The Olivia project is no exception.

---

Approved Project — But What Was Actually Approved?

Let’s start with the basics.

Yes, this project was approved.

But what exactly was approved matters just as much as the approval itself.

This is not a 55+ senior housing project.
It’s an 81-unit residential development that includes a small number of low-income units, which were required as part of the original deal.

That means there are commitments tied to this project—real ones.
Not just about building homes, but about how and what gets delivered.

So the question becomes:

- Is what’s happening today consistent with what was originally approved?

- Did the developer diligently move forward with construction in 2022 after receiving a one-year extension?

- And perhaps most importantly, has the developer complied with the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Resolution? 

---

Construction Activity — What Does It Really Mean?

We’re hearing construction has started.

Great. But let’s pause for a second.

What actually counts as “construction”?

Is it:

• Real, measurable progress toward finishing the project
  or
• Just enough activity to show, “Hey, we’re working on it”?

There’s a growing sense in the community that what we may be seeing is just enough movement to check a box.

And if that’s the case, it leads to a very practical question:

Is this activity helping preserve the project’s entitlements by showing ongoing effort, making it harder for the City to step in based on past inactivity?

That’s not pointing fingers, it’s just understanding how the system often works.

---

Financial Reality: Does This Project Pencil Out?

According to reliable sources, the developer has indicated that about $10 million has been secured to move things forward.

Now, in today’s construction world… $10 million doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to.

In fact, it appears to be well short of what would be needed to complete even a portion of a project this size.

So naturally, people are asking:

• Is there enough funding to actually finish Phase 1, or 2, or even 3???
• What happens if the money runs out again?
• Are we looking at another stop-and-start situation?

Because nobody wants to see a project sit half-finished for another decade.

---

Experience Matters: Who Is Building This Project?

There are also questions about execution.

The developer, Bill Jordan, has reportedly only recently obtained his contractor’s license and now plans to build the project.

That raises some fair questions:

• Is there enough experience behind a project of this scale?
• Who’s overseeing the quality and compliance?
• Will seasoned contractors be brought in?

Building a project like this isn’t a learning exercise, it needs to be done right the first time.

---

Phased Construction — Planned or Improvised?

Originally, this was approved as a single 81-unit development.

Now it looks like it’s being built in phases.

That’s fine, if that was part of the plan.

But if not, then it’s worth asking:

Was phasing originally approved, or is this a shift in strategy?

If it’s being phased now, then:

• Each phase should stand on its own
• Infrastructure needs to be complete
• All original conditions still apply
• And yes, low-income housing requirements don’t get pushed down the road indefinitely.

---

Parking: The Issue Nobody Can Ignore

Let’s talk about the one thing everyone notices first, parking.

With 81 units, parking isn’t a side issue. It’s a front-and-center issue.

And right now, there are real concerns that there simply may not be enough of it.

So residents are asking:

• Does the plan realistically match real-world demand?
• Where do guests park?
• What happens when overflow spills into nearby neighborhoods and businesses?

Because we’ve all seen how that story ends.

Instead of waiting for complaints later, this is something the City can get ahead of now.

Reinstating a Parking Permit Committee would be a smart, proactive move, not a reactive one.

---

Affordable Housing: Not Optional

The project includes a small number of low-income units.

That wasn’t a suggestion, it was part of the approval.

So naturally, people want to know:

• Are those units part of what’s being built now?
• If not, when do they show up?
• What ensures they don’t quietly disappear over time?

Because commitments like that matter, to the community and to the integrity of the project.

---

School Mitigation Fees: Paid or Still Pending?

Another important piece:

• Have school mitigation fees been paid?
• If so, when, and how much?
• If not, when are they due?

These aren’t minor details, they directly impact local schools and infrastructure.

---

City Responsibility: Who’s Watching the Store?

At the end of the day, this brings us back to a bigger question:

What role is the City playing right now?

People want to understand:

• Is financial capacity being looked at?
• Are qualifications being reviewed?
• Are original conditions actually being enforced?
• Is there active oversight?

Because once a project gets rolling, it’s a lot harder to hit the brakes.

---

The Bottom Line

This isn’t about stopping development.

Clayton needs thoughtful, well-executed projects.

But it is about making sure things are done:

• As approved
• With proper oversight
• And with the community in mind

So the questions are simple, and fair:

• Is this real progress, or strategic activity to keep entitlements alive?
• Is the project financially solid?
• Is there enough experience behind it?
• Is parking actually adequate?
• Are low-income housing commitments being met?
• Are we addressing impacts now… or later?

---

Clayton Residents Deserve Clarity

This project may be moving forward.

And that’s fine, if it’s being done the right way.

But before it gets too far down the road, the public deserves clear, honest answers.

Because in the end:

Moving dirt is easy. Building it right, and earning public trust—is the hard part.

---

The Clayton Watch Team

Top Story, March 12, 2026

Scare Tactics, Bad Data, and the Truth About Clayton’s Finances

Independent audits and documented financial records tell a very different story than the one you’ve been sold.

For years, Clayton residents have been fed the same alarming story: the city is on the verge of financial collapse. That narrative has echoed at council meetings, in public comments, and in official reports, including coverage in the now-defunct local newspaper formerly owned by Tamara Steiner. But step away from the rhetoric and look at the actual financial records. A very different picture comes into focus.

If Clayton were truly going broke, the city’s independent auditors would be the first to say so.

“The claim that Clayton is ‘going broke’ has become a talking point — not a factual statement.”

Instead, the most recent audit shows a city that has corrected past internal control failures, strengthened financial oversight, and continues to operate with stable reserves. The narrative of crisis simply does not match the documented record.

Where the Narrative Started

The “Clayton is going broke” story has a clear origin. It emerged during the push for a $400 per-parcel tax proposal championed by former Mayor Peter Cloven, Carl Wolfe, Holly Tillman, and former City Manager Reina Schwartz. Residents were warned that without significant new taxes, the city’s financial future was in jeopardy.

That message relied on worst-case projections and fear-based framing rather than Clayton’s actual financial position. Even after the proposal failed to gain traction in a citywide survey, the crisis narrative kept circulating, that Clayton's finances were somehow in crisis.

That rhetoric continued under the next city manager, Bret Prebula, who repeated many of the same claims about Clayton’s financial condition and continued pushing the idea that the city was facing a fiscal crisis. Prebula’s tenure ultimately ended with his departure from the city after a relatively short and troubled period.

The playbook was predictable: manufacture the perception of instability, then present tax increases as the only solution, rather than doing the hard work of actually fixing the problems. The city’s audited financial records tell a different story.

What the Latest Audit Actually Shows

At the City Council meeting on March 3, 2026, the City reviewed its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. The independent audit produced no surprises and no alarm bells.

The fiscal year ended with a manageable deficit that had already been anticipated and budgeted for. More significantly, auditors reported no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in the City’s internal financial controls. That is a meaningful improvement from prior years.

From FY2020 through FY2023, auditors repeatedly flagged serious internal control problems that required corrective action. Those were legitimate concerns.

Under City Manager Reina Schwartz, the city’s books went unreconciled for roughly 18 months — and the city was defrauded of approximately $50,000.

When the fraud was uncovered, no formal investigation was ordered. Then-Mayor Peter Cloven did not pursue the matter. City management let it go. Yet some of the very individuals involved during that period continue to portray the current council majority as reckless.

With new staffing and stronger oversight, those control failures have been corrected. For the second consecutive year, auditors reported no findings. That is exactly what responsible financial management looks like.

The $350,000 Revenue Change — Context Matters

Another point routinely raised in “crisis” discussions involves the Successor Agency, which managed the wind-down of Clayton’s former Redevelopment Agency after the state eliminated redevelopment agencies in 2012. For several years, Clayton received roughly $350,000 annually from the County to administer those activities.

That work is now complete. The funding will decline and eventually disappear.

But here’s the critical context: that revenue was always temporary. It was administrative funding tied to a finite task, not a permanent source of operating income. Its decline was anticipated and built into the city’s financial projections. Calling it a crisis is a deliberate misrepresentation.

The Civil Grand Jury Issue

Another fuel source for the crisis narrative was a recent Civil Grand Jury report. Evidence has since surfaced indicating that financial information used in the complaint process was altered or misrepresented, creating a distorted picture of the city’s finances.

This is not a minor procedural matter. Under California law, submitting falsified information during an official proceeding can expose individuals to potential criminal charges. This issue is now receiving closer scrutiny.

When inaccurate financial data is used to influence an official investigation, it doesn’t just mislead — it undermines the integrity of the entire process.

Stay tuned. More information on this issue is expected to come to light in the coming months.

Leadership and Priorities

Clayton’s financial debates have also exposed a deeper question about where elected officials focus their energy.

For years, some council members devoted significant time to outside organizations, regional boards, community groups, and advocacy efforts, while key city priorities went underfunded and underattended. Some spent years engaged with organizations like ABAG or groups like CBCA, while infrastructure maintenance, long-term financial planning, and basic community upkeep were treated as afterthoughts.

Others pushed controversial development proposals like Olivia on Marsh Creek, marketed as a 55-and-over senior housing development that would supposedly generate minimal traffic and require fewer parking spaces. That claim was later discredited through research published by Clayton Watch. The reduced parking rationale leaned heavily on a study from a senior housing project in Pennsylvania, used to justify lower standards for a Clayton project that was not legally restricted to seniors.

Clayton Watch’s research exposed those inconsistencies and raised serious questions about the project’s justification. It was pushed through by a long-time council member and former mayor, Julie Pierce, who served nearly 28 years, with little clear rationale to show for it.

Serving on a city council is not a social or networking exercise. It demands consistent focus on the city itself: responsible budgeting, maintained reserves, investment in infrastructure, and careful stewardship of public resources.

The Bottom Line

The “Clayton is going broke” narrative is a political instrument, not a financial reality.

 The city’s independent audit says otherwise. Clayton maintains over $7 million in reserves. Internal financial controls have been corrected. The decline of temporary redevelopment funding was planned for, not a surprise. There is no crisis,  there is a manufactured story designed to drive fear and justify policy changes that never needed to happen.

The real question isn’t whether Clayton is going broke. It clearly is not.

The real question is: why have certain individuals worked so hard to convince residents that it is?

A city sitting on over $7 million in reserves was told it was going broke. Someone was counting on residents not checking.

As more information surfaces regarding the financial data submitted during the Civil Grand Jury process, the public may soon have a much clearer picture of how that narrative was constructed, and by whom. Providing false or misleading financial information in an official proceeding is not simply poor judgment. It can carry serious legal consequences.

Stay tuned.

Clayton Watch will continue to research the facts and report what the public deserves to know.

The facts are on the record. The audit speaks for itself. The residents of Clayton deserve nothing less than the truth.

City Council Meeting Summary - Jeff Wan 3-3-26

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, Mayor

Last night the Council met and discussed a couple of significant items: 

At our meeting this week, we received and discussed the audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscsal year ended 6.30.25.

There weren't any surprises from the audit - FY25 ended with a managable deficit as anticipated. There were a two items that I wanted to call out.

- The Successor Agency, which is the entity that took on responsibility for funds after the prior Redevelopment Agency was folded due to state level action that dissolved RDAs in 2012, had been receiving funding from the County in order to wind down the activities of the RDA. The Successor Agency completely wound down in FY25, and as a result the revenue related to the administration of the Successor Agency decreased signficantly - nearly $350K. This will go away completely in the out years, and is the cause of projected revenue decreases in the next few years.

- The other item I wanted to call out is what did not happen. Our auditors did not identify any signficant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal controls. Internal Controls are critical in the financial operation of the City. As a reminder, starting in FY20 through FY23, our auditors identified both significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal controls. They were serious findings, and for years the City was unable to remdiate them. As we have brought on different staff, the City has been able to address these areas and as was the case last year, in the current year there were also no findings.

The Public Should Not Be Subsidizing Private Nonprofit Events

When required City fees are redirected, the burden doesn’t disappear, it shifts to residents.

Dear Clayton Residents,

Good government relies on consistent rules and transparent decisions.

One of the simplest principles is this: when an organization uses public property, it pays the required fee. Those charges are not symbolic. They exist to reimburse the community for the very real costs the City incurs, closing streets, rerouting traffic, assigning public works crews, providing police presence, managing risk, handling wear and tear on parks, and completing cleanup and restoration once an event ends. Staff time is diverted from other priorities. Normal services are interrupted. Residents experience detours, noise, parking limitations, and restricted access to their own downtown. Those impacts remain whether a fee is collected or not.

At a recent City Sponsored Special Events Committee meeting, Carl Wolfe, president of the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), asked during public comment that required downtown and park special-event fees for use of the entire downtown and The Grove be treated instead as sponsorship support for the City’s Concerts in the Grove series. Click here to watch the video of Carl Wolfe speaking at the meeting. 10:13 on the timer is where he starts to speak. (What he is suggesting may sound generous, but it can also come across as sneaky, and possibly illegal.)

But it is important to recognize what it means. This is not new money. It is a request to relabel funds owed for the exclusive use of Main Street, our downtown, including The Grove Park, and apply them somewhere else.

And remember, Mr. Wolfe is a former Councilmember and former Mayor. He understands how municipal finance works, or does he? He should know that when revenue owed to the City is waived or redirected, someone else ultimately absorbs that cost.

That someone else is the taxpayer.

Once those fees are paid, they are public money. They are deposited into the General Fund and belong to the residents of Clayton, not the CBCA, not event organizers, and not any individual requester. They are no different from any other user fees collected by the City. No private organization gets to pay a bill and then dictate where the money goes or reclaim it in another form. Public funds are controlled through the City’s budget process on behalf of taxpayers, period.

Over the past two years, CBCA leadership has pushed to cancel or reduce the special-event fee (as reflected in the Master Fee Schedule adopted in August 2023), despite the fact that the organization has been paying only a fraction of what comparable private users would normally pay. Public financial filings show that the CBCA holds more than $300,000 in the bank. By any reasonable measure, they have the ability and the means to meet their obligations without asking to shift those costs onto residents.

When events occupy our downtown, streets close, personnel are deployed, and cleanup follows. Those bills do not vanish. If the City does not collect the required fees, the expense shifts to residents.

Many taxpayers share a straightforward belief:

• The public should not subsidize private organizations and their events.
• Groups should raise sponsorships, donations, and vendor revenue to fund their own festivals. That is part of hosting them.

There is also a practical reality

The Concerts in the Grove already receives generous support from Clayton businesses, families, and volunteers. Residents may reasonably ask why money owed for exclusive use of public property should be rerouted away from the general fund and labeled something else.

Clayton Watch is focused on process, not personalities.

We are not aware of any adopted policy that allows mandatory rental fees to be converted into sponsorship credit.

If such authority exists, the City should identify where it is written, how it works, and whether it is available equally to every organization.

• Consistency protects public trust.

A constructive path forward

Clayton has a proud tradition of voluntary sponsorships.

We strongly encourage the CBCA to return to that tradition. Since the Master Use Agreement (MUA) was canceled, the organization has stopped contributing financially to Concerts in the Grove, a sharp departure from prior years when support was routinely provided.

Choosing not to contribute while simultaneously asking to redirect money owed to the City sends the wrong message to residents.

If the CBCA wishes to support the concerts, it can do what businesses, families, and other sponsors do, write a check.

At the same time, it should continue paying required fees for the use of our streets, our downtown, and our parks, just as any other group would.

Clayton Watch supports community events and the many people who make them possible. But the financial rules governing public assets must remain clear, consistent, and fair.

Because when the rules are steady, trust follows. And when trust follows, Clayton wins.

Respectfully,

Clayton Watch

City Council Meeting Summary - Jeff Wan 2-3-26

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. Please keep your comments clear, concise, and appropriate for the discussion. 

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

Last night the Council was introduced to four new staff members, including a neew police officer, and three new administrative personel.  And while staff turnover is a normal circumstance, it is great to have a full compliment of staff to support the community.  There remains one role that is still open in the Public Works area.

- We also discussed the timeline of acitvities related to a sales tax measure, and the renewal of the LMD.  The discussion focused on what role the Council has, what role staff has, and when various activities will take place.  This included how and when ballot language would be drafted, when staff would hold informational town halls to inform about each measure, and the timing of each.  The Council gave its preference that staff hold two informational townhalls - one each before and after ballots were mailed to residents.

There was a question posed by a resident which I wanted to address.  The gist of the question was, given the City has a healthy reserve, why is it appropriate to seek a tax increase rather than spend down reserves?

At first glance, it may not make sense to hear that the City needs more tax revenue when it is maintaining a large reserve.  After all, reserves are like savings.  But savings alone do not keep a a household or a City financially healthy if ongoing operations exceed revenue.

Reserve spending may be appropriate in some circustnaces.  Things like emergency response, smoothing during short term economic downturns, one time investments for major equipment, or even costs to cover efforts during reorganization may be appropriate.  These are all one time in nature and time bound.

A city’s reserve works like a rainy-day fund. It exists to help during emergencies, economic downturns, or unexpected events where a large expenditure may be required.  Reserves are not designed to pay for routine, ongoing costs such as wages or maintenance.  Reserves are a fixed pool of money. Operating deficits repeat every year. If we spend reserves on routine services, it is choosing to spend down a limited asset to cover an unlimited problem. That math never works. It only postpones the moment when the money runs out.

At our December 2, 2025 meeting, staff presented a projection of the general fund if no new revenues were implemented:

And the gap will likely grow.  City revenue is largely based on property taxes.  Because the increase in property taxes is capped, inflation has been outpacing proprty taxes for several years.  This means that while our operational costs rise, our revenues are not able to rise at the same rate.  With a sales tax that puts us inline with neighboring cities, the projection looks quite a bit different:

There is also a fairness issue. Using yesterday’s savings to pay today’s bills pushes the cost of current services onto future residents. Rather than address the underlying cause of operational deficits, using reserves asks future generationsn to solve and pay for the the services that are being consumed today.  We as a Council are elected to make decisions and address issues that impact the City.  We know this is an issue, and it should be addressed.

Increasing tax revenue addresses the core problem. It brings ongoing revenue in line with ongoing costs. That balance protects essential services, preserves reserves for true emergencies, and helps ensure the city remains stable and resilient over the long term. In short, savings provide security, and in some cases can buy some time.  But only stable revenue buys sustainability.and keeps the City running.