Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sterling Heights council places two charter amendments on Nov. 3 ballot after debate over transparency and thresholds
Summary
Council voted to place a charter change asking voters whether an appointed replacement should face a special election and a separate amendment to raise the council purchasing threshold (from $5,000 to a CPI-adjusted $50,000) on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. The purchasing-threshold measure prompted a heated 5–2 vote after multiple proposed compromises failed.
The Sterling Heights City Council voted to send two charter amendments to the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot after extended debate over voter clarity and municipal oversight.
Special-election amendment (Section 4.06): Assistant City Attorney Don Denault presented a proposed change to require a special election to fill vacancies when more than two years remain in the unexpired term. Councilors questioned ballot wording that had an explicit 'regardless' clause (intended to make clear an election would follow even if council appoints a replacement). Council amended the ballot language to remove that clause for clarity and voted to place the amended language on the ballot; staff said it had already been informally vetted by the Attorney General’s office and that voter-education materials will be produced.
Purchasing threshold amendment (Sections 13.03 & 13.04): City administration proposed raising the charter's 1968 purchasing threshold (then $5,000) to $50,000, using CPI adjustment as justification. Purchasing Manager Eric Skurda said internal controls would remain (three written quotes above $5,000, approvals, and biweekly council bill lists). Supporters — including the city manager and some council members — said the change would remove routine, budgeted items from lengthy packets and create administrative efficiencies.
Opponents said $50,000 is too large a jump and would reduce public scrutiny of city spending. Council members proposed several compromise figures (including $35,000 and $40,000) during debate; a friendly amendment to change the ballot number to $40,000 failed on roll call. After discussion, council voted 5–2 to place the $50,000 amendment on the ballot. The roll-call vote read: Yes — Zero, My Jack, Schmidt, Taylor, Yanez; No — Radke, Sarrowski.
Why it matters: Staff said the change would not eliminate council oversight: the council still approves the city’s annual budget and twice-monthly bill lists (which include every expenditure). Opponents countered that removing routine agenda items reduces opportunities for public review and that future administrations could exploit higher thresholds. Several council members urged robust voter education before the election.
Other votes: Council adopted the final amendment to the 2025–26 appropriations ordinance and approved planning-commission appointments during the same meeting.
Attribution: Coverage is based on presentations and council roll-call statements from the Sterling Heights City Council meeting.
