Two Terms, and Looking Ahead

When I first ran for City Council, part of my motivation was simple: I wanted to move beyond complaining about things I thought should be different and start doing the work to make them better. I also wanted to show my kids that if you care about your community, you have to be willing to participate in the process. If you think there is a better way, then learn the process, do the work, and try to be the change you want to see.

I also believed I represented a voice that was not fully present on the Council at the time. Even for issues where there was widespread community disagreement, the Council was always unanimous. A City Council should reflect the community it serves. That does not mean every Councilmember will share every resident’s experience, but it does mean the Council benefits when different viewpoints and different community priorities are represented.

During my time on the Clayton City Council, my work has focused on fiscal discipline, transparency, public safety, infrastructure, quality of life, responsible revenue planning, and addressing long-standing issues that had gone unresolved for years. The common theme across this work is diligence. City government should listen to residents, understand the facts, use public money carefully, maintain the assets we already own, and make difficult decisions only after doing the work required to support them.

I want to highlight a few areas where the City made significant progress over my last two terms:

Transparency and Communication

For government to work for the people, residents need to be informed. At the same time, people should not have to follow every detail of City operations to understand what their elected representatives are doing. That is why I began writing updates before and after every City Council meeting. The purpose of these updates is simple: make it easier for residents to know what is happening, what decisions are coming, and how they can participate when an item matters to them.

From routine administrative items to major policy decisions, the City always has work underway, and residents should be able to understand it without having to search through lengthy agendas or watch hours of meeting video. This became especially important because the City uses “action style minutes,” which capture the decisions made but not the discussion, reasoning, or rationale behind those decisions. I believe elected officials have a responsibility to explain their reasoning. I have worked to make that information easier to access and easier to understand.

Fiscal Discipline and Financial Sustainability

Fiscal discipline has been one of my highest priorities on the Council. I served on the Budget/Audit Committee throughout all of my years in office. During this time, I pushed for a more disciplined and conservative approach to the City’s finances.

I recommended that the City save surpluses to help stabilize future pension expenses. I identified and helped correct numerous issues in the City’s external audit reports. I helped facilitate funding for an additional school crossing guard. I was also one of the first to identify the structural financial challenges the City is now facing.

When the City revisited its expenditure policy, I pushed for a more fiscally conservative version. Even when I was in the minority, I consistently argued against using consultants for routine activities when the City could reasonably do the work itself. I also opposed spending tens of thousands of dollars and significant staff time on a survey where the results were largely predictable.

Later, when inflation began rising and the cost of goods and services started outpacing the City’s revenue growth, there were immediate calls to raise taxes. I resisted that approach. My position was that the City first needed to understand its true financial condition before taking any action to raise revenue. Taxes should be a last resort, after the City has done the work to understand its costs, evaluate its revenues, improve operations, and identify other options.

The City conducted a much deeper review of its actual costs, revenues, service levels, and long-term financial needs. We looked at where revenues were falling short, where costs were rising, and what options were available before turning to any tax measure. A significant part of that effort was updating the City’s master fee schedule. Historically, fees had not always kept pace with the actual cost of providing services. That meant the City was not always recovering the right amount for the services it provided. Through the fee study, we updated the fee schedule to better reflect actual costs and created a more sustainable process for keeping fees current going forward.

We also updated the City’s investment policy and began more robust reviews of City investments. The City moved toward higher-yield investment products and managed investment services, allowing Clayton to rely on professional expertise rather than placing that responsibility solely on limited City staff. This helped improve returns on existing funds without raising taxes.

The City also took a look at its organizational structure. With only 26 total employees, there are not many easy changes available. Even so, we made thoughtful adjustments. Some positions were eliminated, some were consolidated, and some functions were moved under different areas. Those changes allowed the City to save money, continue delivering core services, and, in some areas, provide new services focused on the City’s highest priorities.

The theme has been consistent: spend carefully, protect reserves, understand the City’s true financial position, and make sure taxpayer dollars are used for clear public benefit.

Responsible Revenue Planning

After the City pursued cost savings, fee updates, investment improvements, organizational changes, and operational reviews, the City still remained in a deficit position. At that point, it became clear that leaving the deficit unresolved would be irresponsible. Once the City had taken every reasonable action to reduce costs and increase non-tax revenue, the remaining option was to consider new revenue.

The Council spent significant time evaluating potential revenue sources. We held workshops, worked with staff, reviewed financial projections, and received input from residents. The conclusion was that the most appropriate course of action was to place a 1% local sales tax before Clayton voters this November. Clayton has never passed a local sales tax increase since incorporation. The current sales tax rate is 8.75%, but Clayton receives only a small portion of that existing amount. Most of it goes to the state, county, and other voter-approved measures.

A 1% local sales tax is different because 100% of the local tax collected would stay with the City of Clayton. In fact, the estimated revenue from a new 1% local sales tax is roughly equal to what Clayton currently receives from the existing 8.75% sales tax rate. The projected revenue, approximately $800,000 to $1 million per year, would be significant for a City with roughly $7 million in annual General Fund spending. This work reflected the appropriate level of diligence: understand the City’s financial position, reduce costs where possible, increase non-tax revenues where possible, and only then ask voters to consider a tax measure.

City Infrastructure

The City began, continued, and made progress on several important infrastructure and facility improvements.

The City was awarded a 1% below-market interest loan to fund the largest infrastructure investment in Clayton since the Oakhurst development was constructed. That project allowed the City to make major improvements across public facilities and infrastructure, including solar installation at City facilities, lighting replacement throughout the City, electric vehicle charging, water efficiency improvements, and HVAC efficiency upgrades.

We also applied for and received FEMA funding to repair portions of Cardinet Trail that were damaged during major storms. That process took time and required significant administrative follow-through. I thought it was important to see the work through because, on a tight City budget, we should use outside funding whenever it is available and appropriate. There was an initial push to use reserves to move the work forward, but pursuing outside funding first was the more fiscally responsible approach.

The City also began preliminary work on the library refresh project, which is scheduled to begin soon. Councilmember Trupiano has been a key leader in pushing this project forward. Maintenance of City-owned buildings has been deferred for many years. The library, which also serves as the City Council meeting space, has not received basic upkeep such as carpet replacement and painting. Maintaining the assets we already own is one of the most practical and responsible things the City can do.

Together, these projects reflect a larger priority: reinvesting in the City’s existing infrastructure, improving safety and accessibility, using outside funding where possible, and taking better care of the public assets residents already own.

School Safety and Pedestrian Improvements

As a parent, I have always been especially focused on traffic safety around schools.

When the president of the Mt. Diablo Elementary PFC reached out in 2019 to ask whether the City could help provide an additional crossing guard outside the school, I was glad to help. Initially, the City helped by accepting a donation from the PFC and coordinating with existing service providers. That cooperation was valuable, but I believed school safety should be a City priority, not just a parent-funded effort.

As part of the Budget/Audit Committee, I worked to make sure that crossing guard was included in future budgets. I worked with the Principal of the middle school to add a diagonal pedestrian crossing outside the school. Improving traffic and pedestrian safety around schools is one of the ways the City can make sure its spending reflects its priorities. The sidewalk improvements near the elementary school build on that same priority: make it safer and easier for children and families to get to school.

Housing Element Compliance

The City also completed one of the most difficult and time-consuming state planning requirements facing California cities: securing approval of Clayton’s Housing Element from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. California law requires every city and county to adopt a Housing Element as part of its General Plan. The Housing Element is the City’s plan for how it will accommodate housing needs across income levels. It does not require the City itself to build housing, but it does require the City to plan for housing, identify sites where housing could be built, evaluate zoning and development constraints, create programs to support housing production, and show how the City can accommodate its assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

For Clayton, this was a years-long process. The City responded to HCD comments, revised policies and programs, analyzed available sites, evaluated constraints, and worked through a detailed state review process. The City made multiple updates to its Housing Element, including rezoning multiple sites that HCD failed to recognize. This required substantial staff time, consultant work, Planning Commission review, Council discussion, public engagement, and repeated coordination with HCD. The process was made more difficult because HCD continued to request additional revisions not required by statute even after the City had made updates intended to comply with statutory requirements. The entire process stalled when HCD stopped responding to the City. It was Councilmember Trupiano who led meetings with State Senator Grayson asking him to assist with getting responses from HCD.

Geological Hazard Abatement District

Another major area of focus was the Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD).

When I first joined the Council, I reviewed the GHAD reports and saw that much more work needed to be done. As early as 2019, I requested that the GHAD’s detailed scope of work, timing, and funding needs be discussed. The GHAD is distinct from the City of Clayton, although the Clayton City Council serves as the GHAD Board. The GHAD assesses a levy on approximately 1,400 parcels in Clayton, with different tiers based on property type. The purpose of that assessment is to fund GHAD activities.

The GHAD’s duties are outlined in the Plan of Control and include maintenance of drainage facilities, inspection of drainage ditches, debris removal, repairs, drain cleanout, erosion control evaluation, and monitoring of geological movement and water pressure through devices such as inclinometers and piezometers. The problem was that the GHAD’s revenues were far below what would be required to perform those duties. The assessment level was set before Proposition 218, and after Proposition 218, increasing the assessment required voter approval. Prior assessment revenue was approximately $47,000 per year, with most of that amount consumed by program administration rather than actual monitoring, maintenance, or mitigation work.

Over time, many of the monitoring devices used to measure geological movement were damaged or no longer operable. In several areas where movement is possible, the GHAD did not have adequate information to determine whether movement was occurring or how severe it might be. If significant geological movement occurs, it can pose serious risk to nearby homes. I recognized that this was a long-standing problem. Working with Councilmember Trupiano, we helped push for staff to analyze the GHAD’s actual needs and the funding required to perform its responsibilities. The basic question was simple: why have a Geological Hazard Abatement District if it does not have the funding to do the work it was created to do?

We took that question to the affected residents and asked whether they would support increasing GHAD assessments so the district could perform its duties. The measure passed. As a result, a district that had been underfunded for decades is now better positioned to do the work it was created to do: monitor risk, maintain facilities, and address hazards.

Regency Gate Quality of Life

One of the most significant neighborhood quality-of-life issues during my first term involved the area outside Regency Gate. After the trailhead became popularized through social media and organized hiking groups, a quiet neighborhood experienced a major increase in traffic, parking demand, blocked driveways, trash, speeding, and aggressive driving from people looking for parking. Residents had raised concerns before, but the issue had not gained enough traction at the City.

I spent substantial time talking with affected residents, as well as people who wanted to preserve public trail access. The goal was to find a balanced solution that protected neighborhood quality of life while still allowing the public to access the trails. I proposed a permit parking system. Although there was initial hesitation, the majority of the Council was ultimately persuaded, and the City implemented the program. The result has been successful. Residents have described the change as night and day.

Summer Concerts and Community Partnerships

We also made the Summer Concerts in the Grove more sustainable. For years, the concert series relied heavily on current and former Councilmembers and an informal network of volunteers and relationships. That approach helped keep the tradition alive, but it was not a sustainable long-term structure. Lead by Councilmember Trupiano, we brought in an outside firm to help manage the series more formally, so the work does not sit with individual Councilmembers when that is not really the role of the Council.

That change allows Councilmembers to participate in and enjoy the events alongside residents, while also creating a more reliable operating model for the future. We also improved the funding and community benefit model for the concerts. The City continues to seek sponsorships and donations, and those efforts have been successful in helping cover the cost of the series largely due to the work of Councilmember Trupiano who in her time on Council has doubled the amount of sponsorships received. In addition, I proposed partnering with local schools to help collect donations during the concerts. In return, the donations are shared with the schools. As a result, the concert series not only brings the community together, but also creates a way for residents to support local schools. It turns a City event into a broader community partnership.

Updating Local Ordinances

I worked to update local ordinances that were outdated, overly restrictive, or inconsistent with how residents actually live. Before being elected, I was surprised by how restrictive Clayton’s sign ordinances were. After reviewing the rules adopted by prior Councils, it became clear that the City’s ordinances were overly restrictive and likely inconsistent with First Amendment case law.

I argued that the City needed to update its rules. Ultimately, the City revised its sign ordinances to better align with constitutional requirements.

Another issue that came up frequently in conversations with residents was backyard hens.  Many Clayton residents already kept hens, but City ordinances officially prohibited them. The issue became especially clear when I spoke with an elementary school teacher who incubated chicks as part of a classroom project but then had to surrender the hens because they could not legally be kept in Clayton.

I researched the benefits and impacts of allowing backyard hens and found that, excluding Clayton, all but one city in the County allowed them. I worked with City staff on the research and helped persuade my fellow Councilmembers to change the law.

As a result, Clayton residents can now legally keep backyard hens.

ARPA and the Clayton Cares Program

When the City first learned it would receive federal COVID relief funding through ARPA, the allowable uses were initially focused on categories such as public health response, economic impacts, premium pay, revenue loss, and infrastructure. The Council initially wanted to support local businesses, and I agreed that was important. I also made sure the City’s ARPA program included direct assistance to households. I wanted to focus on creating something that would be directly beneficial to Clayton residents and businesses without creating unnecessary complexity for applicants or City staff. That work became the Clayton Cares program, which focused on practical, direct support for the community.

When the Council revisited ARPA funding, we continued to focus on local businesses and households while also looking at how to recognize City employees, including police officers, for their work during the pandemic. The initial premium pay proposal was approximately $2,000 per officer. I suggested a more structured approach: decide what percentage of available funds should go toward premium pay, apply that framework across employees, and then calculate the resulting amount. That approach allowed the City to provide $10,000 per employee, a much more meaningful recognition for staff who are often underpaid, while still using ARPA funds responsibly.

Later, ARPA guidelines changed and the funds became more flexible, effectively allowing them to function more like general reserves. Even so, the City’s earlier approach reflected the right priorities: support residents, support local businesses, recognize employees, and avoid creating programs that were too burdensome to administer.

Civil Grand Jury Response

I along with Councilmember Trupiano, led the City’s response to a Civil Grand Jury investigation and report concerning the City of Clayton. The investigation required substantial time from City staff, Councilmembers, and City leadership. We participated in interviews, responded to questions, reviewed records, and worked through the formal response process.

When the final report was issued, it contained significant factual errors, including statements that misstated the City’s audited financial information. The report also drew conclusions that were not supported by the record. Some cities may have chosen to simply acknowledge the report and move on. I believed Clayton had a responsibility to respond directly and factually. Residents deserve accurate information, especially when the City’s financial condition and public decision-making were being questioned.

Councilmember Trupiano and I helped lead the effort to rebut the report, correct the record, and respond to the findings with facts. The City’s response demonstrated that the report’s findings were unsupported, inaccurate, or unfounded. This work was important because public misinformation should not be left unanswered. The City had a responsibility to defend the accuracy of its financial reporting, its public records, and its decision-making process.

Changing How the City Operates

Beyond individual projects and decisions, one of my broader goals was to help redirect the City toward what should be its highest priorities: serving its residents. I believed Clayton needed to move away from old ways of operating that relied too heavily on informal relationships, handshake understandings, and backroom networks. City government should not depend on who knows whom, who has always done something, or who has access to informal channels. Serving the public should process driving and transparent. That shift has not always been easy. But I believe it has been necessary. Residents deserve a City government that is focused on core services in a professional and transparent manner.

Looking Ahead

After careful consideration, I have decided that I will not seek a third term on the Clayton City Council. I’ve done much of what I set out to do, and I believe the time is right to create an opportunity for another Clayton resident to serve. As the City moves forward, it will benefit from both experienced leadership and new voices willing to take on the responsibility of public service.

Serving on the Council has been an honor, and I deeply grateful to the people of Clayton who trusted me to represent them. My time on the Council has been focused on doing the hard work required to make responsible decisions: improving transparency, explaining my reasoning to residents, taking a disciplined approach to the budget, identifying structural financial challenges early, updating fees, strengthening investment practices, restructuring operations, investing in infrastructure, addressing long-standing obligations, and only then considering new revenue.

The work, of course, never ends. The next Council will have important decisions ahead. The City will need to maintain service levels and invest in infrastructure, while at the same time address the structural deficit. This is what is required to preserve the quality of life that makes Clayton special. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served, for the residents who engaged in the process, for the small but mighty and diligent City staff, and for the many people who helped push the City toward more disciplined, transparent, and responsible governance.

This last part cannot be left unsaid. Public service is a responsibility, but that responsibility is shared not only by those who sit behind the dais, but also by the friends and family who support them. They give up time and attention, and sometimes endure criticism they did not ask for. For that, I am deeply grateful to my family. Without their patience, support, and at times, grace, I could never have undertaken this role.

The Economics of Police Services

Recently, I wrote an article for the Diablo Gazette which I want to highlight here:

*****

The Economics of Police Services

One of the most important services Clayton provides is also one of the hardest to scale down: local police service. The City’s policy is to have no fewer than two officers on duty at all times. Some may ask why that is necessary in a small city with a low crime rate. We are fortunate to enjoy that low crime rate, but police staffing cannot be built around the average call. Police work is unpredictable. A noise complaint, traffic stop, welfare check, or family dispute can quickly become more serious. An officer may encounter a combative person, a mental health crisis, a domestic violence situation, an arrest, a medical emergency, or a scene requiring traffic control or immediate aid. Two officers on duty does not mean every call requires two officers. It means the City has enough coverage to respond safely when something changes. One officer may engage with the person involved while the other provides cover, manages the scene, or assists with an arrest. Backup may be available, but it is not always immediate.

Policing is 24/7. With two officers on duty at all times, the City needs 336 officer hours every week. Clayton budgets for 10 sworn officers. At 40 hours per officer, that equals 400 officer hours per week. At first glance, that looks like a 64-hour weekly buffer – but that buffer gets used quickly. Officers take vacation, get sick, go to court, get training. There are holidays, and injuries, and special events.

Depending on tenure, each officer receives between 2.5 and 5.5 weeks of vacation per year. On average, that is approximately 30 officer hours per week. Holidays and an average of one week of sick time per officer are another 25 officer hours per week. That leaves about 9 hours of weekly buffer before training, court appearances, special events, administrative work, injuries, or vacancies. Even a fast hiring process can take months. A more realistic timeline can be four to six months. One vacancy could remove roughly 40 officer hours per week. That alone turns a small buffer into a deficit.

This is the challenge. The minimum staffing is fixed but the available staffing can change quickly. With a small department, one vacancy, one injury, one extended leave, or one major incident can immediately affect the schedule. It is also why police services are difficult to reduce incrementally. In some City services, a reduction may mean fewer hours, a longer project timeline, or a lower level of maintenance. Police staffing does not work the same way. We are at the minimum required, and that schedule has to be covered every hour of every day.

That small remaining margin matters when we talk about the City’s broader finances. Police service is one of the City’s largest and most important expenses, but it is also one of the least flexible. As such, future funding shortfalls would not be able to be absorbed through police staffing reductions. As a result, future cuts would likely have to come from somewhere else, including maintenance, landscaping, parks, facilities, infrastructure, or administrative capacity.

There has also been discussion in the past about contracting out police services. Clayton has evaluated that option, and it would be substantially more expensive. It would also likely result in a lower level of service. The Sheriff’s Office serves many communities and covers a large area. But they are farther away, not dedicated solely to Clayton, and not directly accountable to City staff in the same way our own department is. Cost is also a major factor. Clayton’s police wages are currently among the lowest in the County. Sheriff’s Office wages are substantially higher. Contracting out would not eliminate the cost of policing. It would change the model, likely increase the cost, and reduce local control.

The bottom line is that Clayton’s officers provide excellent, responsive service at a cost that is difficult to beat. They know the community. They respond quickly. They help keep Clayton safe. And they do it within a very tight staffing model. The schedule works, but it works with very little room for error.

My 7.7.26 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council met to discuss several significant items:

- We interviewed candidates for three open Planning Commission seats.  After the interviews, we appointed three applicants - two incumbents and one new member.  Congratulations to Commissioners Nate Brzovich, Charlie Schmidt, and Maria Shulman.

- We renewed the levy of assessments at Diablo Estates Beneftis Assessment District.  While the levy is allowed to be increased each year, due to healthy reserves and being able to manage expenses in the district, the City left the levy flat from prior year, as was also done previously.  There were comments from residents regarding the level of service and some improvements that could be made which were referred to staff.

- We approved the action necessary to place the renewal of the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) assessment on the November ballot.  This funding source is critical for the City's current operations and renewing it for the third 10 year period is necessary to maintain the level of service in the LMD that our residents expect.  We also selected Councilmembers Tillman and Trupiano to write the argument in favor of the assessment for the November ballot.

- We adopted a process that provides for the electronic filing of campaign documents.  The target is to have this up and running for the upcoming November election.

- We approved the annual levy of assessments in the Streetlight Assessment District.  This levy is fixed and does not increase each year, though costs have risen over time such that the District is underfunded.  The financial outlook for the District is improving with lower cost LED lights replacing older lights.

- We approved a contract with Bay Cities Paving and Grading for our bi-annual street work.  The streets selected were from last year and those went out to bid.  Bay Cities was the lowest bidder and happens to be a local company as well.

Upcoming Meeting 7.7.26

At our next meeting, we will be discussing several signficant items:

- We will hold a public hearing for the Benefits Assessment District at Diablo Estates (BAD) and the proposed annual levy.  While the levy may be increased, the City is proposing to leave the levy flat as the current assessment covers the needs of the district.

- We will hold a public hearing regarding the renewal of the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) assessment and have it placed on the November ballot.

- We will discuss appointing an ad hoc committee to author direct and rebuttal arguments for the LMD renewal.

- We will make appointments for the Planning Commission.

- We will discuss the Streetlight Assessment District and updated annual levy.

- We will discuss the contract for the City's bi-annual street repaving project.

- We will discuss electronic filing of the Fair Political Practicies Commission campagin disclosure statements.  These were previously done in hard copy and we are moving to electronic.

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

Upcoming Meeting 6.16.26

At our next meeting, we will be discussing several signficant items:

- We will discuss  the annual update to the City's salary schedule.

- We will be discussing the annual update and levy of several special taxes related to various districts across the City including the Community Facilitiies District (Grove Park), High Street, Lydia Lane, Oak Street, and Diablo Estates.  These are existing levys that get updated each year.

- We will discuss the placement of a sales tax measure on the November ballot.

- We will discuss the creation of an ad hoc committee to author the direct and (if necessary) rebuttal arguments for the Sales tax measure on the Novermber ballot.

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

Additional Updates - Housing Element, Projects, and Financial Information and Newsletter

At our last meeting, there were a few informational items raised by our City Manager that I would like to highlight:

- At long last, our Housing Element (HE) for the 6th Cycle (2023 - 2031) has been approved and certified by CA Housing and Community Development (HCD).  While the City officially adopted the update to the HE back in January of 2023, our update was not approved and certified at that time.  Despite the fact tha tthe City complied with all requirements of the Housing Element, HCD requested that the City zone for a greater numberr of units than was required, and allow more permissive rules regarding housing mobility, ADUs, units per parcel, etc.

Each time a modification is requested by HCD, the City has complied.  To do so, the law requires that the change first be heard by the Planning Commission, then at times be heard two separate times by Council.  There have been at least 3 such requests, and with each the City asks if we make the requested changes would it be sufficient.  Unfortunately those questions were left unanswered - there is no rule that governs how HCD operates and they have complete discretion whether the certify a proposed HE regardless whether it is compliant with the law.  Nevertheless, the City resubmitted the HE with changes requested several times.  Each time carried long delays in responses, and the responses were to ask for additional changes thus beginning the process again.

I'm pleased to report the HE was finally approved and found in compliance as of April 2026.

- We also received a report of ongoing projects related to overall City beautification, traffic safety, and weed abatement.  I have asked for a schedule of regular maintenance so residents can be aware of what to expect in their neighborhoods.  And while this list is focused on what is immediate, it is a great start to sharing the work that is going on throughout the City.

- The City has also begun publishing information around City finances, and a City Manager Newsletter regarding the overall financial outlook.

My 6.2.26 Meeting Summary

At our last meeting we discussed several signficant items.  Some of the items on the agenda were tabled due to an error in the new agenda management software the City is rolling out. This included item 7a, 8b, and 8c.

- We received an annual report on workplace vacancies and recruitment efforts.  Good news is that while there are still some open positions, all have offers out and candidates have accepted.  As thinnly as the City operates, if any one position is vacant it has the potential to have an impact on operations not only in that role, but the other roles that need to backfill in the interim.

- We received a report from the Assistant Chief / Fire Marshal, Chris Bachman.  He presented a proposal whereby Contra Costa Fire would perform wildfire mitigation efforts including creating shaded fuel breaks (raising the canopy of trees to clear underneath them reducing available fuel in the event of a fire), and mowing or grazing various areas of grass and other fuels.  This would take place over approximately 100 acres, and be covered by a grant from CAL Fire.  The Chief was asking for the City's support as all of the land affected was owned by either the City of Concord, the City of Clayton, or Oakhurst Country Club.  The Council supported this grant application.

- We adopted resolutions regarding the updated annual levy of the LMD - this needs to be done each year and is routine.  We also adopted a resolution codifying what the City will do in the event of a disruption of telphone or internet service during a Council meeeting.  We will pause for up to one hour then decide whether or not to continue.

- We set the public hearing date of july 7 for the proposed extension of the Landscape and Maintenance District by a ballot measure in the November election.