There are no significant items on the agenda under Public Hearings or Action Items for the next meeting.
There will be a presentation from the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District, as well as a welcome and recognition of new local businesses established in Clayton since the start of 2022.
If you have thoughts or questions regarding the above, please let me know.
With the recent announcement that our City Manager is resigning, this means that 3 out of 6 departments heads are vacant or will be soon - The City Manager, Finance Director, and our Police Chief.
In the four years I’ve been a member of this Council, I’ve been in the minority on a number of issues. It’s time to change that. Because if we continue down this path, with our leaders more interested in attending gatherings and going to meetings with no discernable outcome, rather than focusing on basic operations like maintaining a schedule of maintenance activities, or balancing the budget – then we as a city will continue to hemorrhage good people and city operations will suffer.
After November, the newly constituted Council will be tasked with rebuilding these critical staff positions. Now more than ever we need strong leadership to guide the city and staff in both the hiring and onboarding of new personnel. It will be paramount to have Councilmembers who have experience in hiring staff and building and managing teams.
While I started my career as a governmental auditor, I’ve been a people leader for over 20 years. As Vice President and Controller of a multi-billion dollar company, I have extensive experience in managing budgets and finding and retaining talent - from entry level positions to Directors, in office personnel and remote workers. Having this experience will be critical as we rebuild the team at City Hall.
This is why it is so important that our former Finance Director, Police Chief, and the Police Officers Association representing all of our police have all endorsed me in this election. These are folks that are NOT politicians, but they have deep and recent knowledge of city operations. They have first hand experience working with me and want to continue working with me and in each case I have gained the support of city staff – something critically important as we move forward.
Election day is November 8. I’m asking for your support and your vote.
Many folks are not happy with the flyers that have been passed out, nor am I. But these are a distraction from issues of substance and policy.
Our city still has no schedule of maintenance available and no schedule of GHAD activities available. We have squandered money on consultants to conduct surveys about how much of a tax increase people would accept, without even understanding our actual needs. We have spent money on consultants to hold charrettes regarding the downtown lot, the outcome of which was unlikely to change given the requirements of the housing element. We've spent money on facilitating meetings as basic as a goal setting session, which is a simple function that happens everyday in most workplaces without the need to hire a consultant.
We have real issues of leadership, and differences in matters of public policy that are getting crowded out by emotional responses to an upsetting flyer. So let's address some key areas of public policy - Police services, deficit spending, the Olivia, and raising taxes. Note how each of these policy differences are supported with evidence.
Regarding Police Services:
As a matter of policy, I would never suggest laying off all of our police and outsourcing them. According to the Pioneer, this is what Ed Miller has suggested.
Laying off our police and using the Sheriff's Department would yield a higher cost, and a reduced level of services and would be a detriment to public safety in Clayton. This is part of the reason why the Clayton Police Officers Association endorsed me and not Mr. Miller.
Regarding using reserves and deficit spending:
In addition to suggesting we outsource our police, Mr. Miller proposes to use ARPA funds to make up budget shortfalls. From Miller's website he says this:
And from the candidate forum:
This is a misunderstanding of ARPA funds. With no restrictions on how the funds are used, there is no distinction between ARPA funds and our general fund reserves. Money is fungible, and the only thing that sets our reserves apart from the rest of the reserves is an accounting entry to place it in one bucket or another - otherwise ARPA funds are the same thing as general fund reserves.
I have been consistently against using reserves to make up our budget shortfalls. Deficit spending is poor public policy and when the city adopted its latest budget, the Council was opposed to any cuts whatsoever and chose to deficit spend.
Regarding the Olivia project that Mr. Miller voted in favor of extending, he says this:
The actual standard for reviewing a request for extension of a project is from CMC 17.64.030, which reads:
“Upon a showing of good cause therefor, the Planning Commission may extend the
period of a permit in which it is to be exercised, used or established, for a maximum
of twelve (12) months at a time or as otherwise specified on the permit.”
The first step is whether good cause exists. If there is no good cause, then the extension request fails. Further, there is no standard by which "good cause" is defined. Here the City may define what is sufficient to constitute good cause and unfortunately for Miller and the rest of Clayton, he didn't take the time to understand the law because the extension request could have stopped here.
But even if the extension request went past the good cause stage, this is only a prerequisite for extension, not dispositive. It appears that Miller believes that upon showing good cause the granting of an extension is required. This is not how the municipal code reads. In the code, it is a two step process. The first is whether good cause exists. If no, then no extension may be granted. If yes, then proceed to the next step. The next step is discretionary - the PC may extend the period of a permit. The use of "may" in this section indicates discretion and there is no other criteria by which that discretion is couched.
And the Olivia extension expires in March 2023. I voted against the extension but the majority was in favor. What do you think will happen when this comes before the newly seated Council? Mr. Miller and two other Councilmembers have voted in favor of extending the first time around already.
Regarding Raising Taxes:
I am clear about not supporting a tax increase to be placed on the ballot. We need to make serious efforts to address our budget shortfalls as a prerequisite to discussions about raising taxes and we aren't even close to doing that. If we don't curtail this quickly, it will serve as a distraction from the work we need to do in order to get our house in order. But Bridget Billeter has said she wouldn't commit either way, that she is neither for or against a tax increase. Does that sound familiar?
Billeter says the issue would be to place a measure on the ballot and leave it to the voters. For this to happen, four of the five Councilmembers would have to vote in favor of it. It seems to me by saying that she trusts the residents of Clayton to make that decision, that Billeter has already made hers.
We have real issues of leadership, and differences in matters of public policy. These are some of the key issues that are at stake this election.
If you have not yet registered to vote for the November 8 election, the last day to do so is October 24. You can check your registration status here: https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/
To register to vote, you can do so online here: https://registertovote.ca.gov/. Then vote for me and Kim Trupiano. www.kimforclayton.com
Recently I learned of a flyer that had been distributed to some homes in the city. Tamara from the Pioneer reached out and asked for comment but we did not have time to connect last night. I let her know that I had not yet seen the flyer and asked her to send it to me which she did.
While I support everyone’s right to express themselves in whatever manner they see fit, at times that occurs in ways that I personally do not approve of. To be clear, I do not condone or support these tactics.
We should be able to discuss any differences we may have civilly without resorting to personal attacks. If voters are interested in learning about me, or any of the other candidates running this November, I encourage them to do their own research, review each candidate’s website to learn more, ask questions, and make their own decisions.
My goal throughout this campaign has been to be as clear as possible regarding my positions and how we should move forward as a city. This is why I write in detail at my campaign website. My preference is that residents support candidates of their choosing that best represents their interests. If that is me, then that is fantastic. If it is not, I respect people’s choices and that is the process. I wish all the candidates the best of luck this November.
Last night I shared during public comment additional remarks regarding my campaign, including why the endorsements of most of our recent staff including two department heads and the Police Officer's Association is so important. These are individuals who have direct relevant experience regarding not just the financial challenges the city faces, but challenges in the day to day operations where we could be much more efficient. My remarks here:
In addition to my comments, there were two significant items that were discussed:
- We adopted a resolution to authorize execution of an energy services contract with Climatec. The contract calls for two phases of work. Phase 1 is an energy assessment to determine where potential savings may exist throughout the city in its use of electricity, water, and other utilities. Phase 1 will take approximately 14 weeks at the end of which Climatec will produce a report detailing their findings and potential actions the city could take. Phase 1 has no cost and there is no obligation to continue beyond Phase 1.
If the city were to proceed to Phase 2, that decision would be based on the information presented at the end of Phase 1. Should that occur, then Climatec would be compensated on a cost plus basis. Only projects that would yield a savings inclusive of the cost of the project are eligible to move forward.
- We formed a Community Financial Sustainability Committee. The Committee will consist of 5 Clayton residents with a background in finance, some of which must be government finance. The duties of this Committee are many-fold, however overall the intent is to increase engagement and information around City financial matters. Among the duties of the Committee are to identify areas for additional evaluation for financial savings or revenue generation, and to communicate with the community on city financial matters.
There are two significant items on the agenda for our next Council meeting:
- Consider executing contract with Climatec. This would be a consulting agreement for Climatec to do an assessment of where the city could save money by implementing various energy conservation improvements. The agreement calls for two phases - the first would be a review and assessment. There is no cost to the first phase. If there are areas of improvement identified in phase 1, then phase 2 may commence upon authorization from Council to do the identified projects. Phase 2 work would be a cost plus basis. Only projects that would meet the marginal ROI necessary would be approved.
This may sound familiar as we were on deck to engage in this work back in December 2020, however due to timing with coordination with the City of Concord we tabled the issue until now.
- We will discuss forming a Financial Sustainability Committee. In the current recommendation, the membership requirements are as follows:
Five Clayton residents as voting members,
appointed by the City Council. All members shall possess a background in finance,
accounting auditing or related field. Membership shall include at a minimum: (a). One member with experience in governmental accounting (b). One member with experience in governmental finance and/or budgeting (c). One member with experience in auditing.
The duties of this committee will be to make recommendations to the City Manager, Budget & Audit Subcommittee and the City Council. This will include reviewing the annual budget, attending various related meetings, potential use of reserve funds, and overall expenditures and revenues.
If you have any thoughts or questions on the above, please let me know.
Over the past four years there have been several votes that were 4-1 or 3-2 (where I was in the minority) so when it comes to placing a tax measure on the ballot to address our fiscal challenges, it may seem like a foregone conclusion that the majority will do whatever they want. With the Council in its current composition unwilling to make cuts, the choice of raising taxes, cutting spending, or both, seems to get reduced down to just one option. But the decision whether to place a tax measure on the ballot follows a different set of rules.
According to Government Code §53724 and Revenue and Taxation Code§7285.9,a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the City Council is required to place a tax measure on the ballot. Given there are 5 Councilmembers, 3 votes represent only 60% of the council which is less than the 2/3 threshold required.
This means that if just two Councilmembers are opposed to a tax measure, it will NOT move forward. If elected, I will not support raising taxes except as a last resort.
The city has a lot of work ahead to increase operational
efficiency and fiscal discipline. Unless and until that happens I will
not support any revenue measure. I know Kim Trupiano feels similarly. If elected, Kim and I add up to two which shuts
down the possibility of more taxes and we can instead, shift our focus away
from squandering resources with useless surveys and trying to increase taxes and
instead, focus on serious discussions about cost savings, efficiencies, and
other ways to reduce our overall expenditures – what we should have been doing
since I raised this issue back in the middle of 2021.
Recently Ed Miller leveled a few criticisms of my record that I would like to address. Unfortunately for Mr. Miller, in a failure to listen and a rush to attack on his part has Mr. Miller thinking that he may have finally found that nut after the most recent candidates forum. The first was regarding membership with Cal Cities and working with other cities, the second was regarding unpopular housing projects.
This is going to be long because it takes some explanation to demonstrate how the assertions by Ed Miller are misleading.
Here is a video of the first question and my response:
Miller asserts, "a question came up asking us if we supported the city's continuing membership in the League of California Cities (Cal Cities). All four of us stated that we do, and gave our reasons. ... Billeter went next and ... opened by asserting that Wan most definitely had stated the exact opposite".
The actual question was two parts: "Do you believe that Clayton should remain a part of league
of California cities and should Clayton continue to work closely with other
cities Clayton should continue to strengthen our position on state mandates and
issues?"
My response: "Certainly. I do think there is a lot of value in these organizations that have the ability to pull together resources as well as represent cities where they have shared interests. The League of California Cities represents essentially all cities in the state, so they try to do their best to represent all cities. Now, I would say that some larger cities when we talk about Los Angeles or Oakland or San Francisco, they may have different interests than we, and so there will be times that we don't, as a city, agree with the positions taken by an organization that represents all cities. Now I do think the membership is important. It is something that we've been a member for a long time, and so when we look at our spending priorities, that's one of those things that we evaluate."
To this, Miller asserts that I expressed support of the city's continuing membership in Cal Cities.
Miller should have waited for the video to be available because in his excitement over something to attack, he either misunderstood the question and the responses, or he's misrepresenting them intentionally. Either of these reflects poorly on credibility.
My response of "certainly" is in regards to the second of the two part question. I certainly believe we should work closely with other cities to strengthen our position on state mandates and issues. This does not necessarily mean it need be done through Cal Cities, and in fact, I'm not aware of any substantive outcome in this arena as a result of such membership. In fact, other organizations like Livable California, California Cities for Local Control, and California Alliance of Local Electeds are much more accessible organizations and do not have the bloat that comes along with having to represent San Francisco alongside of Clayton.
I did say there is value to the membership, though I did not say I supported continuing membership as Miller asserts. I went on to say that spending on membership to an organization that may not represent us should be prioritized against all other spending. Many different things may have value - like membership in Cal Cities - but only spending that represents the highest best use of funds should be acted upon.
Miller goes on to assert that "Billeter opened by asserting that Wan most definitely had stated the exact opposite". In looking at the video, it's clear this is false. Take a look:
Here is what Billiter actually said: "And I also agree I thought that was one of the budget cuts that was suggested by Councilmember Wan, the $6,000 dollars, would be a cut that we could make before we ask for parcel taxes which he talked about in his opening. That was my understanding of the meeting as well."
Not only was it at the end of her response, not the beginning, but Miller mischaracterizes her response implying more certainty than was actually expressed. Miller's need to embellish doesn't engender a sense of trust. He says one thing, but in reality it's something different.
On the question of value, I answered affirmatively - there certainly is value to the membership, though I did not say I supported continuing membership. Training and advocacy have value, but they need to be stacked against all other potential uses of funds. I mentioned this in my response to the question.
Many different things may have value - like membership in Cal Cities - but only spending that represents the highest best use of funds should be acted upon.
Because our membership has no impact on the actions that Cal Cities takes, and much of the information that Cal Cities produces in its advocacy is publicly available, during a brainstorming session at our Budget/Audit Subcommittee on how to balance the budget, I asked if there was an appetite to curtail our membership. This idea did not move forward in the Subcommittee's recommendation to the full council contrary to Miller's assertion. A data scientist getting the basic facts wrong in order to fit a narrative - go figure.
Regarding the second line of attack regarding housing - again Miller either misunderstands the question or is misrepresenting it intentionally, reflecting even more poorly on credibility and trust. The question was likely in regards to the Olivia project - one where the community was opposed. Miller stretches when he asserts that the Olivia project approval was required by law. While I continue to be disappointed by the decision in the Olivia lawsuit, in reading the opinion it is clear that had the city decided against the project it may have sustained court challenge. From the opinion describing the standard of review:
From the standard: "The trial court presumes that an agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence;" and "When we review an agency's decision for consistency with its own general plan, we accord great deference to the agency's determination"
In other words, had the city decided against the project, if there were litigation then the trial court would presume that the city's decision was supported by substantial evidence and would also accord great deference to the city's determination. Had the city decided the way I voted, then the burden of proof would rest with the one challenging the outcome - the result, unfortunately, is unknowable.
The main point that Miller tries to make is that my position about complying with the law is not consistent with my vote on the Olivia project. He is interpreting the loss at court to mean that the law was clearly against me. But if we again read the court opinion, it's clear that Miller's claim is unsupported, or perhaps he is ignorant of the words in the opinion:
The court here recognizes that they could find no regulatory or statutory definition of "urban use". If the parcels in question were not for "urban use", then the infill exemption that was utilized would not be available and the project would have required actual environmental review under CEQA. But without a finding from the city, and with no actual definition of what "urban use" was, the court came to a decision on its own. This is a far cry from the law being clearly established. So in the absence of a clear definition, I used my own judgment in representing the people of Clayton - what I was elected to do.
To assert that my position of complying with the law and voting against the Olivia was inconsistent belies ignorance of the actual law. Given that the standard of review gives great deference to an agency decision, had the city decided against the project the outcome may have been entirely different.
Miller goes on to attempt to defend his vote in favor of an extension of the Olivia project. His reasoning has changed - going from his inability to find good cause to deny, to asserting his vote was based on advice from our City Attorney and City Manager. Regardless of the changing reasoning this is the actual standard for reviewing a request for extension of a project. From CMC 17.64.030:
"“Upon a showing of good cause therefor, the Planning Commission may extend the
period of a permit in which it is to be exercised, used or established, for a maximum
of twelve (12) months at a time or as otherwise specified on the permit.”
A finding of good cause is a prerequisite for extension, but not dispositive. It appears that Miller believes that upon showing good cause the granting of an extension would be the rebuttable position. This is not how the municipal code reads. In the code, it is a two step process. The first is whether good cause exists. If no, then no extension may be granted. If yes, then proceed to the next step. The next step is discretionary - the PC may extend the period of a permit. The use of "may" in this section indicates discretion and there is no other criteria by which that discretion is couched.
The municipal code clearly places the burden on the one seeking the extension - but Miller claims he could find no reason to deny. That is a misunderstanding of where the burden lies. Further, there is no standard by which "good cause" is defined. Here the City may define what is sufficient to constitute good cause and unfortunately for Miller and the rest of Clayton, he didn't take the time to understand the law.
Thank you to everyone who has supported my campaign thus far! I've now distributed all of my yard signs and have good coverage across the city:
I only put my signs where people have requested them, and since it's against the rules to place signs in the public right of way (even though unenforced), you won't see my signs anywhere but at people's residences in town.
Even though I am out of signs, there are still ways to help the campaign. Talk with your local friends and neighbors about your support. Share my posts on Facebook - this is one of the most impactful ways to spread the word. And of course, vote. Ballots were mailed to everyone starting on 10.10.22 and should be arriving shortly thereafter.
Last night all four candidates for the two open Council
seats participated in a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Diablo
Valley, AAUW of Clayton, the CBCA, the Clayton Community Library Foundation,
and the Clayton Garden Club. I’m
grateful to these organizations for hosting this important event.
Because of time constraints, candidates were limited to
one minute for each response and many questions were actually several questions
combined.I have written extensively on
many of the items raised and will do so more in the future so I encourage everyone
to visit my website at jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net to learn more.
While other candidates touted their experience working in
government, only Kim Trupiano talked about actually being responsible for a
budget, or managing teams.Experience in
these areas will be critical as we move forward.As a CPA, and Vice President and Controller
of a multi-billion dollar company, I have extensive experience being
responsible for budgets, projects, and teams.There will always be new things to spend money on but being a
fiscal steward means prioritizing competing needs with the resources available.
It is certain that city finances will be a key issue to
be addressed in the near term.Recently I
spoke with Paul Rodrigues.Paul is also
a CPA, and Clayton’s former Finance Director.He took an opportunity last year to use his talents as the Finance
Director for the City of Pittsburgh.Paul
has strongly endorsed my campaign, saying that I have been spot on with my
financial analysis and concerns, going on to say that I am the only Councilmember
who truly understands the finances of the City of Clayton.
Our former Finance Director, Chief of Police, and the
Clayton Police Officers Association representing all of our police have now
endorsed my campaign. These are
individuals that have deep knowledge of our city and understand its challenges,
have seen my work, and recognize that advancing my ideas will help Clayton move
forward. I’m grateful for their support.
Ballots have been mailed and should be received
soon. I humbly ask for your support and
your vote so that I can continue leading Clayton on the path forward.
I'm happy to announce that the Clayton Police Officers Association and our former Police Chief, Elise Warren, have endorsed my candidacy for the November 2022 election.
Our Clayton police are the backbone of public safety in our community, without which all other things are at risk. I’m grateful that we live in a town that is able to enjoy our parks and trails, have kids able to walk and play, and have a community that comes together to support one another in such a safe environment.
The Clayton POA and Chief Warren recognize that public safety has always been a top priority of mine and I’m proud to support our police and the fine work they do. Even as we as a city face financial challenges, I will continue to support the police as their role is so critical to ensuring that Clayton continues to be a wonderful place to live and raise a family.
Last night there was one significant item that we discussed and that was the creation of a Community Committee on Financial Sustainability. While the name of this group will be workshopped, the intent was to have a group of people with a financial background and skillset act in an advisory role to both the Budget and Audit Committee, and to the Council as a whole.
We did not define the parameters of such a group, but in general the idea seems sound. There are folks that have quite a bit of experience and skills in the community and if we are able to bring those to bear it could be a great benefit to the city. The details around such a group would need to be fleshed out of course.
Things to consider when forming such a group would be their duties and responsibilities. This would need to be made explicit so that they have clear direction on how to proceed. The scope and purview of what this group would have access to and to what they could provide advice on would also be important. It would undercut the value of such a group if it were limited in what it could review.
All were in favor of forming such a group, pending the details some of which I just mentioned. Staff will prepare a draft and bring back to Council for approval once those details are fleshed out.
There is one significant item to be discussed at our next meeting and that is considering whether to establish a community committee on financial sustainability. The purpose of such a committee would be to increase engagement and information around City financial matters. As this type of committee would be subject to the Brown Act, it would be supported by City staff adding additional duties to one or more existing positions in the City and due to time constraints, there may be limited availability to support such a committee.
If you have any thoughts or questions on the above, please let me know.
