Parking Permit Ad Hoc Committee Meeting

At the 1.16.24 Council meeting, we discussed the potential of a parking permit program in Stranahan and nearby neighborhoods.  At that meeting, the Council directed staff to come back with an agenda item to form an ad hoc Committee to discuss the issue.  At the 2.20.24 meeting, the Council designated myself, and Councilmember Tillman to form this ad hoc Committee.  

The ad hoc Committee is holding its first meeting  in the Stranahan Park on Monday, April 29 at 4pm.  For anyone interested please show up and we can discuss the issue and ideas for potential solutions.

On Negotiations with the CBCA

After Vice Mayor Trupiano cancelled her membership to the CBCA last week based on a pattern of behavior by certain CBCA members, there was renewed discussion regarding the negotiations between the City and the CBCA regarding a new Master Use Agreement (MUA).  After discussion with some members, it appears as though the leadership of the CBCA never shared the status or progress of negotiations, and instead characterized the conclusion of our discussions as the City rejecting their offers.  As this is not a fair characterization of events, in the interest of transparency I thought it useful to share the timeline of events:

3.7.23 – MUA between City and CBCA terminated effective 7.1.23.  Prior agreement can be found here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P2k4G4hIIfl_wExiiyZcxFSuDZpeO521/view?usp=sharing

City establishes Ad hoc Committee to renegotiate MUA.  My summary here:  https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net/2023/03/my-3723-meeting-summary.html

3.15.23 – First meeting held with CBCA and Ad Hoc Committee.  My summary of the meeting here:  https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net/2023/03/update-on-ongoing-discussions-with-cbca.html

May-23  CBCA cancels BBQ and Brew festival, citing uncertainty over fees, even though the fee waiver was still effective at the time.  I shared my thoughts here:  https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net/2023/05/thoughts-on-bbq-and-brews-cancellation.html

July-23 – In a phone call with the President of the CBCA, I propose a revenue sharing agreement in exchange for a waiver of fees and part of a new MUA.   I wrote about it here:  https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net/2023/07/common-ground-and-winwin-for-special.html

8.30.23  – In a phone call with the President of the CBCA, the revenue sharing proposal is rejected with no counter proposal offered.  I was told I would hear back about alternatives after the Sept 7 CBCA Board meeting.

9.27.23 – I host a town hall meeting at Hoyer Hall and take any and all questions.  Some are regarding negotiations with CBCA.  I indicate that I have been trying for months to meet with CBCA leadership and after proposing several dates I am told it may be “a while” due to medical reasons.  I write about the event here:  https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net/2023/09/townhall-92723-summary.html

10.11.23 – CBCA sends invitation to meet.  After aligning schedules, we set meeting for 10.20.23.

10.20.23 CBCA leadership and the Ad Hoc Committee meets.  All information and correspondence regarding these meetings and associated negotiations can be found here:  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1o3L9gPKuidvwJE3nLqJH2m03yjw1Y-eR?usp=drive_link

In summary, in exchange for a waiver of Special Event fees, CBCA proposed a 5% revenue share, with an annual cap of $25,000.  CBCA was also interested in designated specific capital projects that the revenue share would be attributable to and that the organization could get recognition for.  The proposal suggested starting at a date certain in the future, with some contributions made to the City in the interim.

In response, the Ad Hoc Committee made a counter proposal actually reducing the % of revenue share to 4%, and also argued against the cap.  The current discounted Special Events Fee would be approximately $7K/day.  The Committee stated that at a 4% revenue share, CBCA events would need to generate $700K in gross revenue to yield a $28K City share.  $700K gross revenue is greater than what past events have generated, so under the proposed revenue share the CBCA would pay less than the current fee schedule calls for.  In addition, each event has historically required several days of preparation both before hand for setup, and afterwards for takedown.  As such, it is almost certain that the Special Event Fees for Art & Wine and Oktoberfest combined under the new Master Fee Schedule will exceed $28,000.

For the city, a major purpose of the proposed revenue sharing agreement was precisely to align the interests of the CBCA and the City.  In practice this would mean the City would share in the favorable or unfavorable results of events.  Larger events that generate greater revenue for the CBCA would yield greater revenue for the City.  Smaller events that didn't generate significant revenue would pay much lower fees, a .  A cap is contrary to this purpose - especially a cap set at ostensibly a similar amount that would be paid without a revenue sharing agreement.

The Ad Hoc Committee invited further discussion but none was offered by CBCA leadership and the City did not hear back after that.

1.12.24 – President of the CBCA sends communication to its members, not to the City or its Ad Hoc Committee, that the prior proposal was their last, best, and final offer and would not seek further negotiations.

I continue to hold out hope that the City and the CBCA can come to terms that is mutually beneficial for each, and especially the residents of Clayton.

 

 

My 4.16.24 Meeting Summary

Earlier this week the Council met to discuss one significant item:

The Council appointed Frank Gavidia to the Community Financial Sustainability Committee (CFSC).  We also renewed the term for the two existing members, Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford.  Both existing members were appointed previously but due to lack of quorum the Committee could not meet.  Between the three, there is a Certified Financial Analyst (CFA), a Certified Financial Planner (CFP), and a Certified Public Accountant (CPA).  

During the interview process with the Budget and Audit Committee, Frank was asked why he was stepping up to serve now.  He mentioned that even though he felt he was treated unfairly while serving on the Planning Commission based on politics, the fact was that this committee was needed to help build trust within the community and he could be effective in that role.  And since no one qualified had stepped up to serve, he believed that his knowledge and experience would be a benefit to the City overall.

The mission of the Committee is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Manager and City Council to make recommendations on the annual budget and other financial matters related to the City.  It is the goal of the Committee to increase engagement in the community regarding City financial matters.  The Committee has wide latitude on how they wish to direct their inquiry and activity.  They are charged with identifying areas to evaluate for financial savings and/or revenue generation.

As the idea of the CFSC was originally brought forward by Councilmember Cloven, it was odd to see him engage in what could only be described as mansplaining while he berated Vice Mayor Trupiano over the candidate's perceived political views.  The members of the CFSC are a group of people who have stepped up and offered to serve for the benefit of the City and I look forward to seeing the work that they produce.  

The Council voted 4-0-1 to appoint the new member and renew the existing members.  After introducing the idea, stressing the importance of the work, and trying to get the CFSC off the ground, Councilmember Cloven abstained.

At the end of the meeting during Council Reports, Vice Mayor Trupiano reported out some troubling information.  She has been working at securing sponsorships for City Sponsored Special Events, and has been having a very successful year.  Unfortunately, she was informed by some sponsors that members of the CBCA have been contacting them and challenging their support of City events.  This is actively working against the interests of the City.  

While Vice Mayor Trupiano has been working diligently to secure sponsorships benefiting the City and it is incredibly disappointing to learn that there are those trying to undermine that good work. She announced that until that organization can be more focused on supporting the businesses in this community, which is why it was started, rather than pushing their own agenda, she can no longer in good faith be a part of it and promptly cancelled her membership to the CBCA.

On Accusations of Meddling and Overreach

Earlier this week the editor of the Pioneer acquired emails sent by staff prior to their departure through what she claims was a Public Records Act (PRA) request.  In sharing the emails, she included commentary continuing to blame me for "meddling and overreach".  The editor claims this was quoted from our City Manager himself, however the word "meddling" does not appear in the email.  In her zest it appears she embellished the claim as is her pattern.  Here is the email that she shared:

Vague accusations of meddling and overreach without evidence is easy and has become the common refrain from detractors. This has been the case on multiple occasions - an vague assertion that something nefarious is happening without evidence - surprising from an editor of a newspaper.  

A little background on what appears to be the issue. At our 10.3.23 meeting, the Council rejected a proposal to spend $400K on a piecemeal approach to various landscaping issues, and instead directed staff to come back with a holistic view of what the City's needs were to we can make more informed decisions. Our City Manager welcomed the idea.

Approximately 5 months passed before we saw anything from that direction. City staff also neglected to perform a mid year budget review during this time as well. When the Council received this holistic analysis there was little in terms of detail regarding the forecast and more discussion about what services levels could be cut and what taxes could be raised.

I asked to see the supporting documents - after 5 months of effort there should be some support. It is unfortunate but true that policy analysis requires detailed review. Unfortunately this legitimate request was denied. When asking questions and simple straightforward requests are denied, it raises my concern, as it should with everyone.

Looking through details is how it was discovered that the City executed a non-cancellable $30K contract (the limit of signing authority) right before staff resigned. Or how it was discovered that there were tens of thousands of dollars set aside in the budget for promotions and new positions that had not been approved.

If that is the example of meddling and overreach, I stand by my request. It is my right as a Councilmember and as a citizen to see and ask questions about how my government is operating. It is how we as Councilmembers remain informed and make better decisions. 

After involving the City Attorney on my legitimate request, I finally received the files. After 5 months of time, I would charitably characterize the level of analysis as light.  Here are the series of related  communications:

I've saved them for viewing if anyone is interested. The files may need to be saved off to be viewed properly.  I've saved the actual files as well as the associated emails in my request here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BVo5Xatb9S8X7CRQHpBllUqE2kqELWRm?usp=drive_link

Upcoming Meeting 4.16.24

At our next meeting we will be discussing one significant item:

- We will consider the recommendation from the Budget & Audit Committee to appoint a new applicant to the Community Financial Sustainability Committee, and renew the terms of the existing members.

If you have any thoughts or questions on the above, please let me know.

Regarding Political Theater

Public comment at the meeting on 3.19.24 mostly related to the recent Op-Ed in the Pioneer.  Of the few people who spoke, all were well known to the Council and speak at our meetings often.  These are the same people who's letters to the editor were published and often echo the comments of Councilmember Tillman and Cloven.

It’s interesting watching a manufactured narrative be propagated. The most recent is the amount of staff turnover at the City in an Op-Ed at our local paper. The Op-Ed asserts the City has turned over 8 City Managers, 7 Finance Directors, and 5 Community Development Directors in the last 5 years.

To be sure, there has been turnover at City Hall at a level that is undesirable. But it is not accurate to say that all turnover is for the same reasons. Some have left due to retirement, others seeking career growth, others for higher compensation, and others because the role may not have been a good fit. In some cases when a person separates, there are Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or information subject to attorney-client privilege that is unable to be shared publicly. For example, if there were credible allegations of inappropriate treatment towards female subordinates, it would need to be addressed but that action would likely be taken in a way not able to be shared publicly. In short, trying to create a narrative that people are leaving for the same reason, and the reason is somehow known to an editorial author, is intentionally misleading and false.

Beyond misleading however, is inflating the number of people who have left to sensationalize a narrative. For example, the claim that in the past five years, the City has gone through eight City Managers. In reality, including the recent resignation of our current City Manager, the real number is four which is inclusive of the retirement of a person with 17 years of tenure. The only way that the figure comes to eight is if those serving in interim roles were counted. But this is intentionally misleading as these are different roles. There is a reason the title is “INTERIM City Manager”, and not simply “City Manager”. They are literally different roles - the difference in title is a pretty good clue of that. The author either didn’t understand this basic fact, or purposely conflated the difference to mislead readers.

Those who take on interim roles intend to only stay in the role as long as is needed to find a person on a permanent basis. In fact, many of the people who take on interim roles are retirees who are restricted from working over a certain number of hours. Similar discrepancies exist for the other positions mentioned as well.

Another intentionally misleading part of the Op Ed is that it blames the rate of turnover in the last 5 years on Mayor Diaz, myself, and Vice Mayor Trupiano. What it leaves out is that most of the inflated figures of people left while myself and Mayor Diaz were clearly in the minority on the Council, and Vice Mayor Trupiano hadn’t been elected. In fact, our current City Manager is the first in the role to leave while the group the Op Ed blames has been in the majority. To be clear, this is not to cast blame on other Councilmembers past or present– as I stated above people separate for a variety of reasons.

When someone intentionally misleads with exaggerations to push a narrative, it undermines their credibility. It is political theater and is also what Councilmember Tillman’s repeated badgering about having our City Attorney conduct an investigation into Councilmembers is all about.

To be clear, our City Attorney is able to take action independently if they have evidence or suspect any action that presents risk to the City. Without being prompted, our City Attorney has in the past offered counsel and advice unsolicited in areas they felt appropriate, and has given direction on other matters as well. Our City Manager has authority to engage a third party for up to $30K without any other approval from Council that could be used to engage a third party investigation should they so choose. Both of these roles exercise independent judgment and have not taken any action related to Councilmember Tillman’s requests for an investigation. The only reason to continually ask for an investigation is to engage in political theater and a sophomoric attempt to try and score political points. 

The City certainly has work ahead both in terms of staffing and in its finances. It’s unfortunate that rather than find ways to work together, there are those that would rather exaggerate and mislead in order to divide the community. As I have done throughout my tenure, I will continue to do what’s best for the City and this community.

My 3.19 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council met to discuss a several significant items:

- First we met in closed session to discuss the appointment of an Interim City Manager.  There were no reportable actions from the closed session.  As we go through the process of finding a new City Manager there will likely be several more closed sessions where the Council deliberates.  

- On the consent calendar we updated the City's Purchasing Policy to require an informational item any time the City Manager exercises their discretion in executing service/consulting agreements including a quarterly report out of all ongoing such agreements.  Recently the Budget and Audit Committee discussed with staff some of these expenditures, including over nearly $20K in HR consulting, nearly $20K in assistance implementing SB 1383 for recycling, $30K in a non-cancellable contract for the video website Rep'd, on top of the approximate $2K/week for accounting assistance.

- We received an update on the Interim and permanent City Manager positions and chose Bob Murray and Associates for the firm to assist in both placements.  Bob Murray is a well known governmental recruitment agency and agreed to do both placements at no cost other than direct out of pocket expenses.  We also appointed an ad-hoc committee to assist staff in administrative inquiries and later to facilitate negotiations with candidates.

Originally Councilmember Cloven was opposed to forming this ad-hoc committee, concerned that such a committee would unduly influence the process.  Our City Attorney explained that having the committee is a benefit to staff and that without it, the process may be delayed because we could only address inquiry during Council meetings rather than on an ad hoc basis.  In the interest of alleviating staff burden, I suggested it could be beneficial and that I would support Vice Mayor Trupiano and either Councilmember Tillman or Cloven.  Councilmember Tillman declined.  

Cloven relayed to me that he was very upset that upon hearing of the resignation of our City Manager, I had called Bob Murray and Associates directly.  Bob Murray and Associates is under contract with the City to provide recruitment services at no cost given the prior placement and I wanted to give them a heads up that the City would likely be in contact.  In these matters, time is of the essence and given that we would only have 1 regularly scheduled meeting between the time notice was given and our City Manager's departure, this was appropriate.  I also communicated the same to staff and our City Attorney as no one had yet made contact with the recruiter.

Cloven felt that upon hearing of the departure of a key staff member, we should wait until a meeting to discuss what we should do, even simple administrative functions like making a phone call.  And while Councilmember Cloven originally declined being part of the ad hoc committee, when he realized that if he didn't do it, I would, he changed his mind.  This vote was 5-0.

- We then discussed declaring up to 5 acres of two large City owned parcels at the bottom of Peacock Creek as surplus consistent with the Surplus Land Act (SLA).  The City does not use this land, and a developer has expressed interest in purchasing it for housing development.  The SLA requires that any surplus land first be offered to affordable housing developers for a period of 60 days.  If no affordable housing developers express interest, then the City can sell the land in the open market.  This vote was 5-0.