The Clayton City council this week voted to terminate a long-standing agreement with Clayton Business Community Association (CBCA).
The agreement, which started in 2008, has to do with events such as the Art & Wine festival, Christmas Tree Lighting, Okotoberfest and the BBQ Cookoff.
The purpose of the agreement was to streamline the waiver and grant process for the events.
Clayton Mayor Jeff Wan asked that this item be placed on the City Council agenda for the purpose of discussing the merits of continuing this agreement.
Wan wanted to know if there is full cost recovery for services and facilities provided by the City, whether taxpayers funds are being used to subsidize the events associated with this agreement and this organization, and whether the treatment of this group is similar to other groups or organizations.
The agreement between the two parties did have a 60-day termination clause.
This action came as a surprise to many. One member from the public argued no evidence was brought forward in the staff report as to why this agreement should be terminated. He said this would possibly jeopardize the most popular events in Clayton that generate revenue that’s put back into the community.
Mayor Wan said this item was brought forward in an effort to enhance fiscal sustainability. He said he didn’t want to raise taxes in the city, and wanted to focus on cost reduction. Wan said when it comes to fee structures, this agreement stood out about the rest. He said it’s routine for cities to charge a fee for the use of its facilities, and Clayton is no different. He said the CBCA is a fantastic organization, but the organization needs to pay their fair share. He said they need to pay for the cost to rent city facilities, like many other groups do. Wan said about $25,000 a year in fees is waived for the CBCA.
After two hours of discussion, including some heated public comment, the council voted 3-1 to terminate the agreement, starting in July of 2023. Jeff Wan, Kim Trupiano and Jim Diaz voted in favor of the termination, and Peter Cloven voted no. Holly Tillman was not present.
After the vote, members of the audience started screaming at the council before council moved on to the next item.
To view the full agreement between the two parties, click HERE, then scroll to page 14.
To view the video of the meeting, click HERE, then click on “Action Items”
30 comments
My knee jerk was so much for team work, but then….
The CBCA’ s BBQ Cook-Off has become a less than user friendly and the CBCA isn’t responsive to email inquiries.
So, maybe the decision does have some merit?????
What do you mean, “less than user friendly?”
You should add “unsubstantiated” to Wan’s claims. The $25k number was pulled out of thin air and is meaningless. He provided no facts (and the facts are completely against him). He is a liar. He messed up…this was the wrong way to lead a City. Watch the 9/21/2021 City Council meeting to find out that he really thinks the only way to raise funds is a parcel tax.
https://taxfoundation.org/tax-basics/user-fee/#:~:text=A%20user%20fee%20is%20a,good%20or%20service%20being%20provided.
User fees are intended to recover the costs they impose on a city/county/etc. They’re not a way to raise money, they’re just to offset costs.
My main concern in the way this is being described by the parties in favor of renegotiating the agreement is that they make it sound like the CBCA isn’t covering the costs they incur — something flatly untrue. In talking with many residents, they were under the impression that ALL fees are waived (also not true). I’m happy to see this article includes links to the exact agreement.
The city used to have to process multiple permits which were basically the same information. They got together with the CBCA to save time and effort by filling out fewer permit applications. According to the concept of user fees, they should pay less. This is a great example of cutting red tape. Less government interference. Lower use taxes.
The CBCA still pays dollar for dollar any police or maintenance crew time (or overtime), billed straight from the time cards. Doesn’t matter if it’s 15 years old. The agreement matches the charge to CBCA to the city’s costs. And the permit fees paid are at current rates. Some of the waived fees don’t even apply, like the rental of The Grove Park (except perhaps for the BBQ event).
Updating this agreement won’t meaningfully change the amount brought into city coffers. It won’t be $25k and it most definitely won’t fix the budget deficit. Nor should it. That’s what property, parcel and special district taxes are for. Not permit fees.
So CBCA doesn’t pay anything to use City property at all? They get it for free?
I believe that is incorrect
What does city get when events are not held ? ? ?
All to profit from festivals after paying costs and fees are put back into the community in grants, scholarships, donations to schools, police department, the city, just to name a few would go away. CBCA pays the fees to the city per the agreement. No festivals would mean no money to give to the community besides the fact the events that thousands have grown to love would stop.
As a Clinical Professor of Law and avid advocate for civil rights, the CBCA is making an egregious mistake in the way they are handling their fee schedule with the City of Clayton. As a matter of law and fairness, every non-profit entity should pay the same amount. Negotiating a fee schedule with the city is illegal and unethical.
This is ridiculous! The CBCA has nothing to gain for themselves. Their sole mission is to make the City of Clayton a better place to live — and to invite others, from the surrounding community, to come to Clayton for the events they run (Art & Wine Festival, BBQ & Brews Festival, Oktoberfest, and more). They help coordinate bocce leagues and give so much back to the community through thousands of volunteer hours!
Mayor Wan sounds petty as if the city was getting cheated out of something. How shortsighted of him! $25,000 of supposed fees!? Sure, maybe, technically, but what would those fees be for but events that serve the community? What if the CBCA decides to pack up and goes home and stops running all the community-promoting events? How much of that $25,000 would be lost to the city coffers and ill will of the people?
This is a bad decision.
On the surface it sounds right – maybe $25K isn’t the right number but yes, other cities’ agencies pay the fees as well.
CBCA pays fees to the city for the permit’s . Every penny raised by CBCA goes back to Clayton for Scholarships, Education, Monies to non profits such as Historical Society, AAUW, also the Police, computers for City staff, the Fourth Prade, Christmas decorations and much more. Many hours of volunteer effort to put on these events. Total non-profit. Mayor Wan could have said he wanted to restructure the permit agreement with CBCA instead of giving notice three days before the city council meeting to terminate agreement in place. CBCA does not fund the city, whatever comes out of fees is less for the good of Clayton in the way of monies going back to Non-Profits, Education, the community at large. The fees are to pay for administrative hours to generate permit does not cover Clayton budget woes. Very political, when asked during council meeting by another council member show the numbers, the figures to support his decision to terminate agreement he could not.
Interesting that the Council wants efficiency and cost savings. If that is really a desire, why scratch an existing agreement and require a completely new agreement, which costs staff time, legal costs, etc. They could have simply amended the agreement with additional fees and save money and drive efficiency.
At the very least a full and complete economic analysis should be worked out and presented before this moves forward. That’s not how city government business should be conducted. It should be tabled until it is properly analyzed and all council members are present for a vote.
Ok so is everyone here now saying CBCA will stop doing events because they will have to pay for using the city? So it’s either free or no events? From the fee schedule it looks like about $7,500 more per event. Am I to understand that would bankrupt CBCA? How much revenue did CBCA do last year? How much did each event net to CBCA? I see the CBCA book keeper has made some comments, could we have that information? It just sounds a little extreme that paying the city something to use city property is such a horrible thing that would make CBCA decide not to do events at all. Is this solely about it has to be free or else??
It’s not free right now. As for whether this would cause the CBCA to move the event, the question really can’t even be answered until it is known what the city is going to ask for. I am tempted to say it won’t be big enough to matter, but this council continues to surprise.
I’m just asking questions but no one seems to answer my questions about revenue and net to CBCA. Maybe you can answer this question. Does CBCA pay to use city property? According to the agreement that is specifically waived. So that means CBCA uses city property for free. And you seem to know something about how significant an additional cost this would be and say it won’t be enough to cause CBCA to move the events. But I’ve read and heard several comments, including from the CBCA book keeper right here that this will cause ALL events to stop. That just seems incredulous. . The fee schedule is right here and I was able to figure out it would be about $7500 more. Is this really going to cause CBCA to stop doing ALL events? Or is it that CBCA absolutely demands to use city property for free and if not they will cancel all events?
Every little bit helps. Here is some unwanted advice for Carl Wolfe, President of the CBCA, and Peter Cloven, Councilperson: If you really believed in bringing the community together, promoting council harmony, inclusiveness, diversity, and transparency, then “Do the Right Thing” and pay your fair share. A donation is a donation and should not be exchanged for some special rental rate to use downtown Clayton. Money given to the City of Clayton should be done so without any promise or consideration of receiving special treatment or a discount rate. Anything other than that would be considered a “bribe.”
It was mentioned, stop exchanging ‘fee waivers’ for ‘donations’. Makes sense. Start a new negotiation down the road, no special treatment to any entity.
Absolutely ridiculous. Should not have terminated. Maybe renegotiate? The CBCA brings a lot of value to Clayton. Shame on Mayor Wan. He has no facts, figures anything! The $25,000 was completely arbitrary. Imagine showing up to your job and wanting
To change policy but not having anything to back up your claims! Very shortsighted
Basic civics. Public property (like sidewalks, streets) is used daily by the public for free. Do you stop every day and put money in a slot to walk down Center Street to pay for the wear and tear? No. You don’t have to apply for a permit. In some states like Texas, it’s actually illegal to charge members of the public for something already paid for completely with taxes (they used this to shoot down a bunch of proposed toll roads in Dallas).
But if you’d like to say it a different way, the CBCA is primarily made up of residents of Clayton, and we’ve paid the city taxes to cover the wear and tear on the sidewalks. So indirectly, members of the organization have paid for the use of the public property.
What was your itemization that added up to $7,500?
All cities charge for usage of property for events. The fee schedule is public and you can calculate the fees that would apply now. Canceling this contract means that CBCA reverts to the Master Fee Schedule which I see was included in the agenda. The fees are reasonable. And you said you believe it won’t be enough to make CBCA cancel all events. I still don’t have an answer about CBCA revenues and net and that is making question why no one will answer. The reaction from everyone’s comments appear unreasonable. Again, the book keeper is stating that ALL events will be canceled because of this. Several people have commented the same. Does that seem reasonable?
Just a thought … so will the effect of terminating the agreement (and whatever the future process willl be) essentially slow down the the ability to bring the festivals, etc to fruition this year?
Seems like a lot of whining about nothing. CBCA, pay the city the cost of putting on your events and move on. Quit whining.
@Moveon
Your post is 100% correct…..tons of whining; however, I don’t believe it has anything to do with the CBCA but rather everything to do with losing the last election. There were so many personal attacks on Mayor Wan, with one woman attendee actually saying something to the effect that “I volunteer and you don’t”. That remark was so ridiculous, as that woman has no idea what the Mayor does with all of his time. In a nutshell, there’s a 15-year-old contract that isn’t copacetic. You don’t renew it as some have suggested, you terminate it and create a new one. No one should have a problem with that, not even members of the CBCA. And after the vote was completed with the meeting still not over, attendees got out of their seats, loitered about and disrupted everything until a policeman finally had to step in. All in all, it was a pathetic display by the “Stop Asian Hate”, “Clayton Is Too Beautiful For Hate”, and “Love is Love” group.
I agree, the meeting was very difficult to watch. A total lack of respect and very unprofessional from a group who say they exist for the betterment of Clayton and don’t want to keep the city whole on expenses and pay their “Fair Share”. You may be correct about the election.
As a Clayton taxpayer, I did not realize my tax money is being used to subsidies CBCA’s events. The events are great, but I don’t want to pay for them. It is pretty ironic that the CBCA says they put on these events to collect money to used for the good of Clayton, yet they don’t want to pay their fair share for using public property. At a council meeting last year, the CBCA boasted they made over $100,000 at an event the first day. I am sure they can pay city cost and still have a huge amount of money for donations.
As a resident of Clayton and also a board member of a few local nonprofits I have often advocated to hold various types of small events in Clayton. Unfortunately, the cost-recovery fee structure in Clayton is more than double some of our neighboring cities. I have advocated to hold small events in Clayton to support the local family businesses but the Clayton fees force us to go to WC, Concord, or Martinez. I’m not sure why the cost-recovery is higher in Clayton. The other cities welcome our events with open arms. We are bringing them sales tax dollars from visitors, filling their eateries, etc.
I’m only guessing but if CBCA wanted to move their events to the neighboring town (e.g., Walnut Creek) they would probably pay less in city fees, even with their reduced fee structure in Clayton.
No matter which side of the fence your opinion sits, the real losers in this change is the small businesses in Clayton.
The mayor of Clayton is named Wan? How long has this family lived In Clayton?
As a retired attorney, I am concerned the CBCA agreement with the city giving them special monetary advantages not available to other organizations will lead to legal actions against the city by these organizations. Additionally, waving CBCA fees could be considered a “Gift of Public Funds” under California Law. Mayor Wan’s action on this issue is consistent with good public policy.
Comments are closed.