City council OKs ballot questions for November

STERLING HEIGHTS — Questions about how City Council vacancies are filled and the dollar amount government administrators can spend without the formal approval of elected officials will be up to voters to decide this fall.

On June 2, the Sterling Heights City Council OK’d moving forward with the two ballot questions after lengthy debate.

The first proposal would require a special election if a council seat is vacated with more than two years remaining in the term. When less time remains, officials would appoint someone who would serve until the next council election.

The second proposal would set a spending limit of $50,000 for purchases that don’t require official City Council approval.

The latter measure, which the city administration proposed in the name of efficiency, saw officials go back and forth over questions of oversight and what spending ceiling voters might find acceptable.

According to Sterling Heights City Manager Mark Vanderpool, removing routine purchases from the council’s regular voting process would reduce paperwork and associated staff time and allow elected officials to primarily focus on “substantial, more meaningful agenda items, especially the large purchases.”

“Greater efficiencies are created by eliminating formal agenda statements with voluminous backup for items like the purchase of paper products, batteries, software subscriptions and other minor routine purchases,” Vanderpool said.

He added that council members would continue to have a voice on the “more mundane, perfunctory items” through the yearly budget process “and through the bill list that City Council approves every council meeting.”

“They just simply wouldn’t require formal agenda statements, with formal backup material and so on,” he said.

The city charter, which dates back to 1968, set a $5,000 threshold for preapproved purchases. Anything below that amount did not need a formal council vote. Although $5,000 was then a large sum, the amount has never been changed. Based on the federal Consumer Price Index, Vanderpool said that $5,000 in 1968 equates to almost $48,000 today.

Rather than raising the unvoted purchasing cap to $50,000, Councilman Mike Radtke proposed a $35,000 amount, which he said would bridge the gap between efficiency for routine spending and council’s oversight duty.

“I’ll be honest, I’m not looking to have fewer items on my agenda. I’m not looking to not understand how we’re spending money and where. I think it’s an essential part of my job,” he said. “I think $35,000 will make the purchasing office more efficient while at the same time ensuring that council approves large purposes like vehicles and ensures the city is spending money in the most wise manner possible.”

Although Councilwoman Liz Sierawski agreed with Radtke’s $35,000 suggestion, the majority of officials supported the $50,000 limit requested by the administration.

After posing questions to city Purchasing Manager Erik Skurda, Councilman Henry Yanez said he favored the higher threshold.

“We have our professional director giving us testimony as to what it takes to run this city on an efficient basis,” he said. “I know $50,000 is a lot of money, but these are the times we live in. And the fact the matter is, we buy a lot of stuff, and things are very expensive. I don’t have a problem with the $50,000.”

Councilwoman Barbara Ziarko also favored putting the $50,000 amount on the ballot and leaving it up to the public to choose. She said the key to having the measure pass is making sure voters understand what’s being asked of them.

“This isn’t costing the residents any more money. I think that’s what needs to be stressed,” Ziarko said. “There is no additional cost to the resident here. This is just a way of doing business and if we can do it more efficiently, I think that’s what we need to tell everybody why we’re doing it.”

Mayor Michael Taylor said he was fine with either suggested amount but ultimately backed the higher figure so the matter could advance.

“My biggest issue with $50,000 isn’t so much the additional spending power that the city administration would have, or any concerns about abuse, but just whether it has the ability to pass,” he said.

Radtke said he believes the proposal won’t pass with the $50,000 figure and that he will speak out against it.

“I personally don’t believe $50,000 in any form will pass,” he said. “I think in a time when people are very concerned about government not paying attention to them and not doing what it’s supposed to be doing, that this will look like we are trying to slip things under the rug.”

 

Filling vacancies
The other ballot question voters will face Nov. 3 involves filling future City Council vacancies.

The proposal would amend the city charter to require a special election if an elected official departs with more than two years left in the term. The idea is preventing an appointed replacement from filling the bulk of an unexpired four-year term.

“Voters should select their representatives,” said Radtke, who has previously pushed for the special election rule. “This, I think, keeps the initial idea of the charter, which is that we will appoint for a less-than-two-year term, while it gives the voters a little bit more control. I’m highly supportive of this. I think it’s pretty common sense.

“I hope we never have to use it,” he added, “but I want to make sure that if it were to occur, people aren’t without representation that they voted on and for more than two years.”

The entire City Council — four of whom were once appointed to office themselves — were united in support of the proposal.

“I think it really is important to give the voters the opportunity to make that selection if it’s longer than two years,” said Councilwoman Maria Schmidt. “I am in full support of this.”