Posts

Posted on

The City Manager Lied To WXYZ

I guess if you tell a tale often enough, you might start to believe it’s true. That’s the most charitable thing I can say about the things that come out of our city manager’s mouth. But I think it’s more a case of gaslighting – lie, lie often, lie confidently, and limit access to the truth. If you want to quibble, you might argue city manager Jonathan Smith didn’t expressly tell millage-related lies, but you can’t say he didn’t do his very best to mislead Clarkston voters. And Smith continues to gaslight everyone in his recent 15 minutes of fame interviews with WXYZ and the Oakland Press.

Before I start, let me offer my sincere thanks to everyone who saw through the Smith bullshit and voted “no” on the 7-mill “public safety millage.” Sifting through the flotsam to find the truth required a Herculean effort because there was a lot of political noise out there. Not only did Independence Township have its own version of a “public safety millage” on the ballot, but we also had all of Smith’s misleading statements to contend with. (And if you voted “yes” not because you were confused but because you have a sincere desire to send more of your money to the city for bad police service and few general city services, or because you actually believe Smith’s latest threat made in his media interviews suggesting that police/fire/EMS might be eliminated – something he has zero city council authority to say – may I suggest you simply make a donation to the city and not force the rest of your neighbors to pay 7 mills more in taxes? Just a thought.)

There was a big difference between the Clarkston and Independence Township millage proposals. Independence Township has always paid for police services through a millage, and its proposal was straightforward. Their pitch was: “Fund the police by renewing our dedicated police millage.” I think it was disingenuous to suggest a “no” vote on the millage might eliminate police services because I believe voters would insist on deep budget cuts before that happened – and Independence Township was careful to keep budget cuts out of the discussion. Of course. 🙄

Compare that to Clarkston, where Smith made every effort to hide the fact that the city simply wants more general fund money and it sought to use a sleight of hand to carve out the general fund money we’ve been paying for police, fire, and EMS by foisting it off into a 7-mill “public safety millage.” This would have been accomplished using a statutory loophole allowing cities like Clarkston to avoid the state cap on general millage and get around Headlee limitations. The city then promised-but-didn’t-really-promise to offset the general millage we pay by 5.5 mills for the 2027-2028 budget year, resulting in a net tax increase of 1.5 mills – but it reserved the option to take that additional 5.5 mills whenever it wants through a majority city council vote.

Missing from the discussion was why the city wanted a 1.5-mill general fund tax increase in the first place. No justification whatsoever was offered for that, other than the city simply wanted it. I guess we weren’t supposed to inquire?

Honest question – if the city “only” needs an additional 1.5 mills more in general fund operating money, why not ask for that directly and avoid all the convoluted cloak and dagger games? The answer is obvious – the city wants to grab all 7 mills for the general fund in dribs and drabs over the next four years – and they admitted that’s the plan when the council approved the ballot proposal back in August.

The WXYZ interview:

Here are Smith’s claims from the WXYZ interview, linked here:

    • The city has been “absorbing” the annual increases to police, fire, and EMS for two years. (Um, the city is simply paying the cost of police, fire, and EMS from the general fund as they always have. When something you need costs more, you should spend less on optional things. Using the word “absorbing” suggests this is some sort of a gift to us. More on that two-year reference below.)
    • Smith published his cost chart through WXYZ that falsely suggested voters were approving “only” a 1.5-mill tax increase. In fact, taxpayers were being asked to approve a 7-mill tax increase and were offered an unenforceable promise to decrease general millage taxes by 5.5 mills – but only for the next budget year. This sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Ten years ago, the city promised voters if they voted “yes” on a library millage, our taxes would be rolled back by .691 mills every year going forward – forever. Last year, they broke that promise and raised taxes by .691 mills through a majority council vote and there wasn’t anything we could do about it. Smart voters know they shouldn’t trust yet another city promise for a tax rollback in exchange for a “yes” vote on a different millage. When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.
    • Smith said: “We don’t like the idea of not having police and fire and EMS services. That’s a scary thought.” Well, duh. That’s likely a true general statement for everyone, but in this context, it’s an empty threat. Not only was this threat never made in any of Smith’s presentations, it’s also simply not true. Have you noticed Smith is big on making threats to voters? Originally, he threatened residents with a special assessment if we didn’t vote the way he wants. Now he’s escalated the threats by suggesting the city would dump police, fire, and EMS since the city didn’t get what it wanted, something no one on council has ever said (and they decide, not Smith).
    • Smith said: “Clarkston’s emergency services are covered through June, giving city leaders some time to determine their next steps.” True but intentionally misleading. The city has budgeted for police, fire, and EMS through June 30, but that’s because it’s the end of our normal budget year. As of July 1, there will be a new budget that will include paying for police, fire, and EMS. Remember, this is the same city manager who is planning to spend over $200,000 next year on a vanity project to replace all the downtown sidewalks and driveway aprons but will provide zero pedestrian safety features. Talk about effed up priorities!

In a November 4 Oakland Press interview titled “Clarkston Forced to Rethink Public Safety After Millage Fails” (linked here but behind a paywall), Smith said:

    • “We have been basically borrowing from our savings account, our fund balance, to cover (police, fire and EMS services) last year and this year. . . .” Huh. There’s that two-year reference again.
    • Smith said the city council “might take the approach as the people have spoken, they don’t want to pay for the police, and why are we fighting this? Let’s just drop the police contract and we won’t have police.” There’s that threat again. Weird that Smith sees no middle ground – like cutting employee and other costs or looking for alternative police, fire, and EMS providers before asking anyone to pay more taxes or cancelling contracts.
    • Smith said one of the ostensible benefits of forcing us to pay $10-$15,000 more for a special election in May is that he could “definitively” say there would be a 1.5-mill net increase to taxes for voting “yes.” Keep your eyes on the weasel, Clarkston – even if that were the case, Smith is only talking about the budget that will be effective 7/1/27. No promises after that! (And no explanation why we need to pay 1.5 mills more.)

So, let’s talk about that two-year claim Smith has made. According to Smith, these terrible, no good, awful police, fire, and EMS increases have been the subject of public conversation for two years, right? Oh, wait. In his video presentation about the millage, Smith claimed the city had been watching increased costs “for a number of years.” Was that number two years? Four years? Some other number of years?

LOL.

Let’s use my time machine and go back just a year and a half to the 2025 budget discussions occurring last May when police, fire, and EMS costs were supposedly a hot issue – according to Smith’s 2026 revisionist history claims.

In his 2025-2026 budget presentation, Smith was focused on what he creatively called “five budget challenges.” To be fair, Smith did mention a small police-only cost increase back then without discussing fire and EMS. But these purported “budget challenges” were merely cover for Smith’s primary goal – to secure huge increases to employee salaries and benefits, including a $13,000/year raise for himself. The record shows he really wasn’t concerned with police, fire, and EMS costs at all because that wouldn’t move him toward his goal. Had he engaged in his sky-is-falling police/fire/EMS discussions back then, he wouldn’t have been able to get those fat raises and benefits changes.

What were the “five budget challenges”? At the May 12, 2025, city council meeting, Smith said they were:

    • 13.4% increase in police costs ($21,117 total). There was no mention of fire and EMS.
    • 50.1% increase in assessing service costs ($4,306, but this shouldn’t have been on the chart because Smith admitted in the comments to the chart that any increase would be largely eliminated with a new Independence Township agreement; therefore, this “challenge” was just a space filler to deflect attention from the salary increases).
    • 0% increase in legal fees (not sure why this was on the chart except as another space filler).
    • 52.6% increase in building and inspection services ($10,335).
    • 28% increase in employee salaries for four of our six employees ($36,883), including Smith. Smith included a chart showing his initial, even more outrageous salary demands for these four employees ($51,060, a 38.7% salary increase). I guess the reason for doing that was so we could appreciate the “sacrifice” he was making with the decreased demands. Smith did not reveal the increased cost to taxpayers to start providing health insurance to part-time front office employees working 32 hours per week or the cost of raising the retirement savings match from 3% to 4%. I had to send a FOIA request to get that information.

The only thing that changed regarding the purported “five budget challenges” between the May 12, 2025, city council meeting and the May 27, 2025, final budget approval was a change to the salary demands, reducing it to “only” 25.7% overall for the four front office staff ($33,180) based on the salary chart. This amounted to about 50% more than the police cost increase and more than the increases to the police and building and inspection services combined. Individually, this meant a 29.4% salary increase for Smith, a 20% salary increase for the treasurer, a 30.8% salary increase for the clerk, and a 12% increase for the deputy clerk/deputy treasurer/administrative assistant. When Department of Public Works employees were added to the mix, the supervisor saw a 5.7% increase and the laborer received 28.7% (part of which was due to increasing his hours to full-time). These salary bumps increased the overall salary budget by 21% and totaled $44,920, but that number also did not include the cost of providing health insurance to part-time employees or the increased retirement savings match.

Obviously, Smith’s primary goal back then was to increase employee compensation and benefits. If police, fire, and EMS cost increases were increasing so quickly that they couldn’t be covered with general fund money, then recklessly increasing spending by multiples more in another part of the general fund budget was not a responsible way to deal with it.

So, what is true?

    • This 7-mill millage request was never about police, fire, and emergency medical services (EMS) costs. The city was simply trying to use a loophole to get around the state general millage cap and increase general fund money to spend on whatever it wants, including even more increased compensation and benefits.
    • Using a “public safety millage” loophole rather than asking for a Headlee override comes with the added bonus of capitalizing on the public’s fear of losing police, fire, and EMS protection, making it far easier to sell than a general millage increase. Some of the public comments I’ve seen on social media suggest people actually were fooled – just as Smith intended.
    • The overall cost for six city employees who provide almost no city services (except for road plowing, park mowing, and running the elections) is almost as much as the amount we pay for police, fire, and EMS. The city’s goal in asking for a “public safety millage” was to pass off the general fund costs for the second expense to pay for the first.
    • There have been no serious cost-cutting discussions or any attempts to find less expensive alternatives for police, fire, and EMS. The city rakes in almost a million dollars per year in revenue from all sources including our general property taxes, yet Smith offered up a measly $21,630 in purported cost-cutting. And about 25% of that ($5,800) related to a “free” ballot-counting machine that no one had asked or budgeted for so it’s unclear how that counts as a cost reduction.
    • We supposedly have no money, yet city council continues to rubber-stamp conference requests, such as the August three-day “administrative support” training in Mount Pleasant the clerk attended or the city manager’s four-day October convention junket in Traverse City. And the clerk apparently has the chutzpah to ask council to approve yet another Mount Pleasant conference at the November 9, 2026, city council meeting. This conference includes such riveting topics as “The Like Switch – The Skill of Winning People Over” and “Elements of Wellbeing into Your Life Story.” Not only are we paying for overnight accommodation, food, and mileage for this crap, but we’re also paying salaries for these people to be absent from the four day per week jobs we hired them for. The city is simply not serious about budget issues.
    • There was never a threat that residents would lose access to police, fire, and EMS if they voted “no” on the 7-mill millage request. Not ever. The threat was only that the city would forcibly try to take the money if we didn’t vote the “right” way by using a special assessment (which we could put on the ballot through a citizen-driven petition effort and force cost cutting if it was voted down again). This claim is just more psychological warfare from Smith.
    • The city presented this as “only” a 1.5 mill net increase in taxes. The initial presentations to residents promised-not-promised “only” a 1 mill increase. Did you notice no one from the city mentions that anymore? They also said it was a five-year millage. It’s a four-year millage. Guess what? They lie.
    • The city never actually promised the voters anything. Our newly elected mayor managed to tell the truth at the October 12, 2026, city council meeting: “People are too smart, though. I mean, come on. We’re talking about there’s an additional 7 mills is what they would be giving us, access to additional 7 mills, with no guarantee that we wouldn’t levy all 7 mills. That’s the problem, ultimately.” Indeed. And a “yes” vote meant approval to increase Clarkston-only property taxes by 61% and overall property taxes to 44.2027 mills (and that was before other new millages were approved on November 3 – now it’s even more than that).
    • The city made every effort to mislead voters, even to the point of what I believe are campaign finance act violations. When the city attorney was there to correct him, the city manager was forced to admit that the only thing people were voting for was a 7-mill tax increase and the city’s suggestion that the general millage would be reduced by any amount in any budget year was a hypothetical intention but not a binding promise.
    • All city council members are aware that if the millage proposal passed, they would have the latitude to offset the general millage in any amount up to 7 mills whenever they wanted with a majority vote. Our new mayor admitted the city would “blow through” those 7 mills well before 2031, even if the city reduced the general millage funding by 5.5 mills the first year (to get to that net increase of 1.5 mills). Smith published a PowerPoint slide suggesting the 5.5 mill reduction would carry forward to the 2028-2029 fiscal year – but that’s not promised either and was just more Smith bullshit.
    • The city overpaid $171,799.59 for police, fire, and EMS for fourteen years, with the last eight of those years under Smith’s supervision. The city was only able to recover $87,301.93 of that amount plus interest and taxpayers lost $84.497.66. No employees were disciplined over this negligence, and no policy changes were made to make sure it didn’t happen again. So of course it happened again. This time, there was a $15,000 underpayment for police services over an entire year, exposing the city to interest penalties. There were no employee discipline or policy changes even after this second episode of employee negligence. My husband discovered both of these issues, not the city manager or treasurer. The city manager and treasurer take exactly zero care with the police, fire, and EMS budget money they’ve already been entrusted with so why send them more?
    • The city had $300,000 in the fund balance in the 2024-2025 budget year, and Smith claims there will be less than $50,000 in the fund balance by the 2028-2029 budget year. Where did all the money go?

Your city council will be discussing “next steps” on Monday. How much do you want to bet this discussion will not include any efforts at cost cutting? And would you also like to wager that council will approve yet another conference junket for the clerk while hypocritically claiming they have no money to run the city without a tax increase?

I wouldn’t take either of those bets if I were you.

>