Upcoming Meeting 6.17.25

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

- We will be conducting interviews for Planning Commissioners and discuss appointment later in the meeting.  There are two upcoming vacancies.

- We will welcome our new Police Chief, Jeremy Crone

- We will receive a quarterly update from Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

- We will discuss an updated Memorandum of Understanding with the City's Miscellaneous group, including an update to the City's salary schedule.

- We will discuss forming an ad hoc committee to review the report of the Contra Costa County Grand Jury regarding Clayton.

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

My Meeting Summary 6.3.25

Last night the Council and Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board met to discuss several significant items:

First, the GHAD Board 

 - We met to conduct a public hearing considering a property assessment rate increase.  Earlier this year the Board sent out notices to all property owners in the district regarding the potential increase and this meeting we were set to tabulate the results.  After discussing the procedures, we directed the District Manager to begin the count.  The meeting was then recessed while that occurred and we continued to the regular Council meeting.

Next, the regular Council meeting

- We adopted a resolution authorizing the City's five year capital improvement plan.  The plan consists primarily of projects related to roads and transportation.  This is a process that is typically approved in conjunction with the overall budget.  Funding for these capital improvement projects is  primarily gas tax and Measure J funds, along with limited one time grant funding.

- Next the Council discussed increasing the salary schedule for the vacant Senior Planner position.  Currently the top step for the Senior Planner role is approximately $131K/year, not inclusive of the benefit load.  The proposal was to increase the top step to approximately $152K/year, or a 15.75% increase.  

During discussion it was noted that this increase would bring this role close to market rate.  The vast majority of other roles in the City are significantly below market rate, and I raised a concern that if we were to increase any role to market rate, it may be more prudent to prioritize other roles.  I also was concerned about the inflationary impact on overall compensation expense if we start bringing more roles to market rate.  In addition, as we are in an active recruitment for this position, and we had not yet passed the overall budget, I wasn't comfortable with the increase.  Ultimately the matter did not move forward for lack of a motion.

- We then discussed the candidate for our new Police Chief, Jeremy Crone.  Mr. Crone is currently a Police Commander in the City of Pinole.  After discussing the candidate search process, and Mr. Crone's qualifications, the Council voted to authorize our City Manager to execute the employment agreement.  Our new Police Chief will start June 23, 2025.  Congratulations to Mr. Crone and to a successful recruitment!

- We then had a public hearing on existing workforce vacancies as required by new legislation AB 2561.  In the report, it was noted that during FY25, the City conducted 8 recruitments, and successfully placed 7 positions.  The Senior Planner role is still open.

The President of the Police Officers Association (POA), Sgt. Enea spoke regarding police staffing levels, overall compensation, and the good work that our police does on a daily basis.  He did identify that while fully staffed, Clayton police officers remain the lowest compensated in the County.

- We then discussed the proposed two year budget.  There have been quite a bit of work in the run up to this presentation, through multiple Budget and Audit Committee meetings, to budget workshops at the Council, and a lot of discussion and Q&A both with residents and with Council and staff.

In prior years, the process of budgeting was largely done by rolling forward prior year amounts with various percentage increases applied.  This meant that certain details could be lost in the process - wages designated to the wrong funds, expenses not aligned with contracted amounts, and overall padding in miscellaneous accounts are difficult to identify if simply rolling forward prior amounts with percentage increases.  This is what was done in the prior year, and why during our budget review last year I asked for the supporting documentation.  Unfortunately my request was denied by our previous City Manager.

During this year's process, I asked staff to prepare a zero based budget.  Rather than apply percentage increases from the top down, staff did the work from the bottom up - assuming the budget started at zero, and having to support each dollar.  This method gives a more detailed view of activity and promotes fiscal discipline.  And while I have been asking for this for years, I am glad to see it come to fruition.

The budget process is long - information is gathered and assembled, items are requested and added, and then after everything is aggregated, we can begin the review and analysis.  Back in May, the first itteration of the budget reflected a FY26 and FY27 general fund deficit of approximately $650K and $800K respectively.  

Staff then went back and performed a more thorough analysis.  That analysis called for incorporating the savings we are seeing as a result of the Climatic project for both electricity and water, increased investment returns as a result of our work on the investment policy and moving to more managed services, cutting of various items, and aligning our wage allocation and contract spend, the version of the budget we discussed last night began with a FY26 and FY27 general fund deficit of approximately $130K and $745K respectively.  

During discussion, there were other modifications made to reduce expenses bringing the FY26 deficit down to approximately $85K.  And while this figure is not ideal, it is a budget not necessarily what will actually occur.  We do know there will be both favorable and unfavorable activity throughout the year, some of which we identified at the meeting.  For example the full impact of our CPI increase on fees was not included which would be favorable.  The hiring of the full time Public Works Director would allow us to reduce our outside consultant spend.  There are other areas as well but based on the work done thus far I'm optimistic about the result.

While there is still work to do in terms of more long term planning, competitive wages, and capital maintenance, all on the Council were satisfied and the budget passed on a 5-0 vote.

- By this time, the results of the GHAD ballot tabulation had completed and we reconvened the GHAD Board.

By a narrow margin, there was not a majority protest for the assessment increase.  The weighted average results were 51.1% in favor of the increase, and 48.8% opposed.  This means the assessment increase passed, and it will be added by the County beginning in Aug-25 for the periods after that.

When I first was elected in 2018, I spoke with many residents who raised the issue of maintenance not being performed adequately in the GHAD.  As a result I first requested discussion of what the activities of the GHAD were, who was doing them, when they were being performed, and the log of the activity so we could provide transparency to the nearly 1/3 of residences in the City.  This was in July of 2019, nearly six years ago.

Each time the GHAD met, I reiterated my agenda request, and over the course of the next 3.5 years there was no action taken on this item.  Everyone knew that the GHAD was critically underfunded, however there was no drive to take corrective action or even discuss it.  My continued requests were made on behalf of the residents - not for political theater, not to self aggrandize, nor to attack my fellow Councilmembers.  I did not whinge about how my requests were not agendized nor complain to the Grand Jury about guidelines not being followed.

Instead, I persisted in raising the issue because it was important.  After winning re-election in 2022, we were finally able to move this item forward.  In partnership with then Councilmember Trupiano, we took up this important work and directed staff to finally begin performing actual assessments, gathering information, and updating the GHAD Board and community about the status of the GHAD.  I wrote about this here:  https://www.jeffwanforclaytoncitycouncil.net/2023/03/32123-oakhurst-geological-hazard.html

The work indicated significant funding shortfalls and both maintenance and monitoring not being performed due to lack of funds.  At this point, the GHAD Board had a choice to make - we could continue as past Boards had over the last 2+ decades and do essentially nothing, or we could do the work that we were elected to do and attempt to solve this issue.  

With the support of Mayor Trupiano, we decided that doing nothing was not an option.  We did the real work of government and what was necessary to inform the public, and ultimately put the choice up to the residents. Beyond special events and social gatherings, this was the type of unglamorous under the radar activity that could have a meaningful impact on residents.  Ultimately the residents voted in favor of increasing the assessments on themselves so that the work in the GHAD could actually get done.

At the next GHAD meeting the GHAD Manager will come back with a plan on how these funds will be used, and the real work will begin.

***

It important to note that the GHAD is just one of many areas that past Councils neglected to address.  This was a significant issue, but there are others.  Things like our organizational structure, long term forecasts, infrastructure maintenance, and the safety of our residents.  These are the matters of substance that I focus on.

On the Grand Jury Report Regarding Clayton

Recently the Contra Costa County Grand Jury issued a report regarding Clayton.  And while the City will respond to the report as required, I wanted to offer my own thoughts as it is a matter of community interest.

Overall, it's disappointing to see the amount of time and taxpayer resources spent on a report that not only gets several matters of fact wrong, but also relies on these errors to draw conclusions not supported by any evidence.  While the report did identify certain matters of fact correctly, it contained a significant amount of errors and left out context that would impact a reader's understanding of the information presented to such a degree that the report is not useful.  In addition, the Grand Jury's recommendations venture into the realm of policy making, something they were certainly not elected to do.

The report focused on four areas: Turnover, Agenda Setting, Financial Management, and Committee Activity.  I'll touch on each area below and illustrate substantial flaws in each area.

***

On Turnover:

From the report:

First, this table has three factual errors.  The first is that Gary Napper is missing - he retired effective at the end of July 2019.  Second, Ikani Taumoepeau name is spelled incorrectly.  Third, our former Police Chief Warren also served as an acting City Manager during the time period chosen.  The Grand Jury report also misspells the name of our former Community Development Director.  This is consistent with the level of diligence performed by the Grand Jury in issuing their report.

Second, while the turnover in City Managers is undesirable, it is not accurate to imply 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 inappropriate behavior, 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, is misleading and false.

Beyond misleading however, is inflating the number of people who have left to sensationalize a narrative. For example, the claim that the City has gone through twelve City Managers. In reality, including the resignation of our last City Manager in early 2024, the real number is four (five if you include our current City Manager) which is inclusive of the retirement of a person with 17 years of tenure (Napper, Taumoepeau, Schwartz, and Prebula). The only way that the figure comes to twelve (actually fourteen if using the Grand Jury's own stated methodology) is if those serving in interim and acting 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. 

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. 

In addition, including in this list folks like Hoffmeister, Warren, Walcker, McEachin, and Rubier lacks sufficient context as to be misleading.  While technically these individuals did serve as Acting in the role of City Manager - they did so all for a very short time during times when the City Manager was on vacation, or during transitions between full time employees and interim employees.  In each case none were actually selected by actions of the Council.

Later the Grand Jury report asserts the consequences of turnover as follow:

Following a similar pattern, the assertion makes errors of fact, and errors of omission.  The Grand Jury report asserts potential savings of $151K to $165K.  This is derived by comparing the amount paid to a contractor, 4 Leaf Inc., to the salary range of a new position created ($226K - $75K = $151K, $226K - $61K = $1655K.)  Even taking the comparison at face value, this assertion would be wrong as it does not include the benefit load of a full time employee, which in Clayton is approximately 20% - 30%.  This is an error of fact.  

In addition, code enforcement was not performed by the Community Development Director as the report asserts - this was performed by a different role.  What this means is that the comparison is not apples to apples and the potential savings are unfounded.  It turns out that the code enforcement role performed by 4 Leaf was performed so well that the City ended up hiring the individual to continue code enforcement on a full time basis as an employee.

It is also important to note that the Council only hires the City Manager, and the City Attorney.  All other positions of the City are hired by the City Manager and Council has no role in that process.

The next conclusion the Grand Jury draws is just as spurious:

While the original information that the firm, HdL stated was an estimated 2,000 businesses, this was based on false information provided by a former City Manager.  When the current Council pressed HdL on this analysis, the actual figures turned out to be something different.  City staff had previously represented that the City had approximately 1100 active businesses in the City.  Extrapolating from there, HdL estimated that through their efforts they could discover an additional 900 businesses and therefore expand the pool of licensed businesses.  If this were possible, it would increase City revenues.  

After review, it turns out the information that prior City leadership (no longer employed with the City) overstated the actual number of businesses in the City.  The actual number is closer to 500.  This information was available as of March of this year and presented during a Budget and Audit Committee meeting, and then later at a regular Council meeting on April 1st.  That the Grand Jury omitted this information which contradicts the conclusions drawn by the Grand Jury.

***

On Agenda Setting:

In this section, the Grand Jury makes a critical error - they treat Council Guidelines as binding rules which they are not.  The Guidelines represent norms that have been adopted by the Council, but they are not controlling, nor is there any rule that requires they must be followed at all times.  This should have been obvious to the Grand Jury since they are literally called "guidelines".  Perhaps the item under Council Values that states "Humor is an important tool" could have been a clue, or the statement in the Guidelines that says, "Traditions are respected but not always binding."

From the Grand Jury report:

Even here the Grand Jury continues to make errors of fact when it states that things occurred contrary to these Guidelines.  The Guidelines clearly state that it is the Mayor's discretion as to which meeting a requested agenda item will appear.  Exercising this discretion is well within the scope of the Guidelines.  

In addition, the Guidelines also require a written description to be provided - and in the example provided they identify that this did not occur until March of 2024.  This contradicts the claim that a formal agenda request was made in the Fall of 2023.  During the calendar year 2023 when I served as Mayor, I never received any written request as called for by our Guidelines.  However, during the course of such verbal requests, the nature of the request changed multiple times.  It ranged from a 360 degree review, to toxic or hostile work environment, to turnover, to overstepping, to training.  This highlights the importance of a written request - so appropriate planning and staff time could be utilized in preparing agenda items.

Given the turnover during 2024, it's not surprising that the City's priorities were on staffing and continuity, not entertaining requests that changed each time they were made.

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 did not taken any action related to the request for investigation. 

What the Grand Jury report neglects to mention is that upon taking the role of Mayor in December of 2024, Mayor Trupiano reached out to Councilmember Tillman in an effort to address her previous requests for an investigation into fellow Councilmembers and training.  A result of that meeting was an agreement to propose an ad hoc committee in order to facilitate a governance training workshop for Council and staff.  Councilmember Tillman stated that this ad hoc committee and training satisfies her previous requests.

The leaps of logic and false assertions of fact by the Grand Jury continue:

First, the meetings being referenced here were established by the Interim City Manager, not the City Manager.  The distinction in titles is significant.  

Second, only those committees formed by formal action of the Council are subject to the Brown Act.  If the Interim City Manager calls for a meeting to discuss agenda setting, prioritization, etc. and includes less than a quorum, and certain members of City staff, that does not constitute a Meeting per the Brown Act.  To assert as much is incorrect on the law.

Third, two members who are less than a quorum of the Council can meet with whomever they choose (excepting on those topics that they represent a standing committee) and it would not be a covered meeting by the Brown Act.

The rest of the conclusions drawn in this section rely on this erroneous application of the law.  There was no Agenda Setting Committee, there were agenda setting meetings.  There was no change in policy because no actual policy was adopted.  Policies are not captured in the Council Guidelines, as those are guidelines, not controlling policies.  As there was no committee, it clearly could not be subject to the Brown Act.  Basically every assertion of fact and conclusion in this section is false.

***

On Financial Management:

The Grand Jury report in this section fairs no better in terms of accurately describing the facts regarding the Financial Sustainability Committee:

While members of the Financial Sustainability Committee did speak at our 4.1.25 meeting, the statements made were not that of the Committee itself, rather from individual members speaking as individuals.  This was clarified during the meeting - that the Committee has taken no action in terms of adopting any kind of report to Council.  Therefore the Council did not hear a report of the Committee's activities as the Grand Jury asserts.

As the Grand Jury identifies, a quorum of the Committee was not achieved until 4.16.24.  During the first 6 months of a quorum existing, the Committee met twice.  Hardly sufficient experience to review performance, and again, the guidelines cited by the Grand Jury are not binding.  

When we get to the section on addressing the deficit, the Grand Jury's report fares even worse when it comes to identifying the facts:

Every single figure cited by the Grand Jury in the table above is wrong.  All of the City's audited financial statements can be found on the City's website here:  https://claytonca.gov/finance/accounting-financial-reporting/audited-financial-statements/

For FY20, here is the relevant page from the City's audited financial statements (ACFR):

Here for FY20, the Grand Jury misstates the Revenue, Expense and "Net Surplus".  I put "Net Surplus" in quotes because that is not an actual term that is used in financial reporting for the City.  Instead, the correct term is "Change in Fund Balance".  They do this for every year presented in the table.  Consider, that 100% of the figures that are used are wrong.  Excerpts from each of FY21, FY22, and FY23:

 

And while I have previously identified significant issues in terms of finances that the City will need to address, the fact that the Grand Jury so obviously misstates the facts casts doubt on any conclusion they may draw.

The actual General Fund results as assembled from the audited financial statements are as follows:

The above table is inclusive of a prior period adjustment made during the FY22 audit regarding the FY21 year of approximately $52K.  FY22 and FY23 reflect receipt of ARPA funds.

When talking about increasing taxes, the Grand Jury had this to say:

The Council in fact, did not adopt a reserve policy to reduce its reserve to 40% of General Fund expenses.  What the Council did during the 3.5.24 meeting was to adopt a reserve policy that established that "the minimum target reserve of the General Reserve will be maintained at forty percent (40%) of General Fund Operating Expenditures."  There is a stark difference between adopting a policy to reduce the reserves, and a policy that reduces the minimum target percentage.  Keep in mind that the current reserves have historically been near 100% of general fund operating expenditures and adopting the new policy does not prohibit the City from maintaining a higher level of reserves which it currently does.

The second assertion, that the City has declined to take any revenue enhancement measures, is also false.  Back in early 2022, the City conducted a survey regarding potential support for a tax measure in Nov-22.  The results of the survey were clear - that residents were satisfied with the quality of life in Clayton, generally not aware of the financial challenges facing the City, and that there was not sufficient support to pass a ballot measure increasing taxes.  While it was always the case that the City needed to do more diligence in assessing the situation, the survey results solidified that fact.  Rather than pursue a tax measure without all the information, we as a Council have been doing the work over the past two years to determine what is actually needed.

In addition to this information gathering, 

• The City has updated its investment policy and engaged a third party for more managed services which should yield higher returns.
• The City has updated its master fee schedule to bring more current the costs associated with providing services for rentals, uses, and administrative services.  This included adding a special event fee for larger events that consume more of the City's resources.
• We engaged HDL to assist managing our business license renewal process, including efforts to determine if there were additional businesses operating in the City that required a license in an effort to increase revenue.
• We renegotiated our waste management service agreement with Republic Services to bring us in compliance with new statewide mandates for recycling.

All of these things are revenue enhancement measures and the statement by the Grand Jury is false.  While only focusing on raising taxes, the Grand Jury ventures into areas of policy making.  This is what the Council was elected to do, not the Grand Jury.

In addition, the Council did take action in 2024 directing staff to work towards a tax measure to be placed on the November 2026 ballot.  We did this at our 3.5.24 meeting, the minutes are as follows:

For the Grand Jury to assert that the Council has declined to take any revenue enhancement measures is demonstrably false.  When I spoke with the Grand Jury, I provided all of this evidence.  It appears they did not consider the information that I provided.

***

On Committee Activity:

In asserting that committees take action without Council approval, the Grand Jury states the following:

As the Negotiation Committee was an Ad Hoc committee, no agendas nor minutes are called for, and this has not been the practice of the City.   Given the matter was of public interest, I did publish ongoing information about the negotiation efforts here and here and here and here.  I also wrote about it in two local papers, discussed the issue in a townhall, among other avenues.  To imply that there was something secret going on is inconsistent with the evidence.

In fact, the offer made was not rejected, it was identified as unchanged from prior discussions and as a result no action was taken.  The Ad Hoc Committee invited further discussion but none was offered.  Neither the City nor the ad hoc committee heard back after that.  The Ad Hoc Committee in fact did not take any action on behalf of the City as a Committee is not authorized to do so.  The Grand Jury attempts to equivocate on what constitutes taking action, however, declining to take action to bring something forward is not equivalent to taking action. Otherwise the list of what is declined would be infinite.

Regarding Committees reporting out, the Grand Jury states the following:

The Grand Jury identifies that attendance at various Committees occurred and criticizes the lack of detail provided, citing the "requirement" in the Council Guidelines that Committees shall keep the rest of the Council informed.  The Grand Jury neglects to consider that in the same guidelines it states that if any Councilmember wants more information, they are responsible for requesting it.  There were no such requests that were denied.  

The Grand Jury goes on to criticize the move to written Council reports as lacking in transparency.  On the contrary, having a written record is far superior than a verbal statement that is unsearchable, and often drifts into matters of no substance or things unrelated to City business.

The Grand Jury does criticize the number of Special Meetings, and how minutes are posted.  Often times because of the City's small staff, especially for committee meetings, scheduling has been challenging, and preparing materials timely has been challenging.  The decision to agendized something as a Special Meeting or a regular meeting is often made at the staff level in addition to preparing the actual agenda based on prioritization of ongoing demands.  

Consider that our last Budget an Audit Committee meeting (4.21.25) was agendized as a Special Meeting.  This time and date was known for weeks, however due to staff's work on preparing materials, the information was not published 72 hours in advance - closer to 70 hours.  Nevertheless, it contained an agenda item for public comment on non-agenda items, and was treated exactly as a regularly scheduled meeting would be.

I agree that less Special Meetings would be preferable and staff is working towards preparing materials more in advance.

The same is true for minutes.  In operation, the Council does not take minutes, nor publish them - that is the role of staff.  I and other Councilmembers have encouraged staff to post prominently and timely the minutes of all of our meetings.

***

Regarding the findings:

As I've demonstrated above, the findings identified by the Grand Jury are either factually wrong, misleading, lacking context, or some combination of all three.  It is unfortunate that taxpayer dollars were squandered in this effort.  

It's also odd the time periods chosen for the review.  In conducting any kind of review, the time period in question is typically held constant to give a consistent picture of what is being discussed.  In this case, the Grand Jury chose different time periods for different areas of their report.  This haphazard approach was taken for a reason that is not provided by the Grand Jury.

Regarding the recommendations:

Given the level of factual errors and omissions, it would be imprudent to base actions upon such poorly crafted recommendations.

Upcoming Meeting 6.3.25

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

- First, the GHAD Board will meet at 6:45pm and hold a Public Hearing to consider a proposed property assessment rate increase.  We will also begin tabulating the results of the ballots both for and against this proposed increase.

- During the regular Council meeting, we will discuss the City's five year capital improvement plan.

- We will discuss amending the salary schedule for the vacant Senior Planner position.

- We will discuss the employment agreement of the new Police Chief.

- We will discuss staff vacancies as required by AB 2561 and recruitment activities.

- We will discuss the proposed two year budget for fiscal years ending June 2026 and 2027.

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

My Meeting Summary 5.20.25

At the last meeting, there were not any Action Items or Public Hearings, however there was a closed session that did not have reportable items.  In addition, there was supposed to be a presentation by ConFire, however a representative was not able to attend.  The City will attempt to reschedule.

Upcoming Meeting 5.20.25

At our next meeting, there are no significant items on the agenda.   There are several consent items and recognitions occurring including Unsung Heroes and Do the Right Thing and the quarterly ConFire district update.  We will also be having a closed session to discuss real property negotiations.

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

My Meeting Summary 5.6.25

On Tuesday, the Council met to discuss several significant items:

- We received a report from our independent auditors for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024.  The opinion was unmodified, or a clean opinion.  In prior years, auditors identified material weaknesses in internal controls, which essentially means that there was a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.  I am glad to see that due to people, process, and technology improvements there were no material weaknesses identified in the audit year.

- We discussed the creation of a new position of City Engineer.  Currently this role is contracted out.  Based on analysis from staff, the City believes that bringing this role in house has the potential to make operations more efficient and be more economical.  While staff estimated the appropriate salary scales, the City will have to test the market to determine if we are able to attract qualified candidates.

Because this is a Department Head level role, we discussed whether it would be appropriate to increase the salary scales of other department heads, effectively tying the compensation of one department head to another.  Council did not feel that was necessary at this time and decided to move forward with only creating the new role of City Engineer.

- We had a budget workshop where the projected FY26 and FY27 budgets were presented for discussion.  Based on information presented, the budget for FY26 and FY27 show a deficit of approximately $650K and $800K respectively.  

There were a number of questions and the next draft will be discussed at an upcoming Budget & Audit Committee meeting.  I will write in more detail about this in a separate post.

Upcoming Meeting 5.6.25

*The next meeting will start early at 4:30pm.

At our next meeting, we will discuss several significant items:

- We will receive a presentation on the City's audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).  This was continued from our prior meeting due to a scheduling conflict.

- A resolution to add a role for full time City Engineer / Public Works Director.  Currently these functions are performed by a consultant as has been the case for many years.  The City is exploring the potential of bringing these functions in house in an effort to streamline activities and save money.  The agenda item also calls for updating the salary schedule for the role of Police Chief to have parity with the new City Engineer role.

- We will have a discussion on the proposed FY26 and FY27 budget.  This year we are proposing adopting a two year budget.  The current proposed budget for FY26 and FY27 anticipates general fund deficits of approximately $650K and $850K, respectively.

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

My 4.15.25 Meeting Summary

On Tuesday the Council met to discuss the results of the annual audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2024.  Unfortunately there was a scheduling miscommunication and the City's auditor was not in attendance.  As a result, we tabled the discussion to a future meeting.

There was also a closed session with no reportable items.

Upcoming Meeting 4.15.25

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

- The City's audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) will be presented and discussed.

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

My 4.1.25 Meeting Summary

On Tuesday the Council met and discussed several significant items:

- We received a report from the Financial Sustainability Committee.  While the Committee did not approve of the report given by its chair, it did share information regarding the activities of the Committee.  Ultimately a request was made of the Council to clarify the purpose of the Committee.  Council referred back to the original formation goals of the Committee.  For example - to identify areas of additional evaluation for financial savings or revenue generation.  Identifying areas however, is not the same as performing detailed analysis in place of City staff.  

The Council recommended that the Committee participate in the budget process that will occur over the next couple of months, provide any recommendations they may have, and report out both to the Budget and Audit Committee and to the public.  After this budget cycle, the Council will evaluate whether there is a need to continue this Committee.

- We received a report from HdL, the service provider that assists the City's business license processing and administration.  When we first engaged HdL (discussed at our 9.19.23 meeting), City staff represented that the City had approximately 1100 active businesses in the City.  Extrapolating from there, HdL estimated that through their efforts they could discover an additional 900 businesses and therefore expand the pool of licensed businesses.  If this were possible, it would increase City revenues.  

After review, it turns out the information that prior City leadership (no longer employed with the City) overstated the actual number of businesses in the City.  The actual number is closer to 500.  HdL gave a presentation on their work in processing renewals, and the effort to discover any additional businesses that may be operating within the City that would need a license.

- We approved the annual report on military equipment use.  There have been no new acquisitions of military equipment, no use of military equipment, and no complaints regarding military equipment in the annual reporting period.  This report is required annually.

- We approved the streets selected for the 2026 Clayton Neighborhood Street Rehabilitation project.  After much discussion, the Council decided to prioritize streets that were in poor condition, and also certain streets that were higher use areas.  In addition, the Council after receiving lower cost projections for Mountaire Pkwy including approval of grant funding, decided to include that section of street that we previously discussed at our 2.4.25 meeting.  The streets included in the 2026 project are: Main St., Mountaire Pkwy, Marsh Creek Rd., Herriman Dr., N. Mitchell Canyon Rd., Eagle Peak Ave., and El Portal Dr.

The GHAD Board also met to discuss the level of outreach desired by the Board regarding the upcoming mail ballot to GHAD residents asking to increase assessments.  The Board determined that one recorded virtual presentation and Q&A, an informational packet to be included with the ballot, and posting information on the GHAD's website hosted by the City was sufficient.

Upcoming Meeting 4.1.25

At our next meeting we will be discussing several significant items:

- We will receive a report from HdL regarding their services for business license processing

- We will review the annual military equipment report as required by AB 481.  The report details all equipment that fall under the City's military equipment funding, acquisition, and use policy.

- We will discuss street selection for the 2026 neighborhood street rehabilitation project.

The GHAD Board will also meet and discuss the desired level of outreach to property owners within the GHAD as part of the prop 218 ballot vote to increase assessments.

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

My 3.18.25 Meeting Summary

At our last Council meeting we discussed several significant items.  The majority of time was spent on the Biennial Pavement Assessment Report, which I will go into further details below.

- We received a report on the mid year budget.  There were a few increases in spending that were authorized by Council (painting/carpeting at City Hall, and a new riding lawnmower), but other than that the results at mid year were in line with expectations.  There were various puts and takes, the most significant being increases in contractor spend that was offset by lower compensation expense due to staff vacancies.

Excluding the general fund appropriation ($230K) that was approved with the adoption of the budget, overall the City is projecting a deficit of approximately $110K at year end.

- We discussed a potential pilot program for sidewalk repairs.  Sidewalks in front of residents property are the responsibility of the property owner, however the sidewalk if primarily on City property.  As a result, if sidewalks create a hazardous situation, the City is potentially liable along with the homeowner.  Combine this with the fact that sidewalk repair is often very expensive, the City is seeking ways to mitigate risk and assist homeowners in fulfilling their responsibility.

There was general consensus that the City was not interested in subsidizing the cost of sidewalk repairs directly.  We considered a few different options that included the City facilitating the repair and billing the homeowner, as well as exploring joining other neighboring cities' sidewalk repair program that utilizes a network of qualified professionals.  A larger program may provide benefits of scale.  Ultimately the Council gave direction to staff to seek more information and report back.

- Most of the discussion was around the pavement assessment report we received.  Overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the City is approximately 73.  The scale is out of 100, and is divided into four general condition categories. Pavements in “Good” condition have a PCI above 70, pavements in “Fair” condition have a PCI between 50 and 69, pavements in “Poor” condition have a PCI between 25 and 49, and finally pavements in “Failed” condition have a PCI below 25.  Here are examples roads with different PCI values:

While a score of 73 is considered "good", it also reflects consistent and steady declines over the last 10 years.

The table above shows the current score of 73, with a score of 85 in 2016.  This table also illustrates the work that has been done on City streets.  We typically do work every two years in order to get slightly lower costs with larger scale.  The work scheduled in 2020 was postponed due to COVID.

Picking the streets to work on is a bit counterintuitive.  At first it may seem logical to pick the streets that are in the worst condition.  However, rehabilitating these streets is also the most costly.  With limited funds, the entire pool could be consumed with 1 or 2 streets, leaving the rest of the streets in the city to continue to deteriorate through normal wear and tear.  As a result, it is often more cost efficient to do maintenance on a streets in better condition, as maintaining current conditions is less expensive in the long run, and more areas of the city could be improved.

The City uses a program called StreetSaver.  This program is designed to maximize PCI overall in the City based on the amount of funds available.  Because it costs more to rehabilitate streets in poor condition often StreetSaver will not select the streets in the worst condition for maintenance and rehabilitation work.

Given the steady decline in PCI overall, it is important to determine what level of funding is necessary to maintain the current road conditions.  Each year we receive approximately $1M in our share of gas tax, and other state and local funding.  We accumulate these funds and every other year pick streets to do maintenance on in order to improve the road condition and the overall PCI.

Based on analysis, in order for the City to simply maintain a PCI of 73 that it currently has overall, the City would need to spend approximately $13M over 5 years, or $2.6M/year.  Our funding is approximately $1M/year.

Unless the City is able to spend a significantly greater amount on street maintenance and rehabilitation, the conditions of roads in the City will continue to decline.  At our current rate of spending, this is the projected outcomes on overall road conditions:

Total general fund revenues for the entire year are projected to be just under $6M.  As we enter the budget planning process, we will need to begin a discussion with the community regarding what level of overall services, quality of streets, and maintenance of the City is desired, and what we are willing to pay for.

A link to the detail by street PCI for both the 2025, and 2023 years can be found here:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sUUWREdNL1FC1iccvXJghYzsAv5IhBd4/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103891531140515892067&rtpof=true&sd=true

- The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board also met and adopted a resolution declaring the intent to increase the overall assessments in the District in accordance with Prop 218.  Ballots will be mailed to properties in the district no later than 4/18.  There will be a public hearing on 6.3.25 to determine the results of ballots received.  More to come on what this means for the GHAD.

Upcoming Meeting 3.18.25

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

- We will receive a mid year budget report out.  Results at the mid year are largely in line with expectation, though still in a deficit position.  

- We will discuss the biennial pavement assessment report and the 2026 paving project street selection.  Overall the City's PCI is approximately 73.  The scale is out of 100, and is divided into four general condition categories. Pavements in “Good” condition have a PCI above 70, pavements in “Fair” condition have a PCI between 50 and 69, pavements in “Poor” condition have a PCI between 25 and 49, and finally pavements in “Failed” condition have a PCI below 25.

A list of every street and the associated PCI score is included in the agenda packet.

- We will discuss a pilot sidewalk repair program for assisting fronting property owners.  This would involve options for sharing costs with property owners to repair various sidewalks that is the sole responsibility of the property owners.

After the Council meeting, the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) board will also meet.  There the Board will discuss a resolution declaring the intent to increase assessments in the GHAD in accordance with prop 218.

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

My 3.4.25 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council met to discuss one significant item:

- We authorized the recording of a noise abatement agreement for Oakhurst Golf Course.  City ordinance prohibits landscaping work before 7am, however due to the nature of golf course operations Oakhurst has always had an agreement with the city that allows them to start earlier.  The prior agreement had expired and the City renewed it with updated terms last night.

The new agreement has a 36 month term, and provides that no maintenance activity shall be performed prior to 5:30am.  It also specifies later start times around certain areas of the course to reduce the noise impact to nearby residences.  The agreement provides an avenue for complaints and a resolution process as well, and includes a provision that a survey of adjacent residences towards the end of the term of the agreement will be conducted in order to collect feedback for any future modifications.

Upcoming Meeting 3.4.25

At our next meeting, there is one significant item we will discuss:

- We will discuss a proposed noise abatement agreement for Oakhurst Golf Course maintenance activities.  This was discussed at our last meeting however an incorrect version of the agreement was included in the agenda packet so we continued this item until this upcoming meeting.

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

My 2.18.25 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council met and had one significant item on the agenda, however the meeting had extensive discussion on some other topics.

- We discussed a renewal of a noise abatement agreement with Oakhurst Country Club.  Due to the nature of golf course operations, several maintenance activities occur daily and at early hours in the day.  Things like mowing the grass and resetting tee boxes and greens take place before play begins, which is typically at sunrise.

Current City ordinances prohibit certain noise creating activities like mowing lawns prior to 7am each day.  Because time of use for the golf course starts at 7am, maintenance has always happened prior to that time.  Historically there has existed a noise abatement agreement which granted Oakhurst permission to operate certain equipment at earlier times in the day - with the focus on areas away from homes, though not entirely.

The noise abatement renewal did not change any of the existing provisions substantively.  We later determined that the wrong version of the agreement was included in the agenda packet.  In addition, there was feedback provided by residents regarding Oakhurst maintenance operations, alleging operations outside the time permitted per the noise agreement.  As such, the Council tabled this until a later date and asked our City Manager to approach Oakhurst to see if there were other provisions that could be adjusted.

- We discussed the salary schedule of the Police Chief position which is currently vacant and being filled on an interim basis.  The Council agreed to increase the salary schedule by 4% consistent with the agreement that was in place with the prior Police Chief.  When the recruitment period ends, we will discuss with the City Manager whether any additional changes need to be made to attract qualified candidates.

The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board also met and discussed a few significant items:

- We selected a new Chair (myself) and Vice Chair (Boardmember Enea)

- We received the annual engineer's report which indicated several areas where maintenance was recommended.  Without adequate maintenance, the risk of damage due to Earth movement increases.  Without additional funding however, the GHAD would need to use between 2-3 years worth of funding from the future to cover the cost.  Without additional funding, I did not think it was prudent to spend all of the remaining GHAD funds on maintenance that may not add value, and would need to be performed on a repeated basis.  Rather, I thought it was more important to take steps to increase the revenues so as to make the GHAD more solvent.

- We discussed the process for a ballot measure to increase GHAD assessments.  A notice would be sent to all residents in the GHAD, and ask them to approve a rate increase.  The amount of the increased assessment would vary based on the type of residence.  Votes are counted on a per residence basis, with a greater weight going towards those residences of higher value or at higher risk of being impacted.

The Board gave direction to pursue the rate increase, including the establishing of a reserve, and determine whether a citizen oversight committee was possible with this type of assessment.  If the voters of the GHAD approve the rate increase (towards the May/June timeframe), then the GHAD would be funded sufficiently to perform the operations it was intended to.  If the voters reject the rate increase, that would cause nearly all GHAD activities to cease.

Upcoming Meeting 2.18.25

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

- We will discuss an adjustment to the Police Chief job classification and associated salary schedule.  In connection with our recruitment effort to hire a full time Police Chief, the City Manager is recommending an increase to the base salary of the Police Chief of 4%.  This is consistent with the scheduled increase in the contract with the prior Police Chief.

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

My 2.4.25 Meeting Summary

On Tuesday the Council met and discussed several significant items:

- We first interviewed three applicants for one open Planning Commissioner seat. The seat was vacated when Councilmember Enea was elected and we interviewed applicants in order to fill the open seat for the remainder of the term ending in June 2026.  Of the three applicants, the Council discussed and voted to appoint Nate Brzovich to the Planning Commission.  Nate's approach to listening to community feedback and balancing that with what the law requires was what was persuasive to the Council.  Congratulations, Commissioner Brzovich!

- We discussed and decided in favor of entering an agreement for investment advisory services with UBS.  UBS currently acts as a custodian of City funds in a non-discretionary manner.  This means that UBS can execute transactions for various securities, but only as the City specifically directs.  There are associated fees, and we are essentially buying at retail.  By entering into a advisory agreement, UBS becomes a fiduciary to the City, and will be authorized to act on the City's behalf within the approved investment policy of the City.

There are multiple benefits of such an arrangement.  While there is a 30 basis point fee associated with this arrangement, there is no cost for any individual transaction.  Because UBS is authorized to act on the City's behalf, there will be no time where cash is sitting idle and not being invested.  This will yield greater returns, but it will also free up staff time so they can focus on other activities.  We will also be able to exit certain positions that are underperforming and redeploy those funds towards higher performing securities.  Overall this should yield greater returns on the over $12M in City funds.

- We formed an ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Trupiano and Councilmember Tillman.  Upon taking the role of Mayor, Mayor Trupiano reached out to Councilmember Tillman in an effort to address her previous requests for an investigation into fellow Councilmembers and training.  A result of that meeting was an agreement to propose this ad hoc committee in order to facilitate a governance training workshop for Council and staff.  Councilmember Tillman stated that this ad hoc committee and training satisfies her previous requests and I'm glad the Council can move forward and appreciate Mayor Trupiano's leadership in this matter.

- We authorized the City Manager to enter negotiations with Three Putt Development, the company that owns the Oakhurst Country Club, for the sale of city owned property adjacent to the overflow lot near Oakhurst.  The city owned property does not front any street, and was declared surplus by the City last year.  We also discussed with the City Manager the terms that the City was interested in during closed session later in the evening.

- We discussed the potential restriping project on the 4 lane section of Mountaire Pkwy.  Many residents spoke at the meeting, and others have been in communication via email and phone calls.  There were several that were opposed to taking action, and several that were in favor of taking action.  What was under discussion was a "road diet" - reducing the number of lanes in an effort to reduce speeds.  Included in this plan was also the addition of dedicated bike lanes.

There was some concern expressed regarding emergencies and egress.  Because there were no physical barriers being contemplated, in the case of emergency the overall width of the road was not going to be impacted so access would be unchanged if there were a need.

When the Dana Hills HOA surveyed its residents on a potential lane reduction, approximately 25% of households responded.  Of those that responded, 2/3 were in favor of the lane reduction, and 1/3 were opposed.  Ultimately the HOA did not feel it had enough feedback to take a position on the matter.

The largest concern the Council had was cost.  The section was recently repaved, though marked with temporary paint in anticipation of the discussion we had.  We have also applied for a grant that would cover a portion of the overall projected ~$250K cost.

Overall I was in favor of this work because the goal is public safety and reducing speeds.  Traffic safety and speeding is a significant concern I hear from residents all over town and while it does cost money I believe it worth it in an effort to improve overall safety.  The Council decided to proceed with the planned road diet, wait to hear if we are awarded the grant, then incorporate the actual road work into the already planning 2026 road work.  This has the potential of reducing the overall cost as we would get some economies of scale by grouping this project with larger projects.  The vote was 3-2, with myself, and Councilmembers Tillman and Diaz in favor.  Councilmember Enea and Mayor Trupiano voted no primarily based on the cost.

Upcoming 2.4.25 Meeting

On Tuesday the Council will meet to discuss several significant items:

- Earlier in the evening at 6:30 we will be conducting interviews for one open Planning Commissioner seat.

- We will discuss an update to our agreement with UBS Financial.  UBS Financial is one of the firms that the City engages to invest reserves.  There is a proposal to engage UBS for a more managed service in order to achieve higher returns on our investments.

- We will then discuss appointing one person from the earlier interviews for the open Planning Commissioner seat.

- We will discuss whether to create an ad hoc committee to facilitate a governance training workshop.

- We will discuss whether to authorize the City Manager to negotiate with Three Putt Development (the Company that manages Oakhurst Country Club) for the potential sale of certain surplus land that the City owns.

- We will discuss the road striping of Mountaire Parkway.  We previously discussed a potential road diet (reducing the number of lanes) at our 5.7.24 meeting and since then our City Engineer has done additional work to bring proposals forward.

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

My 1.21.25 Meeting Summary

On Tuesday the Council met to discuss a couple significant items.  While I was unable to attend due to schedule conflict, I did watch the recording and wanted to provide an update as to what was discussed and decided.

- The Council approved several organizational changes including eliminating two positions, adding three positions,  updating job descriptions for many roles, and changing the reporting hierarchy within the City staff to better align with those changes. The result is a modest annualized increase of approximately $70K and a much better aligned staff to the roles and responsibilities that the City needs.

What was presented by staff was the culmination of a significant amount of analysis and work by City staff, our new City Manager, and the Budget and Audit Committee.  Starting back as early as March 2023, there were various voices suggesting that much more staff was needed, and at significantly higher rates. Instead of taking significant action without sufficient analysis, myself and Mayor Trupiano as part of the Budget and Audit Committee, worked with staff to bring forward a more needs based staffing model.  

The updated organizational structure has a flatter structure - reducing the instances where a management level position only has one direct report.  We also focused on the compensation ranges for the positions we needed and aligned them with both market rates and the duties they'd be performing.  Our City Manager has stated that these updates "would be amazing".

- The Council also approved the application of a grant to assist in funding bicycle lane improvements on Mountaire Parkway in connection with potential street striping changes.  The substantive discussion around the street work will occur at our next meeting on 2.4.25.

Upcoming Meeting 1.21.25

At the next Council meeting, there will be discussion regarding two significant items:

- Council will discuss a proposal for organization and staff redesign, eliminating two positions, adding 3 positions, and updating the job descriptions of affected roles.  The proposal reflects the changing needs of the city focusing more roles on areas that need support and reducing staff in areas that need less support.  There is an increase in cost associated with this change of approximately $70K on an annualized basis, however this is an estimate as the benefit load which consists of over 30% of compensation is variable and assumptions are being used to forecast.  We will need to do further analysis in the next month through our mid year budget review.

- Council will discuss a grant application for the Mountaire Parkway area.  The grant has an application deadline and if successful, funds could be used towards the restriping project that will be discussed at our 2.4.25 meeting.

I will be absent from this meeting as I have a scheduling conflict but will update after reviewing the video.  If you have any thoughts or questions on the above, please let me know.

My 1.7.25 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council met to discuss and take action on several significant items.  

With the new Council being seated last meeting, these actions were primarily administrative in nature and intended to increase the overall efficiency of our meetings, reduce the administrative burden on staff, and add clarity for the public.  The overall theme of our actions was to look at items that aren't designed for discussion and move those items to a written format.  

By having things in writing, rather than just verbally stated, it provides a clear report of actions taken and thoughts expressed.  This also makes it more accessible to the public - rather than having to watch extensive video to obtain information, more will be in writing which can be easier to consume.

The first action we took was to cease the taking of remote public comments.  Over the past several years, the practice of taking remote public comments has ebbed and flowed at various municipalities.  In some instances, this ability has been used to berate, curse at, or attempt to derail Council meetings.   In other instances, technical or user challenges has come into play and impacted the meetings as well.  

We will continue to live stream our meetings, and people will be able to make comment in person at the meetings themselves.  In addition, as our agendas are posted  in advance, anyone is able to submit public comment in writing prior to each meeting.  These submissions are sent to each Councilmember and included in the public record.  By ceasing the taking of remote public comments, our meetings will be more efficient overall for both the Council and the staff.

There is often confusion as to the purpose of our meetings and the place of public comments.  Council meetings are designed so that Council can discuss among ourselves and conduct the business of the City.  It is not, and cannot be a dialogue between Councilmembers and members of the public.  Our meetings are open to the public and recorded so that the business of the City is conducted transparently, not to hold a dialogue between the full Council and members of the audience.  We are restricted in our ability to respond to public comment in general, so much of the time when a comment is made, there may be an expectation that Councilmembers respond, however this often leads to disappointment or confusion.  

This is one of the main reasons I try to inform the public of what is going to be discussed prior to any meeting - to provide residents with an opportunity for such a dialogue, or to share their thoughts.  I have been writing a pre-meeting introduction and post-meeting summary for each meeting since first being elected in 2018.

We also updated our Council guidelines.  These guidelines document how the Council operates and it gets refreshed from time to time.  The updates were non-substantive and were administrative in nature.  We clarified the order of the meetings, and consistent with the overall theme shifted items that aren't up for discussion to being in writing.  This will result in more efficient meetings as well as provide additional clarity to the public.  

We also discussed and approved City Council committee assignments for the year.  A list of these assignments can be found in the minutes.

There is quite a bit of work that needs to be done - from addressing staffing vacancies, to tightening up our budget analysis, and all the regular activities of the City.  It is my goal to do the people's business in the most efficient and effective manner and reduce the administrative burden on staff where possible.  The actions we took at this meeting will further that goal.

Upcoming Meeting 1.7.25

I hope everyone had a restful holiday season.  Our first meeting of the year will be on Tuesday, 1.7.25 and we will be discussing several significant items:

- We will discuss whether to continue the use of hybrid meetings that allow remote participants to offer public comment during meetings.  We discussed this item at our 11.7.23 meeting and at that time the Council did not take any action.  We are revisiting this item for similar reasons that were raised at the time, and in an effort to reduce administrative burden on staff.

- We will discuss updates to the City Council guidelines and procedures.  This was last discussed at our 5.2.23 meeting.  It is fairly routine that the guidelines are updated to reflect the desires of the current council and it is important that these guidelines be written for clarity.  The proposed changes reflect an update to the regular agenda order.  There is also clarity added around how things are agendized, though there is no substantive change in that regard.  In addition, in an effort to provide more transparency and reduce staff administrative burden, the proposal contemplates that council reports shall be provided in writing to be included in the minutes of each meeting.

- We will discuss City Council Committees and assignments for standing and ad-choc committees and liaison positions.

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