GLADSTONE — A long-running feud between a former Gladstone City commissioner and the city itself took a new turn recently, when Mike O’Connor submitted a petition he spearheaded asking the city to eliminate the first installment payment of the 9th Street Special Assessment.

O’Connor was elected to the commission in 2015 and but resigned in 2016, when he was informed he would be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement as part of a severance agreement with Former City Manager Darla Falcon. He then began a series of lawsuits against the city, the Gladstone Downtown Development Authority, and City Clerk Kim Berry, all of which revolved around his beliefs the city had misappropriated funds and the DDA was illegitimate.

While the suits were resolved with a settlement agreement in late 2018, wherein the city paid O’Connor $35,000 for legal fees, O’Connor’s dispute with the city has never really ended. As recently as June of this year, the Michigan State Tax Tribunal dismissed a case brought against the city by O’Connor. The tribunal denied reconsideration of the case on Sept. 2.

On Sept. 11, O’Connor hosted a meeting of citizens, where he asked them to sign a petition requesting the city eliminate the first payment for property owners who were subject to special assessments as part of the 9th Street Project. Twenty-seven people signed the petition, however, after reviewing the petition for city residents, property owners who were assessed, duplicate signatures, and multiple signatures for the same address, only 15 were deemed valid.

City Manager Eric Buckman and Community Development and Zoning Administrator Renee Barron were in contact with Attorney Steve Mann, of Miller Canfield, the legal firm responsible for the DDA and bonding in the city, to discuss the petition.

“Renee and I talked to him a couple of times about this, and it’s sort of a new territory on how do we do this. He’s quite certain we’d have to do another amendment to the roll and there might be some other things because assessment law doesn’t really cover something like this,” said Buckman.

If the city were to eliminate the first round of payments, the city would lose about $44,000 of the $48,000 the city will be required to pay as part of its bond obligation. Concerns were also raised by commissioners that the legal fees and staff time needed to make the necessary changes could actually increase the total cost to residents.

Commissioner Judy Akkala argued the commission had an obligation to get a legal opinion on the petition, as the petition itself was submitted legally and represented residents’ concerns. However, Commissioner Darin Hunter, balked at the idea of paying any more legal fees related to O’Connor than had already been spent.

“Can we bill it to O’Connor? Because I’m tired of paying legal fees for O’Connor’s B.S., basically,” said Hunter, who described O’Connor as “a schoolyard bully.”

By the commission’s estimates, the city has spent roughly $579,000 on legal battles with O’Connor. If the payment were eliminated, the total loss the city would incur related to him would be more than $600,000.

“Out of all the funds that we drew legal fees from, legally and rightfully, to cover legal expenses, that we could have pout forth on the project to lower those costs — it might have been a great portion of that assessment. I don’t want to throw a number out there, but maybe it could have been ten percent, 20 percent, 40 percent,” said Commissioner Brad Mantela.

Concerns were also raised about what the signers of the petition had been told. Buckman noted that many of the statements included on a flyer inviting people to the meeting O’Connor hosted on Sept. 11 were misleading or based on O’Connor’s own beliefs about the city’s operation. For example, the flyer stated “The Special Assessment District notification did not follow the requirements under state guidelines. The City of Gladstone is aware of this failure, as it was also a central issue in a separate Michigan Tax Tribunal Hearing.” The hearing referenced in this section of the flyer was the one started by a petition from O’Connor that was dismissed by the tribunal in June.

It was also noted the signers had been given an opportunity to protest the assessment earlier in the process.

“I did take a look at the public hearing letter and it did clearly state if you want to protest the amount of your special assessment, you need to speak up now, and so I don’t know why — no one showed up for that public hearing. No one made a comment on anything,” said Commissioner Greg Styczynski. “That was the time to state your protest, your disagreement. Had they done that and we are in the same position we are today, that would give them some credibility here, but they missed that step and it’s a critical step and the letter clearly spelled that out.”

Despite reservations about O’Connor’s role and the legal and financial ramifications of eliminating the payment, the commission did unanimously move forward with seeking a legal opinion on the petition. That opinion will be presented at the next commission meeting, but wil not delay the assessment bills, which will be mailed Oct. 1.

During his report to the commission, Buckman informed the public he had been made aware of a state program to defer special assessment costs for residences for seniors and those with disabilities. He encouraged anyone interested in the program to contact the city for more information.

Also during Monday’s meeting, the commission heard a presentation from Higher Love, a marijuana retail business, which is interested in locating a store in the city. The commission made no decisions Monday, but locating the business in the city would require the commission to change the ordinance prohibiting marijuana establishments in the city.

The commission also made an amendment to the 9th Street Project Special Assessment rolls to remove a small group of properties that were no longer included in the project area, approved hazard pay for election workers, approved a bid for a new snow plow, approved the purchase for new picnic table frames, and went into closed session for the city clerk’s evaluation.