The City Manager versus The City Manager versus The City Manager

I wrote about city manager Jonathan Smith’s latest “placemaking” proposal here and here. If you haven’t been following along so far, here are the highlights:

• • Smith remembered there was a lot of community pushback when the permanent closure of the end of Church Street was proposed a few years ago for the purpose of establishing a “green space,” the benefits of which would go primarily to Honcho restaurant (owned by Curt Catallo) by virtue of its location.

• • Smith plans to use the most historic street in Clarkston for his new “placemaking” project. Specifically, he wants to eliminate Mill Street, an actively used street located between the old Rudy’s Market, owned by Robert Esshaki, and The Fed, owned by James and Sarah Schneider, and install a bunch of stamped concrete, lights, bollards, benches, and planters in its place (and perhaps put up a plaque as a wink and a nod to the historical nature of the street).

• • Before saying anything to the public or the city council, Smith contacted Esshaki and the Schneiders to get their approval for his project, telling them in an email “[i]f you don’t want this, I’ll drop the idea altogether.”

• • In what should be a surprise no one, these two business owners were supportive and even wrote letters to be used in connection with the city’s $50,000 grant application to the GM on Main Street Grant program. Why not? Their restaurants stand to primarily benefit from it, along with Catallo’s three restaurants across the street.

• • In the grant application, Smith expressly stated the purpose of the “placemaking” proposal was only intended to “contribute to the health, happiness and well-being of the patrons of our downtown businesses by providing them with a space that they can connect with and enjoy, time after time. They can use it as a quiet space for reflection or a landmark for meeting family and friends. . . . [This] address[es] the needs of the patrons . . . ” (Underscores mine.) Clearly, Clarkston residents and taxpayers are simply not part of Smith’s calculus.

• • Even though he told the Schneiders and Esshaki about his plans, Smith hid the details of his proposed project from everyone else, including the city council, and made only an obscure reference in his December 11, 2023, city manager’s report about wanting to present “a placemaking idea for downtown that [he has] been considering for a couple of years.” Smith prepared a 26-page presentation in advance of that city council meeting, so there was no need for any secrecy with regard to the details or the intended place for the proposal.

• • Hiding the plan details enabled Smith to limit the information council received to only what he wanted them to know, to get approval to make the grant application, and even to obtain a green light from the council to repurpose historic Mill Street for a restaurant patron project without going through the normal approval process. The normal process would include a fully informed council, fully informed taxpayers, review from the Planning Commission, and plan approval from the Historic District Commission.

• • In essence, the only people given veto power over this proposed “placemaking” project were the Schneiders and Esshaki, even though they had zero authority to veto anything the city wants to do with its own property. Had either private business entity voted “no,” the city manager would have accepted their desires, inexplicably claiming at the January 8, 2024, council meeting that “[i]f they were going to fight this, it wasn’t going to be worth the time or effort.” (I’m sure Curt Catallo would be interested in hearing that, since he has always voiced vociferous objections to paid parking in city-owned lots, the city proceeded with paid parking over his objections, and I think they were correct in doing so.)

In my most recent post, I said I made a follow-up FOIA request for information based on the statements Smith made on the grant application and that I would share the results, and that’s the purpose of this post. Specifically, I asked for records concerning “community engagement sessions”; the feedback Smith purportedly received from residents who were “younger and middle-aged,” defined as under sixty (as well as those over sixty); any city resolutions authorizing the use of taxpayer dollars for this project; and any commitment from concrete suppliers to provide a significant discount for the project.

I also asked for the terms and conditions for the “GM on Main Street Grant Program,” which I’ve attached here. You’ll note that General Motors is a supporting partner; the organization offering the grant program is “Main Street America.” I asked for the terms and conditions because I wondered if there was any penalty to the city for fudging the truth in the application, but I didn’t find anything like that in the materials. However, if you’re interested in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion [DEI]-type reading material, you’ll find a list of resources on pages 18-19, including such titles as “White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son,” “Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men,” and “7 Things You Can Do to Improve the Sad, Pathetic State of Board Diversity,” along with a list of organizations that are DEI-focused. (If you’d like to see a similar resource added to this list, they invite you to share it.)

The link to the informal transcript of the December 11, 2023, city council meeting can be found here; the link to Smith’s December 13, 2023, grant application submitted on behalf of Clarkton can be found here, and the response to my FOIA request can be found here. Once you read the following, you’ll understand how I arrived at the title of this post.

“Community Engagement Sessions”

What Smith said to the city council on December 11, 2023:

Nothing.

What Smith said on the grant application submitted two days later, on December 13, 2023:

• • Page 22 of the grant application included “community engagement sessions” as a task Smith described as “schedule and hold sessions, document feedback.” Smith stated these sessions were “in process” and due to be completed by January 18, 2024.

• • Page 14 of the grant application states “[a]t the time of this application submittal, community engagement sessions are still in process . . .”

What the city said in response to my FOIA request:

(My request is in italics, and the city’s responses are in red.)

The city manager stated that three weeks of “community engagement sessions” are “in process” and will be completed by January 18, 2024. With regard to these “community engagement sessions,” please provide a copy of:

• • All meeting notices, emails, mailings, Facebook posts, etc. or other records inviting people to attend any session. The scheduling of the community engagement sessions is being deferred until it is confirmed (or denied) that the City is being awarded the grant.

• • If focus groups were used, all distribution lists. No focus groups have been used.

• • All meeting agendas. No meeting agendas have yet been prepared.

• • All material distributed at any of these sessions. No meetings have been scheduled.

• • All written comments submitted by any member of the public or any other person at any of these sessions. No sessions have been held.

• • All meeting summaries prepared by any city official or other person as a result of feedback from any of these sessions. No sessions have been held.

In summary, Smith told the grant authority that community engagement sessions were current and ongoing, even though they weren’t, and the city council never authorized these engagement sessions (nor were they asked to do so). I seem to recall that scheduling feedback sessions about Depot Park amenities without advising the council beforehand was the catalyst that eventually led to our former mayor’s resignation, don’t you?

“Feedback From Residents Under 60 Years of Age”

What Smith said to the city council on December 11, 2023:

Nothing.

What Smith said on the grant application submitted two days later, on December 13, 2023:

Page 14 of the grant application claimed “the feedback received so far indicates that our younger and middle-aged residents (60 and under), regardless of race or gender, are seeking ways to socialize in the City and have responded positively to our Mill Street Placemaking Proposal. It has been commented that the proposed seating area would dovetail nicely with our Social District, which lacks seating.”

[FYI, the last comment may have been a reference to councilmember Laura Rodgers. At the December 11, 2023, meeting, Rodgers claimed she’d heard similar social district-related comments “from various people” that she didn’t identify. Rodgers’ 60th birthday occurred before that city council meeting, so her comments shouldn’t have been considered using Smith’s age-based “under 60” metric.]

What the city said in response to my FOIA request:

(My request is in italics, and the city’s responses are in red.)

The city manager stated that “younger and middle-aged residents (60 and under) … have responded positively to the Mill Street Placemaking Proposal.” With regard to these age-based claims, please provide a copy of:

• • All letters, emails, text messages, etc. from residents the city manager has deemed to be “younger and middle-aged” supporting or opposing this project. The resident discussions and feedback were all verbal, nothing in writing.
    

• • All letters, emails, text messages, etc. from residents the city manager has deemed to be not “younger” or “middle-aged” supporting or opposing this project. The resident discussions and feedback were all verbal, nothing in writing.

(The city also included a copy of mayor Sue Wylie’s letter that Smith solicited and attached to the grant application for some reason.)

So, all the ostensible comments were oral, even though Smith told the grant authority that community feedback would be documented. And how exactly did Smith determine the age of the people who he claims made these comments? Did he use voting records to look up birth years? How does anyone know whether these comments were actually made? We don’t. And we won’t.

Using Tax Dollars for the “Placemaking” Proposal Designed to Benefit Only Restaurants with a Liquor License

What Smith said to the city council on December 11, 2023:

Council member Ted Quisenberry asked whether the $50,000 grant would cover the cost of Smith’s “placemaking” proposal. Smith said it would be tight, the city may have to go after some other donations, and the GM on Main program will allow other donations to come in. Smith said he thought the $50,000 was going to be approximately what he would need to do the concrete work, which he described as a nice stamped and colored concrete. Smith noted the council members saw the benches and the planters. The lighting is not terribly expensive, but the city would have to probably find other sources to fund it.

In other words, the council was not told taxpayers would be on the hook for any supplies in excess of $50,000 at the time Smith was trying to finesse them into approving the grant application. There was also no resolution approving any taxpayer spending on this project, though in response to a different question from council member Quisenberry, Smith said he believed the cost of installing the lighting, benches, bollards, and planters was work that could be done by Department of Public Works employees. Smith suggested any overages would come from donations, not tax dollars, and there was no notice to anyone that taxpayers would be forced to pay for any engineering costs. (I vote that the cost of all overages be paid for with donations from the restaurants with liquor licenses – how about you?)

What Smith said on the grant application submitted two days later, on December 13, 2023:

On page 16 of the grant application, Smith said “[t]he City plans to make every effort to utilize a concrete contractor willing to partially donate their services as a Community Project, something we did two years ago when renovating and expanding our City Hall building. If this is possible – and we feel it is – the project could be completed within the $50,000 funding. If it is not possible to identify a contractor to partially donate their services, the project would still proceed forward with the $50,000 funding primarily used to complete the asphalt removal & concrete placement work in the 36.5′ x 100′ project area. The cost of benches, planters, lighting and bollards ($13,300) would then need to be covered by City operational funds and/or donated funds.”

Smith’s project budget can be found on page 21 of the grant application and shows the taxpayers will pay all engineering costs as well as the cost of all Department of Public Works employee labor to install benches, planters, lighting, and bollards. You’ll note the charges for asphalt removal are not allocated to taxpayers and charitable donors in the budget chart, but it’s a cost to consider, nonetheless. The $32,000 cost of pouring decorative concrete “assumes a Community Project discount,” but no actual cost without such a discount was estimated. (More on that later.)

What the city said in response to my FOIA request:

(My request is in italics, and the city’s responses are in red.)

A copy of all city council resolutions supporting the city manager’s claim that any part of the project costs for his Mill Street Placemaking proposal will be paid for with tax dollars from the city’s operations budget or the city’s fund balance. The application only referenced the potential use of City funds to cover the cost of “benches, planters, lighting and bollards ($13,300) should savings from the community project not come to fruition. This would be known before the 2024-2025 FY budget proposal is submitted for approval. (Italics in original.)

Silly goose! I need to understand there’s only a “potential” risk that my tax dollars will be used for this project. And hey, we still have the next budget year (beginning July 1, 2024) to allocate taxpayer dollars for a project that’s intended only to “contribute to the health, happiness and well-being of the patrons of our downtown businesses by providing them with a space that they can connect with and enjoy, time after time [so they] can use it as a quiet space for reflection or a landmark for meeting family and friends.” We should all just forget about the fact that we don’t have enough money in the budget to fix our sidewalks and streets (except the street in front of city hall) due to the rising costs and keep our focus only on the “happiness and well-being” of the patrons of restaurants with liquor licenses when we decide how to spend our tax dollars for the 2024-2025 budget year.

Leads on Any Concrete Contractor
Willing to Give Away Materials and Services
If We Magically Rename
the Destruction of Historic Mill Street
A “Community Project”

What Smith said to the city council on December 11, 2023:

Nothing.

What Smith said on the grant application submitted two days later, on December 13, 2023:

“The City plans to make every effort to utilize a concrete contractor willing to partially donate their services as a Community Project, something we did two years ago when renovating and expanding our City Hall building. If this is possible – and we feel it is – the project could be completed within the $50,000 funding.”

What the city said in response to my FOIA request:

(My request is in italics, and the city’s responses are in red.)

A copy of any commitment from any concrete vendor promising the “Community Project Discount” the city manager assumed when preparing the project costs. No concrete suppliers will be contacted until after the grant application is approved, but this approach was previously used successfully on the City Hall renovation/expansion.

Smith is apparently running on hope and has no flipping clue who might give Clarkston a freebie if he magically renames his proposal as a “community project.” And even if we could find such a mythical contractor, what guarantees would we have that the quality of the work would be the same as if we paid full price? Our last “community project” was the exorbitantly priced city hall expansion. At the October 23, 2023, city council meeting, Smith told the council that some kids broke into city hall and part of the reason for the break-in was because the door locks were the cheapest door locks you could possibly get. So, it’s fair to ask – did we get what we paid for with our “community project”? What else was done as cheaply as possible?

You know, if the city has enough extra money to throw away on the “health, happiness and well-being” of some restaurant patrons, then I think the council should consider a tax cut. Better yet, perhaps the city council should consider terminating the city manager for the questionable handling of this grant application and hire a new city manager with more appropriate priorities. He clearly doesn’t see a problem with what he did, and he told the city council at the January 8, 2024, city council meeting that he was “happy” with the result.

When I’ve mentioned replacing the city manager to others, the immediate objection isn’t that the city manager is doing a great job; rather, it’s that it would be hard to hire someone to replace him for what we are able to pay. High praise indeed. 🙄

Honestly, wouldn’t it be better to hire someone right out of a graduate school with the education and training to be a good city manager? I’m sure we can find someone willing to accept a $43,260/year annual salary (that increases every year), along with a four-day work week, fourteen paid holidays, six sick days, and ten paid vacation days (increasing to fifteen after five years). Though we don’t pay for health insurance for part-time employees, a small stipend to be used for the cost of healthcare would likely be cheaper for taxpayers than having to absorb the continuing cost of bad decisions.

Would such a person move on after a couple of years? Perhaps. But that’s no different than what has happened in the past. The benefit to the city would be having someone who at least has the educational background to know what s/he is doing, and that person would benefit from the opportunity to prove him/herself before moving on to a larger municipality.

We can’t expect anything more, because the simple truth that no one wants to talk about is that we really can’t afford to be a city. Dissolution is legally not a viable possibility, which means we need to do the best with what we have. Frankly, I think we can do better than someone who believes Clarkston taxpayers should have any concern whatsoever about competing with other cities for restaurant patrons when we have so many other pressing issues to spend taxpayer dollars on that would benefit the people who live and pay taxes here.

Still, I doubt the city manager has anything to worry about. If termination for wasting taxpayer dollars was even a possibility, the city attorney would have been long gone for giving advice that caused three lawsuits, two of which cost the city tens of thousands of dollars (and those are the ones I know about personally).

I guess we get what we pay for, whether it’s cheap doors on city hall, a lawyer who managed to keep his job despite the city’s malpractice claim against him, and a city manager who seems to have forgotten who he works for. It would be nice if our officials cared as much about the people who pay the bills as they do about the “health, happiness and well-being” of restaurant patrons who are just passing through and don’t give an eff about the community, don’t you think?