Welcome back! This is part 3 of my Q & A on the “public safety” millage. I thought it would be a fun exercise to do a Q & A using our city officials’ own words from the August 10, 2026, city council meeting when they voted to put a “public safety” millage proposal on the ballot that will – not might – raise your general operating taxes by 62% to 18.4107 mills within the next five years (or sooner) along with my own commentary.
The quotes and public official commentary in this post were taken from the informal transcript that I prepare after city council meetings and publish on the Clarkston Sunshine website. It’s close to a verbatim transcript but I’m not a court reporter and don’t certify my transcripts as official. You can listen to a recording of the August 10, 2026, city council discussion about the “public safety” millage by clicking here and I encourage everyone to do so. If you notice an error in the statements I’ve attributed to any city official, please let me know and I’ll correct it.
One additional note – the city council jumped around when talking about what this 7-mill tax increase means. I’m letting you know upfront that I’ve moved what was said to the applicable sections below, so for example, one comment could have been made ten minutes apart from a later or earlier one. If you want to hear the discussion as it occurred in sequence and context, I encourage you to listen to the meeting recording.
Here are all the questions I’ll be answering in my Q & A, but due to the overall length, I’ve posted it in three parts. The questions covered in this post are in the darker blue. You can find Part 1 here and Part 2 here.
-
- What is a “public safety” millage?
- How do we pay for police, fire, and EMS now?
- How much of a millage tax increase is Clarkston proposing?
- Does the city really expect me to pay 7 mills more for bad police service?
- Did the city explore less expensive alternatives for police, fire, and EMS?
- The city says if I vote “yes,” my taxes will only increase by 1 mill, not 7 mills – what’s true?
- Why won’t the city make a firm promise to keep the tax increase to 1 mill for the next budget year?
- How did the city decide it needed 7 mills for “public safety”?
- The city promises there will be a public hearing before it raises our taxes, so that’s helpful, right?
- What happens if we vote “no” on the “public safety” millage?
- In conclusion . . .
And here is Part 3:
Question – Why won’t the city make a firm promise to keep the tax increase to 1 mill for the next budget year?
It could have promised you that your taxes will only go up 1 mill in total, but it isn’t doing that. But even if it did promise, remember what we learned when the .691 mill library millage promise was broken – city council promises made in resolutions are worthless.
The language in the resolution says that if the 7-mill “public safety” millage is approved, the city will reduce the number of mills levied under the general millage (the current 11.4107 mills) “with the precise amount of the reduction to be determined following a public hearing held on the budget.” Subject to the hearing, the city is “proposing” to reduce the 11.4107 general millage to 5.4107 mills, which is an overall net increase of 1 mill (5.4107 mills + 7 mills = 12.4107 mills). But there is nothing stopping it from levying all 7 mills in next June’s budget hearing.
Mayor Sue Wylie: “If it says 1 mill, that’s all we can, that’s the maximum we can collect.”
Councilmember Al Avery: “Well, in this particular proposal, there’s no 1 mill discussed . . . So, it would be an increase of 1 mill, but that’s not on the ballot. And there’s nothing, I mean, to be honest, there’s nothing to say that we get to next May and June and, oh, 1 [mill] isn’t gonna be enough, we need 2. Right?”
Wylie: “Right.”
City attorney Gerry Fisher: “And that’ll be disclosed at the public hearing, probably.”
Avery: “The worst would be, yeah, 18 mills.”
Fisher: “Because the ballot is only dealing with a new millage that is being proposed. Well, where the other adjustment has to be made is by council during the budget proceeding. And we can’t set a number because you have to have a public hearing for the budget and you can’t make a decision before the public hearing.”
The lawyer claims the council can’t make any promises for next year. But that’s not true. It could commit to a 1-mill increase of the 7 it’s authorized for if the “public safety” millage passes, but if it did, then it would be stuck adjusting the budget to account for only a 1-mill increase. So, if there are rising costs that need to be addressed, the city council would have to do something it’s never done before – cut expenses. And gosh, it doesn’t ever want to do that. That’s the only reason why it won’t commit to only a 1-mill increase.
Mayor pro tem Rodgers: “So, this is just like a, if things go a certain way, we could be a dollar [mill] more net. But it could be three dollars [mills] more net depending on what the public.” (Rodgers apparently doesn’t understand the difference between $1 and 1 mill 🙄.)
Fisher: “I think it’s what we expect.”
Rodgers: “The only way it would go up 7 dollars [mills] more is if we kept the operating budget the same way and just did a new millage for 7 mills. . . . So, the way this sounds, this ballot sounds like that’s what, that’s what we’re doing. So how do you communicate that that isn’t the intent? Or does anybody really care what the intent is? This is the worst-case scenario is that you’re, we would keep, after the public hearing, we would keep the 11.4 in our operating and we would increase 7.”
Fisher: “Yeah, 18 mills or whatever it is, yeah.”
Avery: “And then at the end of the 5 years, we would come back to either renew or ask for more.”
Question – How did the city decide it needed 7 mills for “public safety”?
Fisher: “I can say that the 7% [7 mills] came in a meeting with the experts. It didn’t come from this council.”
Who were these experts? That’s not for you to know. Presumably, the city had secret discussions that weren’t open to the public.
The city invited Rana Emmons, the city’s contract auditor, to the August 10, 2026, city council meeting to help it polish this turd of a proposal. You all remember Emmons, right? Her firm prepares the annual audit report for the city. In previous years, she taunted the council about keeping their .691 millage promise and reminded them the money was there for the taking, even though she knew it involved a city council promise to taxpayers and taking it would break that promise. She also referred to the city council’s “borrowing” from the water and sewer funds to rebuild city hall and expand the DPW over taxpayer objection as “a magic wand of sorts.”
If Emmons was one of the “experts” the city relied on to help it decide to set the millage value to 7 mills, then she did it without even reading the current contract to know how much we’re charged for crappy police services. Our fire and EMS charges are based on the fire and EMS millage that Independence Township property owners pay and we contract directly with the Township for those services. But the cost for our awful police services is calculated differently. Independence Township and Clarkston both get police service through the Oakland County Sheriff, but Clarkston contracts for our police service through Independence Township. Our police contract, approved at the June 23, 2025, city council meeting, states:
Clarkston shall be responsible for paying 2.7% of the total cost of Law Enforcement services, based on the Township’s cost allocation methodology proportional to call volume and population share on an annual basis in the amount set forth under the Law Enforcement Services Contract between Independence Township and OCSO [Oakland County Sherrif’s Office], including ant [sic] and all increases or other charges levied and submitted to Independence Township by Oakland County and/or OCSO. This amount shall be charged in equal monthly installments.
So, police services are based on a percentage of the volume of the services used, not the millage Independence Township property owners pay. Clarkston pays for fire/EMS using the equivalent of the millage rate Independence Township charges its taxpayers.
But that’s not what Emmons told the city council.
Emmons: “Your contract is based on the millages that the township is levying on their own residents. So currently, they’re levying a little over 7 mills. So then, we, the City of Clarkston is billed based on what they’re levying on their own residents. . . . That’s what they’re levying is 7.0379. . . . so, we are being charged the 7.0379 times our taxable value. That’s how your contract is written.”
Councilmember Amanda Forte: “So our residents are getting charged the same as the Independence residents?”
Emmons: “Yes, based on their own taxable value of their property.”
Um, no. That’s not what the police services contract says. And where did Emmons get the idea that police services were billed at the same rate as fire/EMS? City manager Jonathan Smith and treasurer Greg Coté approve and pay those invoices – aren’t they double checking anything?
Emmons prepared a handy dandy chart that she distributed only to council showing the increase for fire/EMS and police services over the five years of the proposed millage, but the chart assumed police services were being charged to Clarkston residents at the same millage rate that Independence Township residents pay, and that’s just plain wrong. And Emmons’s chart showed that 7 mills wouldn’t cover all the fire/EMS and police services going out for the five-year term that the millage would last – but how the heck would she know? She didn’t even use the correct calculations. As they say – garbage in, garbage out.
Avery: “Why did we pick 7.0 when it’s really just not addressing the problem? Because we’re just gonna keep dipping into the general fund to make up the difference, right?”
Emmons: “Right, but respectfully, that’s, you know, I mean, this is the first time you’re levying a public safety millage. You know, it’s, you know the will of the people better than anyone. So, if you wanted to make that more, I think –“ (interrupting Emmons), Avery said “I know.”
Even Emmons was suggesting that maybe Avery should dial his voracious tax appetite back since this was the first time Clarkston has ever asked for a “public safety” millage. And everyone knows that once a community is lured into voting for one of these millages, the general fund money will all be spent on other things by the time a renewal comes up years later. That’s why voters are threatened with reduced (or no) services if they don’t say yes to the renewal.
Councilmember Ted Quisenberry: “The 7% [mills] was an arbitrary number that we picked that because it’s somewhat close.”
Yeah, we don’t know – so let’s just guess! It’s only (your) money!
What the city does know is that it just wants more money.
Treasurer Greg Coté: “Our revenue’s only gone up 25% [over the last four years]. . . . So, we just need another source of income.”
And that’s all this is about. You’re just not sending enough of your paycheck to city hall.
Question – The city promises there will be a public hearing before it raises our taxes, so that’s helpful, right?
Resident #1: “Right, and council could decide to do up to 11.4, because, up to 18.4, because that’s been previously approved and consistent with the charter. . . . there’s latitude that council has.”
Rodgers: “You are right about that, yes.”
Resident #1: “Without having to go back to citizens.”
Rodgers: “You’d still get a public hearing.”
It’s hilarious that the council members seem to believe a public hearing is actually helpful to the public. If you’ve ever watched a city council meeting, you’ll realize that nothing anyone says to the council during a public hearing – or in any public comment – has any impact on what the city council does.
Here’s how it goes – they’ll tell you you’ve got three minutes and they don’t have to respond to you or your questions if they don’t want to. This allows them to duck all the uncomfortable questions. They’re required to have public hearings in certain circumstances, and they’re required to give you a chance to speak. But they are never required to listen or care what you say – and they really don’t care. All that will happen during a public hearing is you’ll hear how sorry they are that they have no choice except to raise your taxes in whatever amount the city manager asks for. You get to complain, and then they’ll vote to raise your taxes. Maybe Wylie will even tell you their “backs are against the wall” again.
Fisher: “Well, I think that what you have to factor in is number one, the representation being made in the resolution, that the amount will be lowered. The 11.4 will be lowered. It’s stated that clearly in the resolution. It will be lowered. The question is, to what extent will it be lowered? And you cannot make that judgment now, because you can’t say what is gonna happen until you have a public hearing.”
But that’s not true, Mr. Fisher. If the council wanted to, it could commit to a net increase of only 1 mill during the next budget. And if it decided it couldn’t balance the budget with that amount, it could do something unusual for Clarkston – cut expenses. That’s how it could keep any increase down to a net of 1 mill if it wanted to. But it doesn’t want to. It wants to keep the latitude to take more than 1 mill from Clarkston taxpayers.
Question – What happens if we vote “no” on the “public safety” millage?
If you listen to this part of the meeting, you’ll notice no one said what would happen if they would have to make hard decisions about cutting costs.
Fisher: “[Lake Orion] might do a special assessment.”
Quisenberry: “They very well, I’m sure that if it doesn’t get voted, they will.”
Fisher: “Yeah.”
Quisenberry: “Because they won’t go without.”
Fisher: “Right.”
Avery: “So, at some point we’re gonna have to make hard decisions if it doesn’t get passed . . . And if the citizens vote no, then we’ll react.”
The city can’t threaten us with service cuts if we vote “no,” because ha-ha-ha!, joke’s on them – we don’t get any services in exchange for all the taxes we pay now! Well, that’s not quite true. There’s Depot Park lawn mowing and street plowing, but these things could be contracted out for a lot less than paying for two full-time employees with benefits.
Speaking of employees, perhaps the city could forthrightly address the over 5 mills we pay for employee salaries and benefits (approximately $369,176 and almost 50% of every Clarkston property tax dollar you send to city hall, based on the February 25, 2026 amended budget numbers). We could contract out elections and combine what remains of the clerk’s responsibilities with the treasurer, for example. Our current clerk has been whining about her salary anyway and will undoubtedly be leaving again once she finds another job on the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks job posting page like last time. Aren’t you just thrilled your taxes were raised .691 mills forever so we could hire her?
Rather than serious cost-cutting, your city officials seemed to be making an implied threat that the city would force you to pay for police, fire, and EMS through a special assessment if the “public safety” millage didn’t pass – though they didn’t spell that out specifically. But there are legal challenges to special assessments, so it might not be as easy as the city thinks it will be.
And honestly, if the city tries to take by force (a special assessment) that which we said we weren’t willing to voluntarily agree to pay (a 7-mill “public safety” millage), then isn’t it time to seriously talk about dissolution of the city?
In conclusion . . .
I saved the finest city council quotes for last because I think they capture everything in a nutshell. The best one came from Councilmember Gary Casey. You remember him? He’s the guy who thinks the money you keep in your pocket is a gift from government. In responding to Citizen #1, Casey made an accurate comment (for once).
Casey: “You don’t trust us.”
Wylie: “Yeah, that’s obvious, right?”
Gosh, why would we trust a city government that spends every dime it takes in and breaks its promises? It’s such a puzzler.
Dear reader, please understand that this November will be your only chance to vote on this steaming pile of excrement. A “yes” vote on this “public safety” millage is all the city council needs to raise your taxes by 62% whenever it wants.
Please vote “no” on the “public safety” millage proposal.