Clayton City Council
May 3, 2022

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING
* * *

CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
* * *
TUESDAY, May 3, 2022
7:00 P.M.
*** NOTICE***
Members of the City Council, City staff/consultants, and the public will be able to participate either in-person at
Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library
6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, CA 94517
or
remotely via Zoom.
***Due to social distancing requirements: Limited seating available in person, if capacity is reached, you may be required to participate remotely via Zoom.*** Pursuant to AB 361, the City is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public. Tonight’s meeting will be conducted both in-person and remotely via Zoom.

Mayor: Peter Cloven
Vice Mayor: Holly Tillman
Council Members
Jim Diaz
Jeff Wan
Carl Wolfe
• A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each public item is available for public review on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov • Agendas are posted at: 1) City Hall, 6000 Heritage Trail; 2) Library, 6125 Clayton Road; 3) Ohm’s Bulletin Board, 1028 Diablo Street, Clayton; and 4) City Website at www.claytonca.gov • Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the Agenda Packet and regarding any public item on this Agenda is available for review on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov
• If you have a physical impairment that requires special accommodations to participate, please call the City Clerk’s office at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 673-7300. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda May 3, 2022 Page 2
Instructions for Virtual City Council Meeting – May 3
Pursuant to AB 361, the City is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public. Tonight’s meeting will be conducted both in-person and remotely via Zoom.

To follow or participate in the meeting:

1. Videoconference: to follow the meeting on-line, click here to register:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_06q0GcosRnmvy4dNOutGlw After clicking on the URL, please take a few seconds to submit your first and last name, and e-mail address then click “Register”, which will approve your registration and a new URL to join the meeting will appear.

Phone-in: Once registered, you will receive an e-mail with instructions to join the meeting telephonically, and then dial Telephone: 877 853 5257 (Toll Free)

2. using the Webinar ID and Password found in the e-mail.

E-mail Public Comments: If preferred, please e-mail public comments to the City Clerk, Ms.

Calderon at [email protected] by 5 PM on the day of the City Council meeting. All E-mail Public Comments will be forwarded to the entire City Council.

For those who choose to attend the meeting via videoconferencing or telephone shall have 3 minutes for public comments.

Location:

Videoconferencing Meeting (this meeting via teleconferencing is open to the public) To join this virtual meeting on-line click here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_06q0GcosRnmvy4dNOutGlw To join on telephone, you must register in the URL above, which sends an e-mail to your inbox, and then dial (877) 853-5257 using the Webinar ID and Password found in the e-mail.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda May 3, 2022 Page 3
* CITY COUNCIL *
May 3, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Mayor Cloven.

2. MEETING PROTOCOL VIDEO– City Clerk

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Mayor Cloven

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and are considered for approval by one single motion of the City Council. Members of the Council, Audience, or Staff wishing an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purpose of public comment, question, discussion or alternative action may request so through the Mayor.
(a) Approve the minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting of April 19, 2022. (City Clerk) (view here)
(b) Approve the Financial Demands and Obligations of the City. (Finance) (view here) (c) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings as Needed during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361. (City Manager) (view here)
(d) Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Clayton Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy in Accordance with Government Code § 7070, Et Seq. (Police Chief) (view here)

5. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
(a) Information Only – No Action Requested.
• Cinco De Mayo (May 5th)
• Armed Services Day (May 15th)
• Peace Officers’ Memorial Day and Police Week (May 15th) • Asian Pacific Heritage Month (May)
• Jewish American Heritage Month (May)
(b) Proclamation declaring Friday, May 6, 2022 as “Elise Warren Day” in the City of Clayton. (Mayor Cloven) (view here)
(c) Certificates of Recognition to public school students for exemplifying the “Do the Right Thing” character trait of “Integrity” during the months of March and April 2022. (Mayor Cloven) (view here)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda May 3, 2022 Page 4
(d) Annual Fire District Update. (Terence Carey, CCCFPD) (view here)

6. REPORTS
(a) City Manager/Staff
(b) City Council - Reports from Council liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the public may address the City Council on items within the Council’s jurisdiction, (which are not on the agenda) at this time. To assure an orderly meeting and an equal opportunity for everyone, each speaker is limited to 3 minutes, enforced at the Mayor’s discretion. In accordance with State Law, no action may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may at its discretion request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.

Public comment and input on Public Hearing, Action Items and other Agenda Items will be allowed when each item is considered by the City Council.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.

9. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Receive a Presentation from Strategy Research Institute on Their Survey of Clayton Voters Regarding Potential Support for a Tax Measure on the November 2022 Ballot and Provide Direction to Staff on Desired Next Steps. (City Manager) (view here)

10. CLOSED SESSION – None.

11. COUNCIL ITEMS – limited to Council requests and directives for future meetings.

12. ADJOURNMENT - the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting will be May 17, 2022. # # # # #
Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 1

MINUTES
OF THE

REGULAR MEETING

CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, April 19, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER THE CITY COUNCIL – The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Cloven held via a hybrid meeting format live in-person and Zoom videoconference and broadcast from Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library, 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, California. Councilmembers present: Mayor Cloven, Vice Mayor Tillman, and Councilmembers Diaz, Wan, and Wolfe. Councilmembers absent: None.

Staff present: City Manager Reina Schwartz, City Attorney Mala Subramanian, Police Chief Elise Warren, and City Clerk/HR Manager Janet Calderon.

2. MEETING PROTOCOL VIDEO – City Clerk.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Mayor Cloven.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Councilmember Diaz, seconded by Vice Mayor Tillman, to approve the Consent Calendar items 4(a) – 4(e) as submitted. (Passed 5-0). (a) Approved the minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting of April 5, 2022. (City Clerk)
(b) Approved the Financial Demands and Obligations of the City. (Finance) (c) Adopted Resolution No. 30-2022 of the City Council of the City of Clayton Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361. (City Manager)
(d) Adopted Resolution No. 31-2022 of the City Council of the City of Clayton Appointing CalPERS Retired Annuitant Joseph Kreins to the Position of Interim Chief of Police and Approving an Employment Contract Pursuant to California Government Code Section 21221 (H). (City Manager)
(e) Adopted Resolution No. 32-2022 Directing the Preparation of an Engineer’s Report for the Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District. (Police Engineer)

5. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
(a) Information Only – No Action Requested.
• Earth Day (April 22nd)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 2
• Law Day (May 1st)

6. REPORTS
(a) City Manager/Staff
City Manager Reina Schwartz indicated this is her first in-person Council meeting since being here. There was no other update.
(b) City Council - Reports from Council liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards.

Councilmember Wan indicated “no report”.

Vice Mayor Tillman attended the Contra Costa County Mayors’ Conference, and the Clayton Community Library Foundation meeting and luncheon.

Councilmember Diaz attended the Clayton Business and Community Association BBQ committee meeting and confirmed security for the upcoming Clayton Business and Community Association Art and Wine Festival.

Councilmember Wolfe met with the Mayor, attended the Clayton Business and Community Association BBQ committee meeting, the Clayton Business and Community Association Advisory Board meeting, met with Planning Commissioner Denslow, emailed constituents, attended the Pride Parade Committee meeting, and requested this meeting be adjourned in memory of Jack Sogomonian long time Clayton resident and volunteer, as he recently passed away.

Mayor Cloven announced the upcoming Clayton Business and Community Association Art and Wine Festival is still in need of volunteers, attended the Contra Costa County Mayors’ Conference, and attended the Transportation Partnership and Cooperation for Central Contra Costa (TRANSPAC) meeting.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Ed Miller suggested the solution with the housing crisis is not adding more housing but to add more jobs near housing. He also advised that east county has sent out a survey to its residents to “cut the commute” and thought Clayton and neighboring cities could do something similar.

Mayor Cloven closed public comment.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Introduce and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Clayton Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy in Accordance with Government Code § 7070, Et. Seq. (Police Chief)
Police Chief Elise Warren presented the report.

Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 3
Following questions by the City Council, Mayor Cloven opened the public hearing; no comments were offered.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Tillman, seconded by Councilmember Wan, to Introduce and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of Clayton Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy in Accordance with Government Code § 7070, Et. Seq. (Passed 5-0).

9. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Receive Presentation and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Concerts in The Grove. (City Manager)
City Manager Reina Schwartz presented the report.

Following questions by the City Council, Mayor Cloven opened the item to public comment.

Bill Walcutt requested enforcement of blankets and chairs being placed on the lawn prior to 4:00 p.m.

Howard Geller provided a brief overview of the event including behind the scenes tasks.

Mayor Cloven closed public comment.

Direction was provided to staff.

10. CLOSED SESSION – None.

11. COUNCIL ITEMS
Vice Mayor Tillman requested a future agenda item to include fee/rental waivers for nonprofit use of City facilities.

12. ADJOURNMENT– on call by Mayor Cloven, the City Council adjourned its meeting at 8:15 p.m. in memory of Jack Sogomonian Clayton resident and volunteer who recently passed away.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council will be May 3, 2022. ____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 4
# # # # #
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk

APPROVED BY THE CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
______________________________________
Peter Cloven, Mayor
# # # # #
Agenda Item: 4(b)

STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: KATHERINE KORSAK, FINANCE DIRECTOR

JENNIFER GIANTVALLEY, ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
DATE: 05/03/2022
SUBJECT: FINANCIAL DEMANDS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council, by minute action, approve the financial demands and obligations of the City for the purchase of services and goods in the ordinary course of operations.

Attachments:

1. Open Invoice Report, dated 4/27/22 (5 pages)

2. Payroll Reconciliation Summary report PPE 4/17/22 (2 pages) Attached Report Purpose Amount
Open Invoice Report Accounts Payable $ 206,247.26
Payroll Reconciliation Summary Payroll, Taxes $ 83,241.17 Total Required $ 289,488.43
4/27/2022 City of Clayton Page 1
Open Invoice Report
Obligations
Vendor Name Due Date Date Invoice Number Invoice Description Balance Discount Expires On Net Amount Due Invoice Invoice Potential Discount
Advanced Elevator Solutions, Inc
Advanced Elevator Solutions, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 42378 Elevator Service January 2021 $124.00 $0.00 $124.00 Advanced Elevator Solutions, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 42601 Elevator Service February 2021 $124.00 $0.00 $124.00 Advanced Elevator Solutions, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 46738 Elevator Service January 2022 $124.00 $0.00 $124.00 Totals for Advanced Elevator Solutions, Inc: $372.00 $0.00 $372.00 All City Management Services, Inc.

All City Management Services, Inc. 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 76666 School crossing guard svcs 3/20/22-4/2/22 $2,084.94 $0.00 $2,084.94 All City Management Services, Inc. 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 76932 School crossing guard svcs 4/3/22-4/16/22 $1,158.30 $0.00 $1,158.30 Totals for All City Management Services, Inc.: $3,243.24 $0.00 $3,243.24 American Fidelity Assurance Company
American Fidelity Assurance Company 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 6049943 FSA PPE 4/17/22 $115.00 $0.00 $115.00 American Fidelity Assurance Company 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 D442469 Supplemental insurance April 2022 $752.80 $0.00 $752.80 Totals for American Fidelity Assurance Company: $867.80 $0.00 $867.80 AnchorCM
AnchorCM 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 22-003-4259 Engineering svcs March 2022 $10,126.50 $0.00 $10,126.50 Totals for AnchorCM: $10,126.50 $0.00 $10,126.50
ASCAP
ASCAP 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 100005876425 Concert licensing 1/1/22-4/30/23 $397.67 $0.00 $397.67 Totals for ASCAP: $397.67 $0.00 $397.67
AT&T (CalNet3)
AT&T (CalNet3) 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 18088947 Phones 3/22/22-4/21/22 $1,229.12 $0.00 $1,229.12 Totals for AT&T (CalNet3): $1,229.12 $0.00 $1,229.12
Bank of America
Bank of America 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 March 2022 Monthly svc chg March 2022 $715.65 $0.00 $715.65 Totals for Bank of America: $715.65 $0.00 $715.65
CalPERS Health
CalPERS Health 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 16776986 Medical May 2022 $36,518.87 $0.00 $36,518.87 Totals for CalPERS Health: $36,518.87 $0.00 $36,518.87
CalPERS Retirement
CalPERS Retirement 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 041522 Retirement for Retro Pay $272.39 $0.00 $272.39 CalPERS Retirement 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 041722 Retirement PPE 04/17/22 $19,291.26 $0.00 $19,291.26 Totals for CalPERS Retirement: $19,563.65 $0.00 $19,563.65 CCWD
CCWD 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 J Series Water 2/4/22-4/6/22 $14,883.07 $0.00 $14,883.07 Totals for CCWD: $14,883.07 $0.00 $14,883.07
4/27/2022 City of Clayton Page 2
Open Invoice Report
Obligations
Vendor Name Due Date Date Invoice Number Invoice Description Balance Discount Expires On Net Amount Due Invoice Invoice Potential Discount
Cintas Corporation
Cintas Corporation 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 4115825517 PW uniforms through 4/07/22 $49.00 $0.00 $49.00 Cintas Corporation 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 4116525850 PW uniforms through 4/14/22 $48.18 $0.00 $48.18 Cintas Corporation 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 4117201008 PW uniforms through 4/21/22 $48.97 $0.00 $48.97 Totals for Cintas Corporation: $146.15 $0.00 $146.15
City of Antioch
City of Antioch 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 AR165903 PD vehicle repair #1740 $724.16 $0.00 $724.16 City of Antioch 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 AR165904 PD vehicle repair #1741 $800.50 $0.00 $800.50 Totals for City of Antioch: $1,524.66 $0.00 $1,524.66
City of Concord
City of Concord 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 92753 Live scan PD $114.00 $0.00 $114.00 Totals for City of Concord: $114.00 $0.00 $114.00
Clean Street
Clean Street 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 102574CS Street sweeping March 2022 $4,500.00 $0.00 $4,500.00 Totals for Clean Street: $4,500.00 $0.00 $4,500.00
ClearGov, Inc
ClearGov, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 2022-11751 Budgeting Software 4/1/22-3/31/23 $16,500.00 $0.00 $16,500.00 Totals for ClearGov, Inc: $16,500.00 $0.00 $16,500.00
Comcast Business (The Grove Park)
Comcast Business (The Grove Park) 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 041022 Internet for The Grove Park 4/15/22-5/14/22 $123.24 $0.00 $123.24 Totals for Comcast Business (The Grove Park): $123.24 $0.00 $123.24 De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc.

De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 76110295 Copier lease May 2022 $1,004.48 $0.00 $1,004.48 Totals for De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc.: $1,004.48 $0.00 $1,004.48 Digital Services
Digital Services 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 12057 IT services 4/7/22-4/24/22 $4,005.22 $0.00 $4,005.22 Totals for Digital Services: $4,005.22 $0.00 $4,005.22
Dillon Electric Inc
Dillon Electric Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 4566 Street light repairs 1/4/22 $896.33 $0.00 $896.33 Totals for Dillon Electric Inc: $896.33 $0.00 $896.33
FasTrak Violation Processing
FasTrak Violation Processing 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 I712272047402 Bridge toll- LP CA 1456406, PD #1746 $7.00 $0.00 $7.00 Totals for FasTrak Violation Processing: $7.00 $0.00 $7.00 Globalstar LLC
Globalstar LLC 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 30754494 Sat Phone 4/16/22-5/15/22 $110.55 $0.00 $110.55 4/27/2022 City of Clayton Page 3
Open Invoice Report
Obligations
Vendor Name Due Date Date Invoice Number Invoice Description Balance Discount Expires On Net Amount Due Invoice Invoice Potential Discount
Totals for Globalstar LLC: $110.55 $0.00 $110.55
Harris & Associates, Inc.

Harris & Associates, Inc. 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 52320 Project engineering svcs March 2022 $120.01 $0.00 $120.01 Harris & Associates, Inc. 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 52321 Diablo Meadows project mgmt March 2022 $2,139.00 $0.00 $2,139.00 Harris & Associates, Inc. 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 52322 Engineering svcs March 2022 $14,520.00 $0.00 $14,520.00 Totals for Harris & Associates, Inc.: $16,779.01 $0.00 $16,779.01 HdL Coren & Cone
HdL Coren & Cone 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 SIN016368 Contract svcs Property Tax Q4 FY 22 $1,923.75 $0.00 $1,923.75 Totals for HdL Coren & Cone: $1,923.75 $0.00 $1,923.75
J&R Floor Services
J&R Floor Services 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 Four2022 Janitorial svcs April 2022 $5,108.00 $0.00 $5,108.00 Totals for J&R Floor Services: $5,108.00 $0.00 $5,108.00 JAM Services
JAM Services 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 156383 Streetlight pole $2,588.25 $0.00 $2,588.25 Totals for JAM Services: $2,588.25 $0.00 $2,588.25
JJR Enterprises, Inc
JJR Enterprises, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 3480578 Copier usage 3/18/22-4/17/22 $236.30 $0.00 $236.30 JJR Enterprises, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 3481067 Pick up for lease return Acct EB0022 $350.00 $0.00 $350.00 Totals for JJR Enterprises, Inc: $586.30 $0.00 $586.30
LarryLogic Productions
LarryLogic Productions 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 1990 City council meeting training and production $1,880.00 $0.00 $1,880.00 Totals for LarryLogic Productions: $1,880.00 $0.00 $1,880.00 League of CA Cities East Bay Division
League of CA Cities East Bay Division 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 4909 East Bay Division Meeting 3/31/22 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 Totals for League of CA Cities East Bay Division: $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 Martell Water Systems, Inc.

Martell Water Systems, Inc. 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 29945 Library Irrigation service call $347.95 $0.00 $347.95 Totals for Martell Water Systems, Inc.: $347.95 $0.00 $347.95 Mission Square Retirement
Mission Square Retirement 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 041722 457 Plan contributions PPE 4/17/22 $3,154.76 $0.00 $3,154.76 Totals for Mission Square Retirement: $3,154.76 $0.00 $3,154.76 Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc
Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 73582 Clayton Downtown Prop Comm Engagement P $1,005.00 $0.00 $1,005.00 Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 74647 Clayton Downtown Prop Comm Engagement P $440.00 $0.00 $440.00 Totals for Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc: $1,445.00 $0.00 $1,445.00 4/27/2022 City of Clayton Page 4
Open Invoice Report
Obligations
Vendor Name Due Date Date Invoice Number Invoice Description Balance Discount Expires On Net Amount Due Invoice Invoice Potential Discount
Motorola
Motorola 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 16178650 PD Radio enhancement $1,334.56 $0.00 $1,334.56 Totals for Motorola: $1,334.56 $0.00 $1,334.56
Nationwide
Nationwide 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 041722 457 Plan contributions PPE 4/17/22 $500.00 $0.00 $500.00 Totals for Nationwide: $500.00 $0.00 $500.00
nfpAccounting Technologies, Inc
nfpAccounting Technologies, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 041322 Financial Edge Support 4/13/22-4/12/23 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 Totals for nfpAccounting Technologies, Inc: $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 Julie Parodi
Julie Parodi 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 2022-068 Update Investigation for Interim Chief $500.00 $0.00 $500.00 Totals for Julie Parodi: $500.00 $0.00 $500.00
Paylocity Corporation
Paylocity Corporation 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 110104999 Payroll fees March 2022 $492.50 $0.00 $492.50 Totals for Paylocity Corporation: $492.50 $0.00 $492.50 PG&E
PG&E 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 042222 Energy 3/22/22-4/21/22 $5,211.68 $0.00 $5,211.68 PG&E 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 042222 Energy 3/22/22-4/14/22 $24,450.32 $0.00 $24,450.32 Totals for PG&E: $29,662.00 $0.00 $29,662.00
Precision Civil Engineering (PCE)
Precision Civil Engineering (PCE) 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 26491 ADU Planning and engineering $950.00 $0.00 $950.00 Precision Civil Engineering (PCE) 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 26507 ADU Planning and engineering $990.00 $0.00 $990.00 Totals for Precision Civil Engineering (PCE): $1,940.00 $0.00 $1,940.00 Professional Convergence Solutions, Inc
Professional Convergence Solutions, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 PCS0417221 Repair phones @ City Hall $120.00 $0.00 $120.00 Professional Convergence Solutions, Inc 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 PCS0420222 Repair voicemail @ City Hall $160.00 $0.00 $160.00 Totals for Professional Convergence Solutions, Inc: $280.00 $0.00 $280.00 RCN Communications, LLC
RCN Communications, LLC 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 130285458 Routers for PD $2,722.83 $0.00 $2,722.83 Totals for RCN Communications, LLC: $2,722.83 $0.00 $2,722.83 Rent-A-Fence.com
Rent-A-Fence.com 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 12198-10117 The Grove fencing $297.08 $0.00 $297.08 Totals for Rent-A-Fence.com: $297.08 $0.00 $297.08
Rex Lock & Safe, Inc.

Rex Lock & Safe, Inc. 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 132824 City Hall keys $67.49 $0.00 $67.49 4/27/2022 City of Clayton Page 5
Open Invoice Report
Obligations
Vendor Name Due Date Date Invoice Number Invoice Description Balance Discount Expires On Net Amount Due Invoice Invoice Potential Discount
Totals for Rex Lock & Safe, Inc.: $67.49 $0.00 $67.49
Robert/Muto
Robert/Muto 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 CAP0387 Deposit refund $1,897.50 $0.00 $1,897.50 Totals for Robert/Muto: $1,897.50 $0.00 $1,897.50
Site One Landscape Supply, LLC
Site One Landscape Supply, LLC 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 117646095-001 Landscape supplies $1,207.70 $0.00 $1,207.70 Totals for Site One Landscape Supply, LLC: $1,207.70 $0.00 $1,207.70 Swenson's Mobile Fleet Repair
Swenson's Mobile Fleet Repair 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 I004594 PW veh svc '06 Ranger $4,884.68 $0.00 $4,884.68 Totals for Swenson's Mobile Fleet Repair: $4,884.68 $0.00 $4,884.68 Texas Life Insurance Company
Texas Life Insurance Company 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 SM0F1B2022041300 Supplemental insurance $42.25 $0.00 $42.25 Totals for Texas Life Insurance Company: $42.25 $0.00 $42.25 Total Imaging Solutions, LLC
Total Imaging Solutions, LLC 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 20010 Microfiche service 5/4/22-5/3/23 $530.00 $0.00 $530.00 Totals for Total Imaging Solutions, LLC: $530.00 $0.00 $530.00 Vision Service Plan (CA)
Vision Service Plan (CA) 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 814456521 Vision coverage- March 2022 $76.07 $0.00 $76.07 Vision Service Plan (CA) 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 814948122, 8146824 Vision coverage- April & May 2022 $152.14 $0.00 $152.14 Totals for Vision Service Plan (CA): $228.21 $0.00 $228.21 Wex Bank-Fleet Cards
Wex Bank-Fleet Cards 4/30/2022 4/30/2022 80446316 Fuel - stmt end 4/25/22 $5,111.22 $0.00 $5,111.22 Totals for Wex Bank-Fleet Cards: $5,111.22 $0.00 $5,111.22 Workers.com
Workers.com 5/3/2022 5/3/2022 132459 Seasonal workers week end 4/10/22 $2,337.02 $0.00 $2,337.02 Totals for Workers.com: $2,337.02 $0.00 $2,337.02
GRAND TOTALS: $206,247.26 $0.00 $206,247.26
Payroll Totals
Payroll Checks Check Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Regular 26 0.00 61,912.65 61,912.65
Totals 26 0.00 61,912.65 61,912.65 ĺ 61,912.65
Payroll Checks Check Type Agency Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Agency EFSDU 1 0.00 358.15 358.15
Agency Regular 1 0.00 663.50 663.50
Totals 2 0.00 1,021.65 1,021.65 ĺ 1,021.65
Total Net Payroll Liability 0.00 62,934.30 62,934.30 ĺ 62,934.30 Tax Liability
CA and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA SDI - Employee Semi-Weekly 93,765.55 93,765.55
California SITW Semi-Weekly 90,610.79 90,610.79 4,700.49 Totals 4,700.49 0.00 ĺ 4,700.49
CASUI and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA Edu & Training 0.001000 Quarterly 93,765.55
California SUI 0.020000 Quarterly 93,765.55
Totals 0.00 0.00 ĺ 0.00
FITW and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount Federal Income Tax Semi-Weekly 90,610.79 90,610.79 12,887.19 Medicare Semi-Weekly 93,765.55 93,765.55 1,359.59
Medicare - Employer Semi-Weekly 93,765.55 93,765.55 1,359.60 Totals 14,246.78 1,359.60 ĺ 15,606.38
FUTA and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount Fed Unemployment Quarterly 93,765.55
Totals 0.00 0.00 ĺ 0.00
Total Tax Liability 18,947.27 1,359.60 ĺ 20,306.87
Total Payroll Liability 83,241.17 ĺ 83,241.17
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 4/20/2022 at 3:16 PM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton

Check Date: 04/22/2022
Pay Period: 04/04/2022 to 04/17/2022
Process: 2022042201
Billing
Invoice Date Gross Discount Tax Adjustment Amount
110104999 4/22/2022 492.50 492.50
Totals 492.50 0.00 492.50 ĺ 492.50
Transfers
Type Date Source Account Amount
Billing 4/22/2022 492.50
Dir Dep 4/21/2022 61,912.65
Tax 4/21/2022 20,306.87
Trust Agency 4/21/2022 1,021.65
Totals Transfers 83,733.67 ĺ 83,733.67
Tax Deposits
Required Tax Deposits Tax Due On Amount
( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) California SITW 4/27/2022 4,700.49 ( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) Federal Income Tax 4/27/2022 15,606.38 Total Tax Deposits 20,306.87
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 4/20/2022 at 3:16 PM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton

Check Date: 04/22/2022
Pay Period: 04/04/2022 to 04/17/2022
Process: 2022042201
Agenda Item: 4(c)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 3, 2022
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings as Needed during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council allowing for video and teleconference meetings as needed during the COVID-19 state of emergency under AB 361.

BACKGROUND
Last year, the State Legislature passed and Governor Newsom signed AB 361 which continues many of the provisions related to the Brown Act that were in place under Executive Orders, which expired September 30, 2021 that allowed for video and teleconferencing during the state of emergency. Since AB 361 has been signed into law, the City can continue to meet virtually until such time as the Governor declares the State of Emergency due to COVID-19 over and measures to promote social distancing are no longer recommended by the County Health Officer.

On September 20, 2021, February 2, 2022, March 1, 2022 and April 15, 2022, the Contra Costa County Health Officer issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings and continues to encourage on-line meetings over in-person public meetings if feasible. If in-person meetings occur, the County Health Officer recommends physical distancing of six feet of separation between all attendees to the extent possible. The proposed resolution provides that the City Council and all subsidiary City boards and commissions may choose to hold fully virtual video and teleconference meetings while the state of emergency is still in effect and physical distancing is recommended.

In order to continue to be able to hold video and teleconference meetings as needed, the City Council will need to review and make findings every thirty days that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person and that state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote physical distancing.

Subject: Resolution Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361
Date: May 3, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

Attachments
Resolution of the City Council Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361
Resolution ##-2022 AB 361 May 3, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ##-2022

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON

ALLOWING FOR VIDEO AND TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS DURING THE COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY UNDER AB 361
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency for COVID-19;
WHEREAS, AB 361 was recently passed by the State Legislature and signed by Governor Newsom and went into effect immediately and allows the City to continue to meet virtually until such time as the Governor declares the State of Emergency due to COVID-19 over and measures to promote physical distancing are no longer recommended;
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2021, February 2, 2022, March 1, 2022 and April 15, 2022, the Contra Costa County Health Officer issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings and encourages on-line meetings if feasible and if in person meetings occur then recommends physical distancing of six feet of separation to the extent possible and masking for all attendees;
WHEREAS, in light of this recommendation, the City Council desires for itself and for all other City legislatives bodies that are subject to the Brown Act to be able to choose to meet via video and/or teleconference as necessary; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 361 the City Council will review the findings required to be made at least every 30 days.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council hereby finds on behalf of itself and all other City legislative bodies: (1) a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor; (2) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the City’s legislative bodies to meet safely in person; and (3) local health officials continue to recommend measures to promote physical distancing.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council and all other City legislative bodies may continue to meet via video and/or teleconference as needed during the COVID-19 emergency.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Clayton City Council, State of California, on this 3rd day of May 2022, by the following vote.

Resolution ##-2022 AB 361 May 3, 2022
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON,
CA
Peter Cloven, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Agenda Item: 4(d)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Warren, Elise, Police Chief
DATE: May 3, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLAYTON ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 7070, ET SEQ.
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Military Equipment Use Policy ordinance in accordance with Government Code section 7070, Et Seq.

BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”), approved on September 30, 2021 by Governor Gavin Newsom (codified as Chapter 12.8 of the California Government Code and commencing with section 7070 et seq.), requires a local law enforcement agency, such as the Clayton Police Department, to have a military equipment use policy approved by the City Council prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring, collaborating with other jurisdictions about the deployment of military equipment, or using military equipment.

The term “military equipment”, as defined by Government Code section 7070(c), does not necessarily indicate just equipment used by the military. Items deemed to be “military equipment” include but are not limited to, unmanned aerial or ground vehicles, armored vehicles, command and control vehicles, pepper balls, less lethal shotguns, less lethal 40mm projectile launchers, long range acoustic devices, and flashbang diversionary devices. The list of items considered “military equipment” by AB 481 are employed by many law enforcement agencies across the country as best practices to enhance community and officer safety.

DISCUSSION
The Clayton Police Department (“Department”) is committed to safeguarding our community through crime reduction strategies such as: Community Policing, Progressive Training, and Technology. Using the most up-to-date tools and equipment to safeguard the community of Clayton is essential to keeping our community safe. Some items deemed to be “military equipment” are in fact employed by the Department to specifically reduce risk to community members during critical incidents.

The Department Policy 710, “Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use” adheres to California Government section 7070 et seq., with respect to the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment. In addition, Assembly Bill 481 requires the City to publish the draft military equipment use policy to the Police Department’s website thirty (30) days ahead of a public hearing to approve the policy. The Department’s draft policy was published on March 16, 2022. After the Policy is adopted, the Department will be required to:
• Publish an annual report to include each type of military equipment approved by City Council.
• Hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting within thirty (30) days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual military equipment report.
• Have the City Council annually review the military equipment use ordinance and determine whether to continue the military equipment use policy or not, or whether to disapprove a renewal of a type of military equipment, or amend the military equipment use policy if City Council determines that the military equipment does not comply with standards for approval.

In adopting the Ordinance, to which the Military Equipment Policy is included as Exhibit “A”, the City Council is required by AB 481 to make the following findings:
• The military equipment identified in the Policy is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
• The proposed Policy attached as Exhibit “A” to the Ordinance and identified as Department Policy 710 will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
• If purchasing the equipment identified in the Policy, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
• Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

It is the Department’s position that these findings can all be made. The equipment owned by the Department that qualifies under this Ordinance includes:
• One (1) Colt M4 carbine for patrol supervisor use. The Colt M4 is a select-fire rifle with a chrome lined 10-inch barrel with a 1:9 twist, iron sights, carry handle, and adjustable stock. Designed specifically for lightweight mobility, speed of target acquisition, and potent firepower capability.
• Winchester 5.56x45 M855 Green Tip 62 grain ammunition. The M855 round is a full metal jacketed round with a steel insert core and is painted green on the tip. • Four (4) Remington 870 12-gauge Less Lethal Launchers. The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round up to a distance of 75 feet. The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat which is a principle of de-escalation.
• One (1) Defense Technology 40MM single shot launcher. The 40MM Single Launcher is a tactical single shot launcher that features a fixed stock and an adjustable Integrated Front Grip (IFG) with light rail. It will fire standard 40mm less lethal ammunition (Sponge Round), up to 4.8 inches in cartridge length. It will launch a 40MM less lethal round up to 131 feet.
• CTS Model 2581 drag stabilized Super-Sock beanbag rounds. • CTS Model 4557 spin stabilized direct impact sponge rounds. • One (1) 2007 Carson Trailer. This trailer is a command vehicle used for special events and critical incidents. It is equipped with office equipment, police radios and a mobile data computer (MDC).

FISCAL IMPACTS
None

ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance
• Exhibit “A” – Clayton Police Department Policy 710
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ___ _______________, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MILITARY USE EQUIPMENT POLICY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 7070, ET SEQ.

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (“AB”) 481 to address the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment, as that term is defined by Government Code section 7070(c); and
WHEREAS, AB 481 requires adoption of a military use equipment policy (“Policy”) by the City Council before the Clayton Police Department (“Department”) may take action to request military equipment; seek funds (such as grants or in-kind donations) for acquiring military equipment; actually acquire military equipment, either permanently or temporarily by owning, borrowing, or leasing; collaborate with other law enforcement agencies to deploy or use military equipment in the agency’s territorial jurisdiction; use new or existing military equipment in a manner not previously subject to AB 481’s scope; solicit or respond to a proposal for, or enter into an agreement with, any person or entity to seek funds for, apply for, acquire, use, or collaborate in using military equipment; or to acquire military equipment through any other means not specifically detailed in the statute; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 7071(b), the proposed Policy was made available on the website on the Department website at least thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing by the City Council to adopt the Policy; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 7071(c), the Policy is on the agenda as an open session item at a regular meeting of the City Council, and public comment on the item will be allowed in accordance with the Brown Act; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance will be reviewed by City Council at least annually, and based on an annual military equipment report that will be submitted to the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 7071(e)(1).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Ordinance.

Section 2. Findings. Pursuant to Government Code section 7071(d)(1), as may be amended or renumbered from time to time, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in support of its adoption of the Policy:
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ____ ______________, 2022
A. The military equipment identified in the Policy is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

B. The proposed Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

C. If the Department purchases military equipment pursuant to the Policy, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

D. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

Section 3. Adoption of the Military Equipment Use Policy. The City Council hereby adopts the Military Equipment Use Policy, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by any court competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses of this Ordinance or application thereof which can be implemented without the invalid provisions, clause, or application, and to this end such provisions and clauses of the Ordinance are declared to be severable.

Section 5. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage. Within fifteen (15) days after the passage of the Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in three (3) public places heretofore designated by resolution by the City Council for the posting of ordinances and public notices.

Section 6. CEQA. The City Council finds that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the currently proposed Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, it is therefore not subject to CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular public meeting of the City Council of the City of Clayton held on April 19, 2022.

Passed, adopted, and ordered posted by the City Council of the City of Clayton at a regular public meeting thereof held on May 3, 2022 by the following vote:
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ___ _______________, 2022 AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
____________________________________
Peter Cloven, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATION
___________________________________ ____________________________________ Malathy Subramanian, City Attorney Reina Schwartz, City Manager I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clayton held on April 19, 2022 and was duly adopted, passed, and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on May 3, 2022. ____________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ____ ______________, 2022
Exhibit “A”
Policy: 710 Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy 710.1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
State

MODIFIED
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment pursuant to Assembly Bill 481 ("AB 481") (Government Code § 7070 et seq.).
710.1.1

DEFINITIONS
State

MODIFIED
Definitions related to this policy include those provided in Government Code section 7070, and as follows:

Governing body – The City of Clayton - City Council ("City Council").

Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.
• Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray. • TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by the City Council. 710.2
POLICY
State

MODIFIED
It is the policy of the Clayton Police Department ("Department") that members of this Department comply with the provisions of AB 481 with respect to funding, acquisition and use of military equipment. ______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ___ _______________, 2022 710.3

MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
Best Practice

MODIFIED
The Chief of Police shall designate a member of this Department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include, but are not limited to:
a. Acting as liaison to the CIty Council for matters related to the requirements of this policy. b. Identifying Department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the City Council.
c. Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. d. Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of the Department.
e. Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the Department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
f. Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the Department website. g. Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
710.4

MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
State

MODIFIED
The list of qualifying military equipment for the Department is attached to this Policy as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated into the Policy by this reference.
710.5

APPROVAL
State

MODIFIED
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the City Council by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the City Council and is available on the Department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. The military equipment policy must be approved by the City Council prior to engaging in any of the following:
a. Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576(a). b. Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. c. Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing. d. Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this Department.
e. Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the City Council.
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ____ ______________, 2022
f. Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
g. Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 710.6

COMPLIANCE
Agency Content
Department members shall adhere to this Policy, in addition to state and local laws and ordinances when employing the use of military equipment. Violations of the law or this policy may result in criminal or administrative investigations and, or actions.
710.7

COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
State

MODIFIED
Military equipment used by any member of this Department shall be approved for use and in accordance with this Policy. Military equipment used by other jurisdictions that are providing mutual aid to the City of Clayton, or otherwise engaged in law enforcement operations in the City,shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies in rendering mutual aid or carrying out a law enforcement function related to a criminal matter under their investigation. 710.8

ANNUAL REPORT
State

MODIFIED
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the City Council for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the Department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in Department inventory. 710.9

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
State

MODIFIED
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
710.10

COMPLAINT PROCESS
Agency Content
Members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment in this policy by any of the following means:
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ___ _______________, 2022

1. Via email to: [email protected]

2. Via phone call to: (925) 673-7350

3. Via mail sent to: Clayton Police Department, attn: Military Equipment Use Coordinator, 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton CA 94517
The Department is committed to responding to complaints, concerns and/or questions received through any of the above methods in a timely manner.
710.11

EXHIBIT A - EQUIPMENT LIST
Agency Content
Exhibit "A"

1. SPECIALIZED FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:

Guns that are fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make bullets spin and thereby have a greater accuracy over a long distance.

1. Colt M4 carbine for patrol supervisor use, cost $1695, quantity: 1. The Colt M4 is a select-fire rifle with a chrome lined 10 inch barrel with a 1:9 twist, iron sights, carry handle, and adjustable stock.

Designed specifically for lightweight mobility, speed of target acquisition, and potent firepower capability.

2. Winchester 5.56x45 M855 Green Tip 62 grain ammunition, cost $90, quantity: 150 rounds. The M855 round is a full metal jacketed round with a lead alloy and steel core and is painted green on the tip.
b. Purpose:

To be used to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.
c. Authorized Use:

Only members that are POST certified are authorized to use an M4 rifle. d. Expected Lifespan:

Colt M4 carbine- 15 years
Winchester 5.56X45 M855 62 grain ammunition- No expiration e. Fiscal Impact:

Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each rifle. f. Training:
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ____ ______________, 2022
Prior to the use of the specialized firearms and ammunition listed within this section, all officers have received POST certified training. Additionally, all officers are required to complete annual training, per POST Regulations.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules:

Use is established under Policy #300 and #311. It is the policy of this Department to utilize specialized firearms and ammunition only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to the State and Federal law regarding use of force.

2. LESS LETHAL LAUNCHERS AND AMMUNITION:
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:

Less lethal launchers are used to deploy either the less lethal super-sock 12- gauge beanbag round or the 40MM sponge baton round.

1. Remington 870 12-gauge Less Lethal Launcher, cost: $1,600, quantity: 4. The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round up to a distance of 75 feet. The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat which is a principle of De-escalation.

2. Defense Technology 40MM single shot launcher, cost: $985, quantity: 1. The 40MM Single Launcher is a tactical single shot launcher that features a fixed stock and an adjustable Integrated Front Grip (IFG) with light rail. It will fire standard 40mm less lethal ammunition, up to 4.8 inches in cartridge length. It will launch a 40MM less lethal round up to 131 feet.

3. CTS Model 2581 drag stabilized Super-Sock bean bag round, cost $420, quantity: 65 rounds. A less lethal 2.4-inch 12-gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot at a velocity of 270-290 feet per second (FPS). CTS Super-Sock rounds are discharged from a dedicated 12-gauge shotgun that is distinguishable by an orange butt stock and fore grip. This round provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the approved distance of not fewer than five (5) feet. The maximum effective range of this munition is up to 75 feet from the target. The Model 2581 Super-Sock is in its deployed state immediately upon exiting the barrel. It does not require a minimum range to "unfold" or "stabilize." The Super-Sock is an aerodynamic projectile. However, accuracy is relative to the shotgun, barrel length, environmental conditions, and the operator. The Super-Sock is very accurate. However, effectiveness depends on many variables, such as distance, clothing, stature, and the point where the projectile impacts.

4. CTS Model 4557 spin stabilized direct impact sponge round, cost $455, quantity: 13 rounds. The Model 4557 Sponge Baton is a smokeless 3.9-inch 40MM 60 gram spin-stabilized projectile, launched at 240-260 feet per second (FPS) designed to deliver a blunt trauma effect. Although it is extremely accurate and consistent, accuracy is dependent on the launcher, using open sights vs. an improved sight, environmental conditions, and the operator. Effectiveness depends on many variables, such as distance, clothing, stature, and the point where the projectile impacts. b. Purpose:

To de-escalate conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or unfeasible. c. Authorized Use:

Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:

1. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals.

2. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ___ _______________, 2022

3. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained.

4. Potentially vicious animals.

5. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
d. Lifespan:

1. Remington 870 Less Lethal Launcher- 15 years.

2. Defense Technology 40MM launcher- 15 years

3. CTS Super Sock Round- 5 years.

4. CTS 40MM sponge round- 5 years.
e. Fiscal Impact:

Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each launcher. f. Training:

All officers are trained in the use of less lethal launchers as a less lethal option by in-service training. g. Legal and Procedural Rules:

Use is established under Policy #307. It is the policy of this Department to utilize Less Lethal Launchers only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

3. Command and Control Vehicles
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:
2007 Carson Trailer – custom upfit by Onsite Trailers, cost: $11,077, quantity 1. This trailer is a command vehicle used for special events and critical incidents. It is equipped with office equipment, police radios and a mobile data computer (MDC).
b. Purpose:

To be used during special events and during critical incidents. c. Authorized Use:

The command trailer shall be used by personnel trained in its deployment and use. d. Lifespan:
20 years
e. Fiscal Impact:

Annual maintenance is approximately $500.
f. Training:

All users are trained in the proper procedure for moving and deploying the trailer as well as ensuring the safety of the trailer and its equipment.
______________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No. ____ ______________, 2022
g. Legal and Procedural Rules:

Use is established under Policy #706. It is the policy of this Department to utilize the command trailer for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law. declaring
May 6, 2022
as
“Elise Warren Day”
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2022, after more than four years in Clayton, Chief of Police Elise Warren will complete her service to the City of Clayton; and WHEREAS, Chief Warren began her career in law enforcement in April 1990 with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office and while there, she gained valuable experience in an array of law enforcement skills; and
WHEREAS, during her law enforcement tenure she served as Deputy Sheriff, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, and Assistant Sheriff; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018 Elise Warren became the City of Clayton’s first female Police Chief; and
WHEREAS, under her tenure, Chief Warren initiated the Regency Drive Parking Permit Program, added cameras at The Grove Park to enhance safety, and upgraded all of the police department equipment, vehicles and technology to the highest industry standards; and
WHEREAS, during Chief Warren’s tenure she earned the community’s trust, confidence, and support by being fair, just, and responsive to public needs while also enforcing the law and protecting life and property.

NOW THEREFORE, I, Peter Cloven, Mayor of the City of Clayton, on behalf of the entire City Council and our community, do congratulate Elise Warren on her long and distinguished career by declaring Friday, May 6, 2022 as “Elise Warren Day” in the City of Clayton, and do herewith declare her an honorary Clayton citizen in perpetuity for her contribution to the people of our community.

Agenda Item: 5(b)

COLE PANZA
for
“Doing the Right Thing”
at
Mt. Diablo Elementary School
by exemplifying great “Integrity”
March and April 2022
Agenda Item: 5(c)

ELISE ZEDAKER
for
“Doing the Right Thing”
at
Mt. Diablo Elementary School
by exemplifying great “Integrity”
March and April 2022

SOPHIA BUSHNELL
for
“Doing the Right Thing”
at
Diablo View Middle School
by exemplifying great “Integrity”
March and April 2022

JUSTIN REIMER
for
“Doing the Right Thing”
at
Diablo View Middle School
by exemplifying great “Integrity”
March and April 2022
Agenda Item: 5(d)

Agenda Item: 9(a)
1 AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Reina J. Schwartz, City Manager
DATE: May 3, 2022
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation from Strategy Research Institute on Their Survey of Clayton Voters Regarding Potential Support for a Tax Measure on the November 2022 Ballot and Provide Direction to Staff on Desired Next Steps ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation from Strategy Research Institute on their survey of Clayton voters regarding potential support for a tax measure on the November 2022 ballot and provide direction to staff on desired next steps. Staff’s recommendation is to forgo putting an item on the November 2022 ballot, implement a comprehensive community outreach and public information effort to build understanding of the City’s significant upcoming financial challenges and return to the City Council to consider a measure for the November 2024 ballot.

BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2022, the City Council approved engaging the survey firm Strategy Research Institute to conduct a scientific survey of Clayton voters with respect to potential support for a tax measure on the November 2022 ballot. This report and the presentation this evening provide the results of the survey as well as SRI’s recommended next steps. Any action by the City Council to put a tax measure on the ballot is required to be approved by a 4/5 vote.

DISCUSSION
This report transmits the final report from Strategy Research Institute (SRI) regarding the survey research on potential voter support for a tax measure to be placed on the November 2022 ballot. The survey research was completed between March 21 and March 28, 2022.

The survey results reflect that Clayton voters are extremely satisfied with the quality of life in Clayton and the services provided by the City. Clayton voters are generally not aware of the significant financial challenges which the City will face over the next several years and beyond.

The survey also obtained feedback on a number of types of funding measures (property parcel tax, utility use tax and sales tax) and various levels of those potential funding sources. Consistently, the results showed that currently it does not appear that there is sufficient support to achieve approval of a tax measure on the November 2022 ballot.

Even for those tax measures that would only require a simple majority for approval (utility use tax or sales tax for
Subject: Receive a Presentation from Strategy Research Institute on Their Survey of Clayton Voters Regarding Potential Support for a Tax Measure on the November 2022 Ballot Date: May 3, 2022

________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 general [not specified] purposes), it is unlikely that the local electorate would support such a measure. For those mechanisms that would require a two-thirds approval, which can sometimes be more successful if the funds are targeted for a popular purpose (such as a public safety tax), none of the measures tested appear to have the required level of support.

Additional detail regarding the survey results can be found in the Attachment to this report.

Based on the survey findings, SRI has made the following recommendations:
• Do not place a measure on the November 2022 ballot.
• Begin and maintain a robust public information effort to build understanding of the significant financial challenges that are and will be faced by the City. • Consider placing a measure on the November 2024 ballot.

FISCAL IMPACTS
If the City does not place a measure on the November 2022 ballot, the budgets for the next several years will require difficult decisions in order to remain balanced. In general terms, these next several budgets will require a mix of reducing costs and increasing resources, likely through one-time means in the short-term. While the City has one-time resources available to help ease this budgetary period (either through ARPA funds or reserves), this is not a longterm sustainable strategy. While helpful in the short-term, use of one-time resources can delay, but does not eliminate, the need for an ongoing fix.

Furthermore, there is a need to keep the current reserves at a healthy level in case of a disaster (natural, financial or other). While the City currently has enough reserves to operate for approximately one year, a large fire or earthquake would quickly deplete these funds.

Once one-time funds or resources are depleted, it is extraordinarily difficult to replenish them.

Completion of a reserve policy will be an important component of any long-term budget strategy.

As a reminder, the following categories make up the FY2021/22 General Fund Budget:
• Salaries and other labor costs: (65.5%) $3,393,241
• Dispatch (5.9%) $307,755
• Gas, Electricity and Water (5.1%) $264,100
• Engineering & Legal (4.7%) $243,451
• Vehicle Maint, Operation & replacement (2.9%) $149,600 • Insurance premiums (2.8%) $145,349
• Animal Control (1.7%) $89,407
• All other items (11.3%) $584,579
Many of the items listed above are not directly under the City’s control and cannot easily be reduced including costs for gas, electricity and water; dispatch services; insurance premiums Subject: Receive a Presentation from Strategy Research Institute on Their Survey of Clayton Voters Regarding Potential Support for a Tax Measure on the November 2022 Ballot Date: May 3, 2022

________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 and animal control. By far the most significant cost the City faces is for the labor to provide services to our community even though all employee salaries, including those for public safety employees, are 20-25% below median when compared to other cities in Contra Costa County.

Clayton also has relatively fewer employees in every department than any other city in Contra Costa County, exacerbating the problem of employee retention. It should also be noted that this level of (current) funding does not adequately invest in: accounting systems; cybersecurity; general maintenance, deferred maintenance and other areas.

In order to prepare a balanced budget for FY2022/23, staff will propose options reflecting both cost reductions as well as potential use of one-time resources. It is anticipated that the proposed budget will have its first hearing at the Budget/Audit Committee on May 23, 2022.

ATTACHMENT

1. Results of Survey Related to a Potential Tax Measure Strategy Research Institute
An Institute for CONSENSUS BUILDING
WWW.SRI-CONSULTING.ORG
800.224-7608
Commissioned by …
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page i Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ………….………….………………………………….………….. 1

2.0 Key Findings ………………..……………….……………….….………………….….. 1
Finding #1: Most local voters are very satisfied with the quality of life they enjoy as a resident of Clayton....…………..……………....…. 1 Finding #2: Concerns on the local electorate’s collective mind are (rank-ordered): concern over homelessness, crime,
affordable housing, and public safety...…………………..……..… 2 Finding # 3: Most voters in Clayton ARE NOT aware (or are only . somewhat aware) of the fiscal challenges presently
facing the City...……………………………………………..…......… 3
Finding #4: Learning of the challenges facing the City of Clayton through a trusted source will elicit concern among a huge majority of local voters.............................................................….. 3 Finding #5: At the present time, there is insufficient support among Clayton voters for any form of increase in the local
tax base……………………………………………………………..... 4
Finding #6: Voter support for authorizing a new tax to address the . fiscal challenges facing the City is far below the 2/3rds needed for passage; furthermore, the threshold of willingness to pay is extremely low....……….…...................................................…. 4 Finding #7: There are four messages that are compelling to Clayton voters with regard to supporting a funding Measure that will allow City officials to address the City’s fiscal challenges.……..……… 6 Finding #8: A huge majority (74%) of Clayton voters want any funding Measure that is authorized by the local electorate to SUNSET (made to terminate) at a specific point in time; OR, at a minimum, be brought back to Clayton voters for re-authorization..…..….. 6 Finding #9: Clayton voters DO NOT support incorporating a CPI to control for normal inflation into whatever funding Measure is placed on the local ballot……………….………….…………….. 7
Finding #10: Voter confidence in the Clayton City Council is mixed……...... 7 Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page ii

3.0 Recommendations……………………………...…….……….…………..….….. 8
Recommendation #1: It’s a NO-GO for placing a funding Measure on the local ballot in the November 2022 election cycle in
order to address the fiscal challenges presently facing the City, which will only get worse, going forward.

Recommendation #2: Develop a comprehensive Public Outreach effort to INFORM the local electorate and the community-atlarge of the fiscal challenges facing the City and the consequences for NOT addressing these.

Recommendation #3: The MESSAGE to constituents should be driven by the findings from the present scientific voter survey.

Recommendation #4: Place a funding Measure on the local ballot in the November 2024 election cycle.

4.0 Summary Conclusion……………………………...…….……….…..….….….. 9 Addendum A: Figures and Charts ……………………………………...….…. 11 Research Design
Figure 1A Satisfaction with Quality of Life in the City of Clayton Figure 1B Satisfaction with Police Services Presently being Provided Figure 1C Satisfaction with Park & Recreation Amenities Figure 1D Satisfaction with County Library located in Clayton Figure 1E Satisfaction with Community Development
Figure 2 Issues of Concern
Figure 3A Aware that the City of Clayton is Facing Huge Fiscal Challenges Figure 3B Concerned that the City of Clayton Is Facing Huge Fiscal Challenges Figure 4 Preference for Dealing with Fiscal Challenges Facing the City of Clayton Figure 5A Support for $400/yr. Parcel Tax (Flat tax on Each Parcel of Property) Figure 5B Support for $300/yr. Parcel Tax (Flat tax on Each Parcel of Property) Figure 5C Support for $200/yr. Parcel Tax (Flat tax on Each Parcel of Property) Figure 6 Support for 6% Utility Use Tax
Figure 7A Support for 1-cent Increase in Clayton’s Sales Tax Figure 7B Support for 1/2-cent Increase in Clayton’s Sales Tax Figure 8A Impact of Arguments: Without Additional Funds the City will Be Forced to Lay Off at Least One Police Officer
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page iii Figure 8B Impact of Arguments: Without Additional Funds Street Lights in Certain Neighborhoods May Have to be Turned Off
Figure 8C Impact of Arguments: Without Additional Funds the City Will be Forced to Cut Back on the Level of Services presently being provided Figure 8D Impact of Arguments: Taxes Are Too High, Clayton Residents Need Tax Relief
Figure 8E Impact of Arguments: Without Additional Funds the City Will be Forced Into ‘Deficit Spending’
Figure 8F Impact of Arguments: Without Additional Funds the City Could be Forced into Bankruptcy
Figure 9 Support for Increase in Local Tax Base, AFTER ARGUMNENTS Figure 10A Recommend Making Proposed Increase (either) Permanent, to Sunset or be brought back to Voters for Renewal
Figure 10B Support for Making Proposed Increase to Sunset in 20 Years Figure 10C Support for Making Proposed Increase to Sunset in 10 Years Figure 11 Support for Incorporating a CPI
Figure 12 Agree or Disagree: Clayton’s Elected Officials are Completely Trustworthy Figure 13 Recommendations
Figure 14A-B Demographics
Addendum B: Questionnaire with Percentages ……………………..……..…. 42 Addendum C: Research Design & Methodology ……………………..……….. 52 Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges February 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 1 Section 1.0
Executive Summary
‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ This adage summarizes the consensus of Clayton voters when asked if they would be willing to support even a modest increase in local taxes in order to make it possible for City officials to address a host of fiscal challenges presently facing local government. They won’t; at least not at the present time.

The above conclusion is based upon the findings from a recent scientific survey of the Clayton electorate; most Clayton voters (94%) are quite satisfied with the quality of life they presently enjoy as a resident of Clayton. More specifically, local voters assigned high satisfaction scores to the services presently being provided through the City; these include, for example, the public safety services being provided through the Clayton Police Department; the various public park and recreation amenities made available through the City; access to the County library; among other services. Moreover, a huge ratio of Clayton voters (81%) are unaware of the fiscal challenges presently facing the City.

Thus, if the City were to place a funding Measure on the local ballot in the relatively near future (e.g., the November 2022 election cycle) that is intended to address these fiscal challenges…it would fail to secure the requisite 2/3rds voter support needed for passage. In other words, since most voters are pleased with the quality of life they enjoy as a resident of Clayton, combined with the fact that they are not aware of the fiscal challenges facing the City at the present time…why would they be inclined to support an increase the local tax base? As noted above, they won’t; at least not today.

Section 2.0
Key Findings
Finding #1: Most local voters are very satisfied
with the quality of life they enjoy as a resident
of Clayton.

As seen in the graphic at right, most local voters (94%) are satisfied with the quality of life they enjoy as a resident of Clayton (also refer to Figure 1A in Addendum ‘A’). In fact, when asked, “Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of life as a resident of Clayton?”, over half (51%) say they are “very satisfied”; a third (33%) say they are “extremely satisfied”. 33 51
10 5
0 0 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent 94%
Satisfied
1%
Dissatisfied
Extremely Very Slightly Neutral Slightly Very Extremely Satisfied Unsure Dissatisfied Satisfaction with… Quality of Life
in the City of Clayton
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 2 More specifically, as seen in the three graphics below, Clayton voters are, for the most part, highly satisfied with the level of Police Services presently being provided to local residents (92% satisfied); as well as with the Park and Recreation amenities presently available to Clayton residents including playgrounds, picnic tables, and-the-like at Clayton Community Park, The Grove Park and North Valley Park (88% satisfied); and with the County Library located in Clayton (76% satisfied); in fact, over half of local voters are “extremely” satisfied with all three of these services.

Of the four dimensions of satisfaction tested in the present survey, satisfaction with Community Development (including code enforcement, planning and zoning) scored the lowest; even here, over half (55%) of the respondents reported being satisfied; with one-fourth (25%) of respondents report being slightly or extremely dissatisfied (refer to Figure 1E).

Finding #2: Concerns on the local electorate’s
collective mind are (rank-ordered): concern
over homelessness, crime, affordable housing,
and public safety.

As seen in the graphic at left, more than half of
Clayton voters (52%) said they do NOT have major concerns on their front-end of mind; 46% said they do. Rank-ordered, these are: (i) homelessness, (ii) crime, (iii) affordable housing, and (iv) public safety (also refer to Figure 2).

What is significant about this finding is that these
concerns do not necessarily pertain specifically to Clayton; rather, these concerns amount to a “media effect”. In other 58 34
5 2 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent 92%
Satisfied
Extremely Slightly Neutral Slightly Extremely Satisfied Ref Dissatisfied 3%
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with… Police Services
Presently Being Provided
55 33
7 3 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent 88%
Satisfied
Extremely Slightly Neutral Slightly Extremely Satisfied Ref Dissatisfied 5%
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with… Park & Recreation
Amenities
52 24 21
2 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent 76%
Satisfied
Extremely Slightly Neutral Slightly Extremely Satisfied Ref Dissatisfied 3%
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with… County Library
Located in Clayton
Issues of Concern
(Front End of Mind)
Top four (4) issues of concern:
38% Homeless
13% Crime
8% Affordable Housing
7% Public Safety
68% Yes
32% No
46%
YES
52%
NO
2%
Unsure Refused
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 3 words, these concerns virtually mirror what local residents are reading about and/or viewing in the mass media. In sum, there are no issues of major concern that pertain to what is going on, today, in the City of Clayton; thus, reinforcing the finding that most local voters are pleased with the quality of life they enjoy as residents of Clayton.

Finding #3: Most voters in Clayton ARE
NOT aware (or are only somewhat aware)
of the fiscal challenges presently facing
the City.

As seen in the graphic at right (also refer to
Figure 3A), most (81%) of Clayton voters are not
aware of the fiscal challenges presently facing the
City. In fact, nearly half (45%) are not at all aware of this reality; approximately one third (36%) are
somewhat aware of this fact. Only 17% of Clayton
voters report being extremely aware of this reality.

Finding #4: Learning of the challenges facing the City of Clayton through a trusted source will elicit concern among a huge majority of local voters.

Respondents were asked, “Whether or not
you were previously aware of the fiscal
challenges that City officials will soon be facing, if
you learned about these challenges through a
trusted source, would that make you highly
concerned, somewhat concerned, or not at all
concerned about how this set of challenges will
impact the well-being of you and your family
members?”
As seen in the graphic at left (also, refer to
Figure 3B), learning of this fact through a trusted
source would make 80% of local voters either
highly concerned (30%) or somewhat concerned
(50%).
2%
Unsure Ref
36%
Somewhat Aware
45%
Not at all Aware
17%
Extremely Aware
Aware that… The City of Clayton
Is Facing Huge Fiscal Challenges?
Not Aware or Only Somewhat Aware 81%
6%
Unsure/ Ref
50%
Somewhat 14% Concerned
Not at all
concerned
30%
Highly Concerned
Concerned that… The City of Clayton
Is Facing Huge Fiscal Challenges?
Concerned 80%
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 4 Finding #5: At the present time, there
is insufficient support among Clayton
voters for any form of increase in the
local tax base.

Respondents were advised that Clayton
officials are considering several ways of dealing
with the fiscal challenges presently facing the
City; then asked whether they would prefer
imposing a tax designed to keep City services at
their present level OR cut back the level of
services and programs presently being provided
to Clayton residents…thus, imposing NO new
taxes at the local level of government.

As seen in the above graphic (at right),
little more than one third (35%) of respondents said they would support increasing the local tax base in order to avoid cutbacks in City services and programs, while 15% said it would depend upon the amount of tax being sought. Thus, there is potential voter support for increasing the local tax base in order to avoid cutbacks in City services of 50%. That said, over forty percent (41%) of local voters said they would prefer having City services and programs cut back, rather than increasing the local tax base; in other words…NO New Taxes.

Finding #6: Voter support for authorizing a new tax to address the fiscal challenges facing the City is far below the 2/3rds needed for passage; furthermore, the threshold of willingness to pay is extremely low.

The present voter survey was designed to test voter support for three different funding mechanism (if placed on the local ballot): (i) a Property Tax (specifically a flat tax per parcel of property owned); (ii) a Utility Use Tax; and (iii) an increase in the Sales Tax presently be imposed on purchases made in Clayton.
1 As seen in the graphics below, regardless of the funding mechanism OR the amount of the tax…voter support for authorizing a new tax to address the fiscal challenges facing the City is presently far below requisite voter support needed for passage; and, the local electorate’s THRESHOLD of willingness to pay is extremely low. 1 While the City does not presently impose a sales tax on purchases made within the City, Clayton residents do pay a sales tax imposed by the State, by Contra Costa County, and for local-approved ballot measures for BART and the CCTA (Contra Costa Transportation Authority). The current sales tax rate in Clayton is 8.75%. 9%
Refused
15%
Depends on Amount
41%
Cut Back Services NO New Taxes
35%
Increase
Local Taxes
Preference for Dealing With…
Fiscal Challenges
Facing the City of Clayton?
Potential Support 50%
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 5 Voter Support for a Flat Tax per parcel of property owned* (also, refer to Figures 5A through 5C)
Amount
of tax
Minimum
Voter Support
Likely
Voter Support
Potential
Voter Support
$400/parcel 12% YES 24% YES 35% YES
$300/parcel 21% YES 29.5% YES 38% YES
$200/parcel 30% YES 40% YES 51% YES
*Property Tax requires 2/3rds voter support for passage Voter Support for 6% Utility Use Tax*
(also, refer to Figure 6)
*Utility Use Tax
requires simple-majority
voter support for passage
Voter Support for Increase in the City’s Sales Tax*
(also, refer to Figures 7A and 7B)
*Sales Tax
requires 2/3rds voter
support for passage
31%
Definitely NO
21%
Definitely YES 25% Probably YES
5%
Unsure/ Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely + 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
18%
Probably NO

33.5%
Support for… 1-cent Increase in Clayton’s Sales Tax
Potential Support 46%
100% Definitely + 100% of Probably
Support for… 1/2-cent Increase in Clayton’s Sales Tax
26%
Definitely NO
20%
Probably YES
3%
Unsure/ Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely + 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
20%
Probably NO
41%
*Definitely YES at Q8.0 + 8.1
31%
Definitely YES
Potential Support 51%
100% Definitely + 100% of Probably
9%
Definitely YES
59%
Definitely NO
18%
Probably YES
2%
Unsure/ Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely + 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
12%
Probably NO
18%
Support for… 6% Utility Use Tax
Potential Support 27%
100% Definitely + 100% of Probably
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 6 Finding #7: There are four messages that are compelling to Clayton voters with regard to supporting a funding Measure that will allow City officials to address the City’s fiscal challenges.

In order to construct a Message Strategy that corresponds to the collective core values of Clayton voters when explaining the need for additional funding, six ‘arguments’ were tested.

Four of these ‘arguments’ proved to be compelling. Rank-ordered, they are: Without additional funds, the City will…
Rankordered Drivers of Support More likely to
Support
More likely to
Oppose
No
effect
Not
believable
1 Be forced to turn off a portion of the
street lights in certain neighborhoods
of the City (Figure 8B).
43% 20% 30% 7%
2 Be forced to lay off at least one police
officer (Figure 8A). 42% 24% 28% 6%
3 Be forced to cut back on the level of
services presently being provided to
Clayton residents (Figure 8C).
38% 20% 37% 5%
4 Could be forced into bankruptcy or
even taken over by the County
(Figure 8F) .
30% 20% 25% 25%
As seen in the above matrix, the last argument (the City could be forced into bankruptcy or even taken over by the County) was not seen as being believable by 25% of the respondents.

The impact of the final two arguments tested (not shown above) offset one another .

These are: Taxes are too high, Clayton residents need tax relief (refer to Figure 8D); and, Without Additional funds, the City will be forced into ‘Deficit Spending’ (refer to Figure 8E).

Thus, neither argument should be included in the explanation regarding why additional funding is needed in order to address the fiscal challenges presently facing the City.

Finding #8: A huge majority (74%) of Clayton voters
want any funding Measure that is authorized by the
local electorate to SUNSET (made to terminate) at a
specific point in time; OR, at a minimum, be brought
back to the Clayton voters for re-authorization.

As seen in the graphic at right, nearly three-quarters (74%) of Clayton voters want any funding Measure that is authorized by the 9%
Unsure/DK
/Ref
17%
Made Permanent 74%
Sunset or brought back to voters for renewal
Recommend Making Proposed Increase… Permanent, to Sunset or be brought back to Voters for Renewal?
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 7 local electorate to either be made to terminate at a specific point in time OR, at a minimum, be brought back to local voters for re-authorization.

Respondents were then asked if they
would embrace a 20-year SUNSET; asseen in the
matrix at right, 75% of local voters said NO…only
17% said YES (also, refer to Figure 10B).

However, when reduced to a 10-year
SUNSET, voter support increased to 60% (also,
refer to Figure 10C).

Finding #9: Clayton voters DO NOT support incorporating a CPI to control for normal inflation into whatever funding Measure is placed on the local ballot.

Respondents were asked, “In order to control for
normal inflation, would you support authorizing a modest annual increase in the local tax base that is based upon a CPI (not to exceed 5%), in order to KEEP PACE with the increased cost of providing services to Clayton residents from year-toyear?” As seen in the graphic at left, significantly LESS than one-third (29%) of Clayton voters would support including a CPI (based upon the Consumer Price Index); potential
voter support is 37%. Thus, incorporating a CPI into a
funding Measure placed on the local ballot is not
recommended; at least not at the present time.

Finding #10: Voter confidence in the Clayton City Council is mixed.

Finally, respondents were asked: Do you AGREE or
DISAGREE with the following statement, “Clayton’s elected officials are Completely Trustworthy?”
As seen in the graphic at right (also refer, to Figure 12), the findings are mixed: 37% of local voters express confidence in Clayton’s elected officials; 44% express some amount of apprehension. This finding implies that there exists some amount of public controversy among City Council members.

Preferred Length of Sunset
Years Voter Support
Q11.1 20 yrs. 17%
Q11.2 10 yrs. 60%
31%
Definitely NO
21%
Definitely YES 16% Probably YES
11%
Unsure/ Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely + 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
21%
Probably NO
29%
Support for…
Incorporating a CPI
Potential Support 37% 100% Definitely + 100% of Probably 7 30
19 26
18 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100 Percent 37%
Agree
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Agree Ref Disagree 44%
Disagree
Agree or Disagree… Clayton’s Elected Officials are Completely Trustworthy Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 8 Section 3.0
Recommendations
The findings from the present scientific voter survey of the Clayton electorate have led SRI to making four (4) specific recommendations.

Recommendation #1: It’s a NO-GO for placing a funding Measure on the local ballot in the November 2022 election cycle in order to address the fiscal challenges presently facing the City, which will only get worse, going forward. • Most local voters are quite happy with the quality of life they enjoy as residents of Clayton; this can be seen, empirically, through the high satisfaction scores for the services being provided to them (and their families) through the City. • Relatively few voters are aware of the fiscal challenges presently facing City officials.

Thus, the collective perception of Clayton voters, today, is “…if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that none of the three funding Measures tested in the present scientific voter survey has nearly the 2/3rds threshold of voter support needed for passage.

Recommendation #2: Develop a comprehensive Public Outreach effort to INFORM the local electorate and the community-at-large of the fiscal challenges facing the City and the consequences for NOT addressing these challenges.

As stated in Finding #3 (above), a huge ratio of Clayton voters are either NOT AWARE of, or are only somewhat aware of, the fiscal challenges facing the City in both the short-term and long-term. Equally problematic, however, is the finding that certain consequences of not addressing these fiscal challenges are not seen by a significant ratio of Clayton voters as being “believable”; e.g., the fact that this could lead to the City having to declare bankruptcy OR even taken over by the County.

Recommendation #3: The MESSAGE to constituents should be driven by the findings from present scientific voter survey.

The present voter survey was designed to identify the collective perceptions and desires of Clayton voters at multiple levels. In order to make any appeal to the community compelling (especially to local voters), these perceptions and desires need to be built into the City’s Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 9 discussion when explaining the fiscal challenges facing the City in the short-term and long-term; as well as the consequences of not addressing these challenges.

Recommendation #4: Place a funding Measure on the local ballot in the November 2024 election cycle.

Once the fiscal challenges (present and future) facing the City have been effectively shared with the Clayton electorate and the community-at-large, as well as the consequences of not addressing these challenges…City officials should place an appropriate funding Measure on the local ballot. More specifically, we recommend that City place a funding Measure on the ballot during the November 2024 election cycle.

That said, the cost of placing a funding Measure on the ballot is not insignificant. Thus, prior to placing a funding Measure on the local ballot in the November 2024 election cycle, the City should commission another scientific voter survey to confirm that local voters embrace the specific funding mechanism being placed on the ballot will; more specifically, that voter support meets (or exceeds) the 2/3rds threshold of support needed for passage.

Section 4.0
Summary Conclusion
We have truly enjoyed partnering with the City of Clayton in designing and administering the present scientific voter survey.

This report concludes with three (3) Addenda.

Addendum ‘A’ contains a comprehensive set of charts, graphs, and tables wherein the empirical findings from this scientific survey are presented in a user-friendly fashion.

Addendum ‘B’ contains a copy of the research instrument (questionnaire), wherein we report the percentages for each question in the survey.

Addendum ‘C’ contains a brief discussion of the Research Design and Methodology employed in the present study.

In addition, we have prepared and submitted a Book of Crosstabs; thus, you will be able to see differences and similarities in the collective perceptions, attitudes, and core values of Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 10 respondents in the survey, based upon such demographic breakouts as gender, level of education, household income, ethnicity, and more.

Should you wish additional input from SRI regarding the interpretation of the findings presented herein, we remain telephone close and we monitor our e-mail quite closely.

Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 11 Addendum ‘A’
Research Design
Sample size: N=307
Population surveyed: Registered Voters
Sampling Error: ±4.5 to 5.8%
Data Collection: March 21 - 28, 2022
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 12 Question 1.0 Overall, how satisfied are you with the QUALITY OF LIFE as a resident of Clayton?
33 51
10 5
0 0 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
94%
Satisfied
1%
Dissatisfied
Extremely Very Slightly Neutral Slightly Very Extremely Satisfied Unsure Dissatisfied
Figure 1A
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Satisfaction with…
Quality of Life
in the City of Clayton
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 13 Question 3.2: How satisfied are you with the level of police services presently being provided in Clayton?
58 34
5 2 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
92%
Satisfied
Extremely Slightly Neutral Slightly Extremely
Satisfied Ref Dissatisfied
3%
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with…
Police Services
Presently Being Provided
Figure 1B
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 14 Question 3.1: How satisfied are you with the park and recreation amenities presently available to local residents, including playgrounds, picnic tables, and-the-like at Clayton Community Park, The Grove Park, including the Gazebo, and North Valley Park?
55 33
7 3 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
88%
Satisfied
Extremely Slightly Neutral Slightly Extremely
Satisfied Ref Dissatisfied
5%
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with…
Park & Recreation
Amenities
Figure 1C
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 15 Question 3.: How satisfied are you with the County Library located in Clayton?
52 24 21
2 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
76%
Satisfied
Extremely Slightly Neutral Slightly Extremely
Satisfied Ref Dissatisfied
3%
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with…
County Library
Located in Clayton
Figure 1D
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 16 Question 3.3: How satisfied are you with community development (including code enforcement, planning and zoning)?
17 38
20 16
9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100 Percent
55%
Satisfied
Extremely Slightly Neutral Slightly Extremely
Satisfied Ref Dissatisfied
25%
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with…
Community Development
Figure 1E
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 17 Issues of Concern
(Front End of Mind)
Question 2.0: Is there a Local Issue you are especially concerned about today?
Top four (4) issues of concern:
38% Homeless
13% Crime
8% Affordable Housing
7% Public Safety
68%
Yes
32%
No
46%
YES
52%
NO
Figure 2
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
2%
Unsure
Refused
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 18 Question 4.0: Prior to the present survey, were you aware of the fact that the City of Clayton is facing huge fiscal challenges?
2%
Unsure
Ref
36%
Somewhat
Aware
45%
Not at all
Aware
17%
Extremely
Aware
Figure 3A
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Aware that…
The City of Clayton
Not Aware or
Only Somewhat Aware
81%
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 19 Question 4.1: Whether or not you were previously aware of the fiscal challenges that City officials will soon be facing, if you learned about these challenges through a trusted source, would that make you highly concerned, somewhat concerned, or not at all concerned about how this set of challenges will impact the well-being of you and your family members?
6%
Unsure/
Ref
50%
Somewhat
14% Concerned
Not at all
concerned
30%
Highly
Concerned
Figure 3B
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Concerned that…
The City of Clayton
Is Facing Huge Fiscal Challenges
Concerned
80%
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 20 Question 5.0: At the present time, Clayton officials are considering several ways of dealing with the fiscal challenge situation. What would your preference be regarding two of these alternatives i.e. Maintain City services and increase local taxes only enough to keep services at their current level; or, Cut back the current level of services and programs and create NO new taxes at the local level of government
9%
Refused
15%
Depends on
Amount
41%
Cut Back Services
NO New Taxes
35%
Increase
Local Taxes
Figure 4
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Preference for Dealing With…
Fiscal Challenges
Facing the City of Clayton
Potential
Support
50%
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 21

37%
Definitely
NO
12%
Definitely
YES
24%
Probably
YES
10%
Unsure/
Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely
+ 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
17%
Probably
NO
Potential
Support
36%
100% Definitely
+ 100% of Probably
24%
Support for…
$400/yr. Parcel Tax
Flat Tax on Each Parcel of Property
Question 6.0: This would be a PARCEL TAX, which is a flat tax, on each parcel of property owned as opposed to a tax based upon the assessed value of each parcel of property owned.

Figure 5A
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 22 Question 6.1: Since you’re not willing to pay $400/year, would you be willing to authorize an annual increase of $300/year in order for the City to balance the annual budget and avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level of service currently being provided?
Figure 5B
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Support for…
$300/yr. Parcel Tax
Flat Tax on Each Parcel of Property
17%
Probably
NO
36%
Definitely
NO
17%
Probably
YES
9%
Unsure/
Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely
+ 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go

29.5%
21%*
Definitely
YES
*Definitely YES at Q6.0 + 6.1
Potential
Support
38%
100% Definitely
+ 100% of Probably
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 23 Question 6.2: Since you’re not willing to pay $300/year, would you be willing to authorize an annual increase of $200/year in order for the City to balance the annual budget and avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level of service currently being provided?
Figure 5C
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Support for…
$200/yr. Parcel Tax
Flat Tax on Each Parcel of Property
14%
Probably
NO
28%
Definitely
NO
21%
Probably
YES
7%
Unsure/
Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely
+ 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go

40.5%
30%*
Definitely
YES
*Definitely YES at Q6.0 + 6.1 + 6.2
Potential
Support
51%
100% Definitely
+ 100% of Probably
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 24 9%
Definitely
YES
59%
Definitely
NO
18%
Probably
YES
2%
Unsure/
Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely
+ 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
12%
Probably
NO
18%
Question 7.0 If you were asked to vote today on a measure to create a UTILITY USE TAX of 6% of your utility bills, would you vote Definitely YES, Probably YES, Probably No or Definitely NO on such a measure? Figure 6
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Support for…
6% Utility Use Tax
Potential
Support
27%
100% Definitely
+ 100% of Probably
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 25 31%
Definitely
NO
21%
Definitely
YES
25%
Probably
YES
5%
Unsure/
Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely
+ 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
18%
Probably
NO

33.5%
Support for…
1-cent Increase in
Clayton’s Sales Tax
Question 8.0: Should the City place a one-cent Sales Tax (in the form of a TUT) on the local ballot to avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level of services presently provided to local residents and making it possible to address some of the City’s unmet needs?
Figure 7A
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Potential
Support
46%
100% Definitely
+ 100% of Probably
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 26 Support for…
1/2-cent Increase in
Clayton’s Sales Tax
Question 8.1: Should the City place a 1/2-cent Sales Tax (in the form of a TUT) on the local ballot to avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level of services presently provided to local residents and making it possible to address some of the City’s unmet needs?
Figure 7B
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
26%
Definitely
NO
20%
Probably
YES
3%
Unsure/
Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely
+ 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
20%
Probably
NO
41%
*Definitely YES at Q8.0 + 8.1
31%
Definitely
YES
Potential
Support
51%
100% Definitely
+ 100% of Probably
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 27 Question 9.1: Without these funds the City will be forced to lay off at least one police officer; thus, reducing response times and negatively impacting the level of Public Safety in Clayton in numerous ways. 18 24 28
14 10 6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
42%
Support
Much more Some more No effect Some more Much more Not
Support Oppose Believable
24%
Oppose
Impact of Arguments…
Without Additional Funds
the City will Be Forced to Lay Off
at Least One Police Officer
Figure 8A
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 28 Question 9.2: The streetlight assessment currently in place in Clayton does not fully cover the cost of operations; in fact, the rate has not been increased for the past 24 years. Furthermore, it does not include a CPI to control for normal inflation, Without additional funds, the City may be forced to turn off a portion of the street lights in certain neighborhoods of the City; thus, negatively impacting public safety.
19 24
30 8 12 7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
43%
Support
Much more Some more No effect Some more Much more Not
Support Oppose Believable
20%
Oppose
Impact of Arguments…
Without Additional Funds
Street Lights in Certain
Neighborhoods May Have to be Turned Off
Figure 8B
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 29 Question 9.3: Without these funds, the City will be forced to cut back on the level of services presently being provided to Clayton residents, citywide; thus, negatively impacting the quality of life for all Clayton residents. 17 21
37 13
7 5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
38%
Support
Much more Some more No effect Some more Much more Not
Support Oppose Believable
20%
Oppose
Impact of Arguments…
Without Additional Funds
City Will be Forced to Cut Back on the
Level of Services presently being Provided
Figure 8C
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 30 Question 9.4: Taxes are simply too high. Clayton residents need tax relief. 14 12
45 14
10 5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
26%
Support
Much more Some more No effect Some more Much more Not
Support Oppose Believable
24%
Oppose
Impact of Arguments…
Taxes Are TOO High
Clayton Residents NEED TAX RELIEF
Figure 8D
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 31 Question 9.5: Without the revenues from the proposed funding Measure, the City will be forced into ‘deficit spending’ which means that the City will have to take money out of its reserves to cover operating costs, instead of using these monies as intended for other needs.
8 19
42 18
10 3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
27%
Support
Much more Some more No effect Some more Much more Not
Support Oppose Believable
28%
Oppose
Impact of Arguments…
Without Additional Funds
City Will be Forced into ‘Deficit Spending’
Figure 8E
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 32 Question 9.6: Without additional funding, the City could be forced into bankruptcy; or even be taken over by Contra Costa County.

Impact of Arguments…
Without Additional Funds
The City Could be Forced Into Bankruptcy
Figure 8F
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
17 13
25 7
13 25
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 Percent
30%
Support
Much more Some more No effect Some more Much more Not
Support Oppose Believable
20%
Oppose
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 33 24%
Definitely
NO
17%
Definitely
YES
37%
Probably
YES
6%
Unsure/
Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely
+ 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
16%
Probably
NO

35.5%
Support for…
Increase in Local Tax Base

AFTER ARGUMENTS
Question 10.0: Now that you have heard several arguments in SUPPORT of, and in OPPOSITION to, the notion of authorizing an increase in the local tax base in order to avoid having to make serious cutbacks in services presently being provided to Clayton residents, and assuming the amount of increase does NOT exceed your THRESHOLD of willingness to pay; would you vote YES or NO on such a funding measure?
Figure 9
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Potential
Support
54% 100% Definitely
+ 100% of Probably
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 34 Question 11.0 Because the need for City services and the City’s operating costs will continue into the foreseeable future, would you recommend making the proposed increase in the local tax base, if authorized by Clayton voters, PERMANENT; or would you want the increase to ‘Sunset” in a specific number of years OR be brought back to local voters to be RENEWED?
9%
Unsure/DK
/Ref
17%
Made
Permanent 74%
Sunset or
brought
back to
voters for
renewal
Recommend Making Proposed Increase…
Permanent, to Sunset or be
brought back to Voters for Renewal
Figure 10A
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 35 Question 11.1 Since you’re not willing to support keeping this increase in the local tax base in place PERMANENTLY would you be willing to keep it in place for 20 years; then have it terminate OR be brought back to local voters for renewal?
8%
Unsure/DK
/Ref
17%
20 years
75%
NO
20 Years
Support Making Proposed Increase…
Sunset in 20 Years
Figure 10B
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 36 Question 11.2 Since you’re not willing to support keeping this increase in the local tax base for 20 Years, would you be willing to keep it in place for 10 years; then have it terminate OR be brought back to local voters for renewal?
3%
Unsure/DK
/Ref
43%
10 years 54%
NO
10 Years
Support Making Proposed Increase…
Sunset in 10 Years
Figure 10C
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
43% + 17% for
20-yr Sunset (Q11.1) =
60% voter support
for 10-yr. Sunset
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 37 31%
Definitely
NO
21%
Definitely
YES
16%
Probably
YES
11%
Unsure/
Ref
Likely Support
100% Definitely
+ 50% Probably
SRI’s Go, No-Go
21%
Probably
NO
29%
Support for…
Incorporating a CPI
Question 12.1: In order to control for normal inflation, would you support authorizing a modest annual increase in the local tax base that is based upon a CPI (not to exceed 5%), in order to KEEP PACE with the increased cost of providing services to Clayton residents from year-to-year? Figure 11
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Potential
Support
37% 100% Definitely
+ 100% of Probably
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 38 Question 13.0: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the following statement, “Clayton’s elected officials are Completely trustworthy? 7 30
19 26
18 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100 Percent
37%
Agree
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Agree Ref Disagree
44%
Disagree
Agree or Disagree…
Clayton’s Elected Officials
are Completely Trustworthy
Figure 12
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 39 Figure 13
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022

1. NO-GO for placing funding measure on
the November 2022 ballot.

2. Develop a comprehensive Public Outreach
effort to INFORM the local electorate and
the community-at-large regarding the
fiscal challenges facing the City and the
consequences for NOT addressing these
challenges.

3. The MESSAGE should be driven by
findings from present scientific voter
survey.

4. Place a funding Measure on the local
ballot in the November 2024 election
cycle.

Recommendations
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 40 Demographics
of Survey Respondents
Length of Residency
0 to 5 years 24%
6 to 10 16%
11 to 25 27%
Over 25 years 33%
Age
18 to 30 1%
31 to 40 19%
41 to 50 17%
51 to 65 28%
Over 65 32%
Refused 3%
Household Income
Under $35,000 0%
$35,001 to $50,000 7%
$50,001 to $75,000 12%
$75,001 to $100,000 12%
Over $100,000 58%
Refused 11%
Education
Less than High School 1%
High School/Trade School 6%
Some College 23%
College Graduate 39%
Graduate/Prof. School 29%
Refused 2%
Gender
Male 48%
Female 52%
Ideology
Liberal 26%
Progressive 31%
Moderate 9%
Conservative 25%
Refused 9%
Home Ownership
Own 94%
Rent 5%
Refused 1%
# of Children Under 18
None 68%
One 10%
Two 19%
Three or more 2%
Refused 1%
Figure 14A
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 41 Area if Residence
Northern Clayton 30%
Central Clayton 12%
Town Center 24%
Southern Clayton 13%
East 1%
West 4%
Other 9%
Refused 7%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 71%
Hispanic/Latino 4%
African American/Black 4%
Native American/Alaskan 0%
Native Hawaiian & other
Pacific Islander 0%
Asian 1%
Other 15%
Refused 5%
Figure 14B
Tax Feasibility Study - City of Clayton
March 2022
Demographics
of Survey Respondents
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 42 Addendum ‘B’
City of Clayton

FUNDING FEASIBILITY SURVEY
March 2022
(Local Electorate)
N=300
Hello. My name is __ and I am with the SURVEY RESEARCH INSTITUTE. We are conducting a survey for the City of Clayton. City officials are in the midst of making a series of decisions that will impact the level of services presently being provided to Clayton residents by or through the City; and, would like to have input from local residents BEFORE making these decisions. This survey is not part of any political campaign; and, your responses to our questions will remain totally confidential. Would you kindly take a few minutes to respond to our questionnaire?
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: If respondent asks, "How long will the survey take?" Answer: “About 15 minutes"
Issues of Concern to Clayton Voters

1.0 Overall, how satisfied are you with the QUALITY OF LIFE as a resident of Clayton? Would you say you are…
Extremely Very Only slightly Neutral/ Slightly Very Extremely Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Unsure Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 33% 51% 10% 5% 0% 0% 1%

2.0 Is there a Local Issue you are especially concerned about today? 46% YES …"What would that be?”
23% Housing
5% Raising taxes
4% Homelessness
4% Schools
10% Misc: Water shortage; Wants Clayton to stay small, quiet and safe; Seems to be moving away from moderate to liberal; Racist people in town; Police services; Not very diverse community; Lake front has no water; Keller Ridge road has bad triangles and if there were a fire it would impede the escape route; City Council not very good at managing money; Budget; Not much diversity 52% NO
2% Unsure/Don't know/Neutral/Refused
Satisfaction Scores for Certain Public Services
NOTE TO SURVEYORS: ROTATE the order in which you read the list of local concerns, 4.1 through 4.8

3.0 I would like to ask you how satisfied you are with certain services and amenities presently being provided to Clayton residents by or through the City.

3.1 How satisfied are you with the park and recreation amenities presently available to local residents, including playgrounds, picnic tables, and-the-like at Clayton Community Park, The Grove Park, including the Gazebo, and North Valley Park?
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 43 Extremely Somewhat Neutral/Unsure Somewhat Extremely Refused Satisfied Satisfied [DO NOT read] Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 55% 33% 6% 3% 2% 1%

3.2 How satisfied are you with the level of police services presently being provided in Clayton? Extremely Somewhat Neutral/Unsure Somewhat Extremely Refused Satisfied Satisfied [DO NOT read] Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 58% 34% 5% 2% 1% 0%

3.3 How satisfied are you with community development (including code enforcement, planning and zoning)? Extremely Somewhat Neutral/Unsure Somewhat Extremely Refused Satisfied Satisfied [DO NOT read] Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 17% 38% 17% 16% 9% 3%

3.4 How satisfied are you with the County Library located in Clayton? Extremely Somewhat Neutral/Unsure Somewhat Extremely Refused Satisfied Satisfied [DO NOT read] Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 52% 24% 21% 2% 1% 0%
Level of Awareness re: Challenges presently facing the City

4.0 Until now, the City of Clayton has been able to cover the City’s operating expenses, including providing services to constituents that ensure a high quality of life for all Clayton residents. Due to unforeseen circumstances, such as impacts from the Covid-19 Pandemic, the increasing cost of fuel and electricity, among other factors – if nothing is done to remedy the situation…beginning fiscal year 2023, the City will enter a mode of deficit spending. More specifically, at this point, the City could be faced with an annual shortfall of between four hundred thousand to six hundred thousand dollars.

Prior to the present survey, were you aware of the fact that the City of Clayton is facing huge fiscal challenges? And, would that be…
17% Extremely aware, or only...
36% Somewhat aware, or…
45% Not at all aware of this fact?
2% DK/unsure/Refused

4.1 Whether or not you were previously aware of the fiscal challenges that City officials will soon be facing, if you learned about these challenges through a trusted source, would that make you highly concerned, somewhat concerned, or not at all concerned about how this set of challenges will impact the well-being of you and your family members?
30% Highly concerned
50% Somewhat concerned
14% Not at all concerned
6% DK/unsure/Refused
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 44 BENCHMARK Support for Increasing Local Tax Base

5.0 At the present time, Clayton officials are considering several ways of dealing with this difficult situation. I would like to ask you about your preferences regarding two of these. Would you prefer:
35% Maintaining City services at their current level and increasing local taxes only enough to pay for the same level of programs and services that are presently being provided to local residents? Or, do you prefer…
41% Cutting back the current level of City services and programs, thereby, creating NO new taxes at the local level of government…even if this means forcing City officials into making significant cutbacks in the level of services presently being provided to Clayton residents, such as reducing the number of sworn police officers; cutting back expenses in maintaining City parks; or reducing the number of hours City Hall is open to the public; among other services?
15% Depends on the amount of the additional tax
9% Refused
Voter support for 1ST of three Funding Mechanisms: Increase Property Tax

6.0 The first option is to ask Clayton voters to authorize an increase the amount of their property tax by $400, per year, per parcel of property owned, which amounts to approximately $33 per month This would provide unrestricted funds to balance the City’s annual budget; plus, address unmet needs for additional public safety, park maintenance, sustainability and staff support.

The specific funding mechanism would be a PARCEL TAX, which is a flat tax on each parcel of property owned as opposed to a tax based upon the assessed value of each parcel of property owned.

My question is this. If you were asked to vote today on such a funding measure, would you vote YES or NO? And, would that be…
12% Definitely YES [SKIP to Q7.0]
24% Probably YES [Go on to Q6.1]
9% Unsure/DK [Skip to Q6.1]
17% Probably NO [Skip to Q6.1]
37% Definitely NO [Skip to Q6.1]
1% Refused [SKIP to Q7.0]

6.1 Since you’re not willing to pay $400 per year (or about $33 per month) to allow City officials to balance the City’s annual budget and address unmet needs, would you be willing to authorize an annual increase of $300 (or $25 per month) per parcel of property owned, in order for the City to balance the City’s annual budget and avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level services presently being provided to Clayton residents? And, would that be…
12% Definitely YES at Q6.0
9% Definitely YES [SKIP to Q7.0]
17% Probably YES [Go on to Q6.2]
9% Unsure/DK [Skip to Q6.2]
17% Probably NO [Skip to Q6.2]
36% Definitely NO [Skip to Q6.2]
0% Refused [SKIP to Q7.0]
Likely Support: 24%
SRI’s Go/No-Go Model:
100% Definitely Yes + 50% Probably Yes
Potential Support
36%
100% Definitely Yes + 100% Probably Yes
Likely Support: 29.5%
SRI’s Go/No-Go Model:
100% Definitely Yes + 50% Probably Yes
Potential Support
38%
100% Definitely Yes + 100% Probably Yes

Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 45

6.2 Since you’re not willing to pay $300 per year (which is approximately $25 per month) to allow City officials to balance the City’s annual budget, would you be willing to authorize an annual increase of $200 (or $17per month) per parcel of property owned, in order for the City to avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level of services presently being provided to Clayton residents? And, would that be…
21% Definitely YES at Q6.0 & 6.1
9% Definitely YES
21% Probably YES
7% Unsure/DK
14% Probably NO
28% Definitely NO
0% Refused
Voter support for 2nd of three Funding Mechanisms: Utility Use Tax

7.0 Another approach to addressing the financial crisis presently facing City officials is to ask Clayton voters to authorize a UTILITY USE TAX, wherein BOTH residents and local businesses would pay an additional 6% tax on their monthly utility bills, such as gas & electric and telecommunications; but, NOT on water nor solid waste. This tax would not only be paid by local property residents, but by local businesses, as well.

The monies from this funding mechanism would be placed into the City’s General Fund, thus, as with a parcel tax, making it possible for City officials to direct monies wherever they are needed, for example, used to maintain the present level of police protection in the City of Clayton, for street maintenance, among other critical services.

If you were asked to vote today on a measure to create a UTILITY USE TAX of 6% of your utility bills, would you definitely vote YES, probably vote YES, probably vote NO; or definitely vote NO on such a measure?
Note to surveyors: if the respondent asks for clarification about what the 6% increase in utility use tax represents, the answer is: The amount of the increase would be 6% of the person’s monthly utility bill; therefore, the amount of increase would depend upon how much of the respective utility is consumed in any given month.
9% Definitely YES
18% Probably YES
2% Unsure/DK
12% Probably NO
59% Definitely NO
0% Refused
Likely Support: 40.5%
SRI’s Go/No-Go Model:
100% Definitely Yes + 50% Probably Yes
Potential Support
51%
100% Definitely Yes + 100% Probably Yes
Likely Support: 18%
SRI’s Go/No-Go Model:
100% Definitely Yes + 50% Probably Yes
Potential Support
27%
100% Definitely Yes + 100% Probably Yes
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 46 Voter support for 3rd of three Funding Mechanisms: Sales Tax (TUT)

8.0 The third funding mechanism under consideration is to ask Clayton voters to authorize a 1-cent increase in Clayton’s Sales Tax; more specifically, a one-cent Transaction and Use Tax (referred to as a TUT). A TUT would not only apply to purchases made in the City of Clayton, but it generates revenue through purchases made outside the City for such large personal property as vehicles and boats. A onecent TUT would generate approximately $800,000 annually.

The current Sales Tax in Clayton is 8.75%, of which the City receives a 1% share, generating approximately $520,000 annually. The City does not have a local sales tax in place, today; thus, a onecent TUT (if authorized by the Clayton electorate) will increase the local sales tax to 9.75%. My question is this…
Should the City place a one-cent Sales Tax (in the form of a TUT) on the local ballot to avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level of services presently being provided to local residents and making it possible to address some of the City’s unmet needs, would you vote YES or NO? And, would that be… 21% Definitely YES [SKIP to Q9.0]
25% Probably YES [ASK Q8.1]
5% Unsure/DK [ASK Q8.1]
18% Probably NO [ASK Q8.1]
31% Definitely NO [ASK Q8.1]
0% Refused

8.1 Since you DO NOT support authorizing a one-cent increase in the City’s sales tax, would you be willing to vote to authorize a ½-cent TUT in order for the City to avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level of services presently being provided to Clayton residents. A quarter-cent TUT would generate approximately $400,000 annually; it would increase the Sales Tax in Clayton to from 8.75% to 9.25%. Thus, my question is…
Should the City place a half-cent Sales Tax (in the form of a TUT) on the local ballot to avoid having to make significant cutbacks in the level of services presently being provided to local residents, would you vote YES or NO? And, would that be…
21% Definitely YES at Q8.0
10% Definitely YES
20% Probably YES
3% Unsure/DK
20% Probably NO
26% Definitely NO
0% Refused
‘Test’ Arguments in Support of, and Opposed to, Increases Local Tax Base NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: ROTATE the order in which you read the list of local concerns, 9.1 through

9.6 9.0 I am now going to read several arguments that might be offered either for or against supporting one of the three initiatives presently under consideration in order to allow City officials to balance the City’s Likely Support: 33.5%
SRI’s Go/No-Go Model:
100% Definitely Yes + 50% Probably Yes
Potential Support
46%
100% Definitely Yes + 100% Probably Yes
Likely Support: 41%
SRI’s Go/No-Go Model:
100% Definitely Yes + 50% Probably Yes
Potential Support
51%
100% Definitely Yes + 100% Probably Yes
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 47 annual budget, going forward; thus, avoid having to make cutbacks to the services presently being provided to Clayton residents. After I read each one, please tell me, if you heard the statement from a trusted source, would you be more likely to support or more likely to oppose such a funding measure...or would you say the argument would have no impact on your decision of how to vote, OR is the statement NOT believable?
Here is the first argument:

9.1 Without these funds, the City will be forced to lay off at least one police officer; thus, reducing response times and negatively impacting the level of Public Safety in Clayton in numerous other ways.

Would hearing this argument from someone you trust make you more likely to SUPPORT or OPPOSE the proposed funding Measure; OR would it have NO IMPACT on how you would vote; OR is it NOT BELIEVABLE? Specifically, would this argument make you…
MUCH more likely SOMEWHAT more likely no effect on me. SOMEWHAT more likely MUCH more likely NOT Unsure/DK to support to support doesn't matter to oppose to oppose believable Refused 18% 24% 26% 14% 10% 6% 2%

9.2 The streetlight assessment currently in place in Clayton does not fully cover the cost of operations; in fact, the rate has not been increased for the past 24 years. Furthermore, it does not include a CPI to control for normal inflation. Therefore, without additional funds, the City may be forced to turn off a portion of street lights in certain neighborhoods of the City; thus, negatively impacting public safety. Would this argument make you… MUCH more likely SOMEWHAT more likely no effect on me. SOMEWHAT more likely MUCH more likely NOT Unsure/DK to support to support doesn't matter to oppose to oppose believable Refused 19% 24% 29% 8% 12% 7% 1%

9.3 Without these funds, the City will be forced to cut back on the level of services presently being provided to Clayton residents, citywide; thus, negatively impacting the quality of life for all Clayton residents.

Would this argument make you…
MUCH more likely SOMEWHAT more likely no effect on me. SOMEWHAT more likely MUCH more likely NOT Unsure/DK to support to support doesn't matter to oppose to oppose believable Refused 17% 21% 35% 13% 7% 5% 2%

9.4 Taxes are simply too high. Clayton residents need tax relief. Would this argument make you… MUCH more likely SOMEWHAT more likely no effect on me. SOMEWHAT more likely MUCH more likely NOT Unsure/DK to support to support doesn't matter to oppose to oppose believable Refused 14% 12% 39% 14% 10% 5% 6%

9.5 Without the revenues from the proposed funding Measure, the City will be forced into “deficit spending”, which means that the City will have to take money out of its reserves to cover operating costs, instead of using these monies as intended for other needs. Would hearing this argument from someone you trust make you...

MUCH more likely SOMEWHAT more likely no effect on me. SOMEWHAT more likely MUCH more likely NOT Unsure/DK to support to support doesn't matter to oppose to oppose believable Refused 8% 19% 37% 18% 10% 3% 5%

9.6 Without additional funding, the City could be forced into bankruptcy; or even be taken over by Contra Costa County. Would this argument make you…
MUCH more likely SOMEWHAT more likely no effect on me. SOMEWHAT more likely MUCH more likely NOT Unsure/DK to support to support doesn't matter to oppose to oppose believable Refused 17% 13% 20% 7% 13% 25% 5%
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 48 Voter support AFTER hearing ‘Arguments’

10.0 Now that you have heard several arguments in SUPPORT of, and in OPPOSITION to, the notion of authorizing an increase in the local tax base in order to avoid having to make serious cutbacks in services presently being provided to Clayton residents, and assuming the amount of increase does NOT exceed your THRESHOLD of willingness to pay; would you vote YES or NO on such a funding Measure, and would that be... 17% Definitely YES
37% Probably YES
5% Unsure/DK
16% Probably NO
24% Definitely NO
1% Refused
Perpetuity vs. need for ‘Sunset’ Clause

11.0 Because the need for City services and the City’s operating costs will continue into the foreseeable future, would you recommend making the proposed increase in the local tax base, if authorized by Clayton voters, PERMANENT; or, would you want the increase to ‘Sunset’ (meaning terminate) in a specific number of years OR be brought back to local voters to be RENEWED?
17% The increase in the local tax base, if authorized by Clayton voters, should be PERMANENT [SKIP to Q12.0]
74% The increase in the local tax base, if authorized by Clayton voters, should be made to ‘Sunset’ (meaning TERMINATE) in a specific number of years OR be brought back to local voters to be RENEWED[Go On to question11.1]
5% Unsure/Don't know/Neutral [Go On to question 11.1]
4% Refused [SKIP to question 12.0]

11.1 Since you’re not willing to support keeping this increase in the local tax base in place PERMANENTLY, would you be willing to keep it in place for 20 years; then have it terminate OR be brought back to local voters for renewal?
17% Vote YES for a 20-year Sunset clause [SKIP to question 12.0] 75% Vote NO for a 20-year Sunset clause [Go On to question

11.2]
6% Unsure/Don't know/Neutral [DO NOT READ this option] [Go On to question

11.2]
2% Refused [SKIP to question 12.0]

11.2 Since you’re not willing to support keeping increase in the local tax base for 20 years, would you be willing to keep it in place for 10 years; then have it terminate OR be brought back to local voters for renewal? 43% Vote YES for a 10-year Sunset clause
54% Vote NO for a 10-year Sunset clause
3% Unsure/Don't know/Neutral [DO NOT READ this option]
0% Refused
Likely Support: 35.5%
SRI’s Go/No-Go Model:
100% Definitely Yes + 50% Probably Yes
Potential Support
54%
100% Definitely Yes + 100% Probably Yes

Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 49 Testing feasibility of incorporating a CPI

12.0 As noted a few moments ago, due to normal inflation, the cost of providing City services for Clayton residents increases each and every year. Thus, unless there is a mechanism in place to provide additional income to control for normal inflation, the City will be faced with asking local voters for another increase in local taxes, or making cutbacks,
in the relatively near future.

The most common way to address this reality is to ask voters to authorize an annual index of change, also referred to as a CPI or CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, not to exceed 5% per year. So, my question is this...

12.1 In order to control for normal inflation, would you support authorizing a modest annual increase in the local tax base that is based upon a CPI (not to exceed 5%), in order to KEEP PACE with the increased cost of providing City services to Clayton residents from year-to-year. And, would your answer be... 21% Definitely YES
16% Probably YES
9% Unsure/DK
21% Probably NO
31% Definitely NO
2% Refused
Level of TRUST in local elected officials

13.0 Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the following statement, “Clayton’s elected officials are
completely trustworthy”; and, would that be…
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Refused
Agree Agree (DO NOT read) Disagree Disagree (DO NOT read) 7% 30% 15% 26% 18% 4%
Demographics
Finally, I have a few brief questions about you. I will read several response categories. Please tell me when I read the category that applies to you.

14.0 Where do you reside in Clayton?
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: Allow respondent to answer; if they are unclear, read the four sections of
the City and ask the respondent if any of these are correct. 30% Northern Clayton
12% Central Clayton
24% Town Center
13% Southern Clayton
1% East side
4% West side
Likely Support: 29%
SRI’s Go/No-Go Model:
100% Definitely Yes + 50% Probably Yes
Potential Support
37%
100% Definitely Yes + 100% Probably Yes
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 50 9% Other
7% Refused [Do not read this option]

15.0 Do you own or rent your home?
94% Own
5% Rent
1% Refused

16.0 How long have you lived in Clayton?
24% 0 to 5 years
16% 6 to 10 years
27% 11 to 25 years
33% Over 25 years

17.0 How many school-age children do you have living at home under the age of 18? 68% None
10% One
19% Two
2% Three or more
1% Refused [Do not read this option]

18.0 How many years of school have you completed?
1% less than High School
6% High School graduate (or Trade School)
23% Some college
39% College graduate
29% Graduate school, Professional school
2% Refused [Do not read this option]

19.0 Using the traditional political labels would you describe yourself as liberal, progressive, moderate, or conservative?
26% Liberal
31% Progressive
9% Moderate
25% Conservative
9% Refused [Do not read this option]

20.0 Into what range does your annual household income fall? 0% under $25,000
7% between $25,000 and $50,000
12% between $50,000 and $75,000
12% between $75,000 and $100,000
58% over $100,000
11% Refused [Do not read this option]
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 51

21.0 With respect to age, in which of the following categories do you fall? 1% 18 to 30 years
19% 31 to 40 years
17% 41 to 50 years
28% 51 to 65 years
32% Over 65 year
3% Refused [Do not read this option

22.0 What is your ethnic background?
71% White or Caucasian
4% Hispanic/Latino
4% African American or Black
0% Native American/Alaskan Native
0% Native Hawaiian & other Pacific Islander
1% Asian
15% Other
5% Refused [Do not read this option]

23.0 Gender of respondent?
52% Female
48% Male
Thank the interviewee for participating in the survey and politely say "Good-bye." March 2022
Voter support for a funding Measure to address the City’s fiscal challenges March 2022 Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 52 Addendum ‘C’
Research Design and Methodology
The present research effort adheres strictly to “The Scientific Method,” as do all SRI studies.

The telephone survey was comprised of N=307 completed interviews with registered voters throughout the City of Clayton, California. At 95% confidence level, an N≈300 yields sampling error of ±4.5% to 5.8%.

Thus, the “findings” from the present research effort are highly “representative” of the population from which the sample was drawn.

By working closely with the City Manager, Reina Schwartz, SRI researchers were able to create a research instrument (questionnaire) tailored to the needs and expectations of City officials.
2 The research instrument was then “pre-tested” by completing 20 interviews; appropriate adjustments were made; then, the survey was entered into the field, full force. Of course, special care was taken to ensure that appropriate measurement “scales” were employed in order to maximize both the reliability and validity of the responses.

Data collection continued from March 21 through 28, 2022. After the data were gathered, they were analyzed using a statistical package called SPSS, which accommodates the application of both descriptive and advanced statistical analyses. We then created the appropriate graphs, charts, and tables and DEBRIEFED the Client; finally, we prepared a Final Report (the present document) for use by the Client.

Should additional analysis and/or interpretation of the “findings” be desired by the Client, SRI will happily do so and in a timely fashion.
2 Addendum ‘B’ contains the final research instrument (questionnaire) showing percentages for each of the questions incorporated into the study.