Tuesday, February 10, 2026

The Public Should Not Be Subsidizing Private Nonprofit Events

When required City fees are redirected, the burden doesn’t disappear, it shifts to residents.

Dear Clayton Residents,

Good government relies on consistent rules and transparent decisions.

One of the simplest principles is this: when an organization uses public property, it pays the required fee. Those charges are not symbolic. They exist to reimburse the community for the very real costs the City incurs, closing streets, rerouting traffic, assigning public works crews, providing police presence, managing risk, handling wear and tear on parks, and completing cleanup and restoration once an event ends. Staff time is diverted from other priorities. Normal services are interrupted. Residents experience detours, noise, parking limitations, and restricted access to their own downtown. Those impacts remain whether a fee is collected or not.

At a recent City Sponsored Special Events Committee meeting, Carl Wolfe, president of the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), asked during public comment that required downtown and park special-event fees for use of the entire downtown and The Grove be treated instead as sponsorship support for the City’s Concerts in the Grove series. Click here to watch the video of Carl Wolfe speaking at the meeting. 10:13 on the timer is where he starts to speak. (What he is suggesting may sound generous, but it can also come across as sneaky, and possibly illegal.)

But it is important to recognize what it means. This is not new money. It is a request to relabel funds owed for the exclusive use of Main Street, our downtown, including The Grove Park, and apply them somewhere else.

And remember, Mr. Wolfe is a former Councilmember and former Mayor. He understands how municipal finance works, or does he? He should know that when revenue owed to the City is waived or redirected, someone else ultimately absorbs that cost.

That someone else is the taxpayer.

Once those fees are paid, they are public money. They are deposited into the General Fund and belong to the residents of Clayton, not the CBCA, not event organizers, and not any individual requester. They are no different from any other user fees collected by the City. No private organization gets to pay a bill and then dictate where the money goes or reclaim it in another form. Public funds are controlled through the City’s budget process on behalf of taxpayers, period.

Over the past two years, CBCA leadership has pushed to cancel or reduce the special-event fee (as reflected in the Master Fee Schedule adopted in August 2023), despite the fact that the organization has been paying only a fraction of what comparable private users would normally pay. Public financial filings show that the CBCA holds more than $300,000 in the bank. By any reasonable measure, they have the ability and the means to meet their obligations without asking to shift those costs onto residents.

When events occupy our downtown, streets close, personnel are deployed, and cleanup follows. Those bills do not vanish. If the City does not collect the required fees, the expense shifts to residents.

Many taxpayers share a straightforward belief:
  • The public should not subsidize private organizations and their events.
  • Groups should raise sponsorships, donations, and vendor revenue to fund their own festivals. That is part of hosting them.
There is also a practical reality

The Concerts in the Grove already receives generous support from Clayton businesses, families, and volunteers. Residents may reasonably ask why money owed for exclusive use of public property should be rerouted away from the general fund and labeled something else.

Clayton Watch is focused on process, not personalities.

We are not aware of any adopted policy that allows mandatory rental fees to be converted into sponsorship credit.

If such authority exists, the City should identify where it is written, how it works, and whether it is available equally to every organization.
  • Consistency protects public trust.
A constructive path forward

Clayton has a proud tradition of voluntary sponsorships.

We strongly encourage the CBCA to return to that tradition. Since the Master Use Agreement (MUA) was canceled, the organization has stopped contributing financially to Concerts in the Grove, a sharp departure from prior years when support was routinely provided.

Choosing not to contribute while simultaneously asking to redirect money owed to the City sends the wrong message to residents.

If the CBCA wishes to support the concerts, it can do what businesses, families, and other sponsors do, write a check.

At the same time, it should continue paying required fees for the use of our streets, our downtown, and our parks, just as any other group would.

Clayton Watch supports community events and the many people who make them possible. But the financial rules governing public assets must remain clear, consistent, and fair.

Because when the rules are steady, trust follows. And when trust follows, Clayton wins.

Respectfully,

Clayton Watch

30 comments:

  1. Thanks for the heads up. This group seems to try anything to get one over on the citizens. $300K in the bank…what’s that all about?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great late-night read. I hope the facts help put things in their proper place. The speaker in the video came across more like a used-car salesman than a former councilmember and mayor. Hard to believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is so much more to this comment that needs to be said. This commenter points out that Carl Wolfe is a former council member and mayor. In fact, he was elected to be president of CBCA BEFORE his term as council member was up! The revolving door between city council and the CBCA board goes back 2 decades. In 2020, the revolving door opened up both ways as Holly Tillman, a board member at the time managed to get herself elected. The massive conflict of interest that exists as result of this revolving door will always be a problem. In addition, both Juile Pierce and Holly Tillman have had their spouses on the board of CBCA. As a result, we have had council members who do what’s in the interests of CBCA and not what’s in the best interest of the city. The CBCA should update its by-laws to prohibit former council members from being on their board for a period of at least 4 years for former council members. No council member’s spouse should be allowed to serve on the CBCA board. And if an existing board member decides to run for city council, that board member should step down immediately. For too long, the CBCA has acted as if it was government. There is reason we have separation of church and state in this country. But it’s obvious we need separation of church and nonprofit in the city of Clayton. And as for Carl Wolfe’s illegal demand: Carl, pay your bills to the city and focus on doing what you organization is supposed to. Stop asking for freebies!

      Delete
    2. Love your response! Everything you said should happen. Is everyone listening? Hear that, Tillmans? All the double-dealing is disgraceful.

      Delete
  3. And to think, the CBCA used to demand that the city manager, the chief of police, and the chair of the planning commission attend their meetings and deliver reports.
    How was that ever considered acceptable?
    After reading the comment above, it’s a lot easier to understand how it happened. - Martin

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great article. Thanks for keeping us informed. Without you guys, most of us would be in the dark. I enjoy their events, but enough is an enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. They need to stay in their own lane and stay out of city hall.

      Delete
    2. We left, and will never return. This group is being run into the ground. I my opinion, it’s time for a change the leadership. Peggy

      Delete
  5. They are paying the fees requested. And you fail to mention the $50K that CBCA will give in scholarships. What other money has the CBCA given to the city over the years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why no scholarships last year? And why are they hoarding money?

      Delete
    2. Scholarships are not for the city. And if you look at the donations from the CBCA to city issues, it's more than half down. They are now paying for the appropriate fees reflecting today's market, and that is what bugs you, aggressive CBCA people. Nothing is free, and that is what the CBCA wants.

      Delete
    3. As a not for profit organization there is strict reporting they must do. I am certain they are and in compliance.

      Delete
    4. Maybe now they might be, but for years their books were not.

      Delete
    5. Apparently, they struggle to do their reporting. For the past several years their filings to the IRS have been done well past the deadline. A few years ago, their Treasurer failed to complete certain reports to the state. The organization spends more time demanding the city cater to them and subsidize them instead of the mission of the organization. Too many former council members have been on the board right after being on council. This last move by Carl Wolfe shows that all he cares about is pleasing the hyper political members, a very small group, who think they are entitled to run rough shod over the city. The overwhelming majority of members don't even attend CBCA meetings. It's a small group that makes so much noise. They are the ones who vote. Because of a rule they made up to bypass a quorum, a small minority votes on who they donate money to all the time. If the money is going to one their political friends, like say Holly Tillman's parade, the request gets fast tracked for a vote and she gets her money! But if the Historical society asks for money, it gets debated and sometimes they don't get anything. Money gets donated if it CBCA gets something in return. When it comes to the city, they demanded that donations meant they didn't have to pay their bills. It's not enough they are exempt from federal and state taxes, they want Clayton to give them even more subsidies. According to their most recent tax filing, which by law is a public document, they had 440k in the bank! Anyone can pull up years of their filings and see that their cash holdings have been increasing steadily. Here is the link to their most recent tax filing: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943373920/202513179349305741/full

      If you go back and review a decades worth of their filings, you will see the real numbers for the scholarships they constantly brag about. The figure is not 50k as someone claims here. It's much smaller. And some years, they don't do scholarships. Strangely, a couple of years ago, the children of two sitting council members got scholarships. While it's possible that the kids had the grades, the optics are not good as the two council members were defenders of the CBCA old contract where the CBCA didn't pay for using city property. Digging further into the past filings there is a footnote about money that didn't belong to the CBCA. The funds belonged to another entity that lost its nonprofit status and CBCA was somehow collecting money for them via questionable procedures. Carl Wolfe never addressed this. Some members were aware of the issue but were shut down and sidelined for asking anything about it. No one doubts that the CBCA does good things. However, they need to stick to doing those good things and get out politics. After watching the video, it's pretty clear, the CBCA would love to have you the tax payer pay for all their expenses and convince you that somehow they donated something to you.

      Delete
    6. 21,000 only for scholarships, not much at all.

      Delete
  6. The CBCA operates more like organized crime here in Clayton. If there are any CBCA members with a backbone here, they should demand that the bylaws state absolute separation between the city government and the CBCA. No more city council members immediately being elected to CBCA boards, as a previous poster suggested. There should be a waiting period, and vice versa, for CBCA board members who want to run for the city council. It is a clear conflict of interest, questionable ethics, and downright underhanded.
    I know many of us in Clayton are done with CBCA drama and the bad actors they have on board, especially Wolfe, from the city council to CBCA, and the Tillmans are just two of the underhanded.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I find it hard to believe that a former mayor and President of the CBCA would not know that user fees are paid to recover cost the city incurs for their events. It is also hard to believe he thinks the CBCA retains control of these funds and can direct how they should be used. Carl Wolfe quit playing games and sponsor the Concerts. With $300,000 in the bank you can afford it. Be a leader and stop whining about user fees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfe knows but is being slimy. They want an MUA agreement again. That MUA was only to be in place while the organization got on its feet years ago. It was NEVER meant to stay in place as long as it did. The CBCA is still mad because a non-CBCA member canceled it based on age (15+ years old), is not current with market costs, and only benefits the CBCA. The CBCA wants control over the city government that is as clear as day. They, along with the defunct pioneer, did everything they could to discredit the city, Wan, and anyone else they assumed wronged them. In truth, I wish someone would compile all the video, written, and photographic evidence of the CBCA's activity over the last 10 years and file a complaint with the IRS for acting as a political organization. The CBCA's bad actions outweigh any good they might do.

      Delete
    2. Agreed! The CBCA used to donate $ 5,000.00, but it dropped to $500 after they had their temper tantrum. The CBCA also tried to sabotage sponsors by calling them individually to ask why they were supporting the city. I'm sure you can all guess who did the calling. An earlier poster called it right, the CBCA behaves like a criminal organization with its loudest members calling people names and making threats whenever possible- distasteful.

      Delete
    3. As a past council member and mayor, he was one of the worst.

      Delete
    4. Carl Wolfe needs to pick the dictionary and look up, read, and understand the definition of a donation: A donation is a transfer of property or money without expecting anything in return. Let's read that again and then read it again and think about, and then think about again (there's a council member who posted something like this not too long ago): A donation is a transfer of property or money without expecting anything in return. WITHOUT EXPECTING SOMETHING IN RETURN. How many CBCA folks were at the podium demanding their former contract and repeating the message: BUT WE DONATE SO MUCH!!! So in return for those donations they EXPECTED in return not to pay for anything. That's no longer a donation. In the dictionary, that falls under the definition of a bribe.

      Delete
  8. The CBCA is a bunch of bullies. Why do you think many have left the organization, and they have had trouble getting volunteers for events?

    ReplyDelete
  9. For anyone interested here is the link to CBCA's latest tax filing. This is a public document. All non profits have to make this available to the public. You see the real totals in their bank accounts.

    https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943373920/202513179349305741/full

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you look at the public filings for the CBCA, they certainly are not as charitable as they would like you to believe. The CBCA's bottom line is quite large for wanting everything for free. I need new siding. Can I apply for a grant?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why all this drama? Wofle made an ask at the meeting. For this to happen the City Council would need to approve it. If they do...then go to a city council meeting and express your outrage!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The drama might be because they made a lot of drama over the last several years?

      Delete
  12. The audacity of the CBCA President to request fees paid to the city--for city use--be earmarked for concerts in the grove so that their name be on the sponsorship banner is incomprehensible---yet not for that group. By the same token, do all those that pay the city a fee get to earmark where their funds go? Make this make sense, Mr. President.

    ReplyDelete
  13. the text of this "article" makes heavy use of chatgpt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And your point? I’ll bet they also used Microsoft word. Facts are facts. At a recent City Sponsored Special Events Committee meeting, Carl Wolfe, president of the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), asked during public comment that required downtown and park special-event fees for use of the entire downtown and The Grove be treated instead as sponsorship support for the City’s Concerts in the Grove series.

      Delete
  14. Alert the authorities, the candy has been taken. The meltdown continues. At some point, it might be time to grow up. Just saying Carl.

    ReplyDelete

Please keep your comments clear, concise, and appropriate for the discussion. Thank you