Election Results 2013

Because people are coming to my blog seeking the results of the election, I will republish here the numbers which can be found on the city’s website.

City of Sterling Heights General Election

November 5, 2013

Unofficial Results

32 out of 32 precincts reporting – plus all AVs reporting.

MAYOR (One 2-yr term)

 Richard J. Notte 16,130

CITY COUNCIL (Six 2-yr terms)

 Deanna Koski 12,284
 Joseph V. Romano 11,646
 Maria G. Schmidt 12,226
 Nate Shannon 10,351
 Doug Skrzyniarz 12,968
 Paul M. Smith   8,468
 Michael C. Taylor 13,172
 Barbara A. Ziarko 12,211

Editor’s Note: these results restated in vote number order are as follows:

Michael C. Taylor: 13,172 (retains Mayor Pro-Tem title)

Doug Skrzyniarz: 12,968

Deanna Koski: 12,284

Maria G. Schmidt: 12,226

Barbara A. Ziarko: 12,211

Joseph V. Romano: 11,646

The following candidates did not make the cut:

Nate Shannon: 10,351

Paul M. Smith: 8.468

Congratulations to all of the candidates who were elected yesterday!


Shall the Sterling Heights Charter be amended to authorize the levy of an additional ad valorem millage of not more than 2.5 mills for 6 years, from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2020, for the purpose of providing revenue for police and fire protection, and local street improvements? This 2.5 additional millage authorization shall be specifically dedicated as follows:

  • 1.7 mills for police and fire protection
  • 0.8 mills for local street improvements

This increased millage authorization will raise an estimated $10,400,000 in the first year if fully levied.

 YES 12,121
 NO   8,998

Congratulations to all of the Police and Firefighters who will not lose their jobs next summer!

Due to the demands on my time after having taken a vacation day yesterday to campaign for Mr. Taylor, I will reserve further comment for later in the weeks to come.  Suffice it for now to say that I am pleased with the election results, and I am very happy that the residents of Sterling Heights made the decisions they did.


I met a great number of people working at the polling place yesterday and enjoyed nearly every encounter, but I must give a tip of my hat to a few people who educated and informed me and generally made a long day outside more tolerable.  In no particular order, I’d like to thank Tom Ziarko, Rob Kovalcik and Jennifer Miller for interesting and stimulating conversation on Sterling Heights politics.   I must also say thank you to Mayor Richard Notte and Bob Haase for their generosity in giving someone from the conservative side of the house coffee, donuts and chips.  Most of all, I need to extend a huge, public THANK YOU to my wife Angela and my kids for not only putting up with my political obsession but being willing to let me spend a precious vacation day in a parking lot doing political stuff instead of doing stuff with them.  Angela, you’re the best!  Josh, you’re a heck of a sandwich maker, son!  Savannah, you went well out of your comfort zone for your dad, and I love you and appreciate it greatly!


Posted on November 6, 2013, in Election 2017. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. Too bad we could not give Romano the boot. Looks like he’s the least popular incumbent (other than Mr. Smith), but still popular enough to stay.

    I’m hoping for a day in the future when our Council does not bundle all these proposals together (under one millage) forcing the residents into an all or nothing decision. It’s not necessary, smacks of cronyism and shows an unwillingness of the Council to allow the residents to make their own choices.


  3. Well? stated Mike. I’m not here to debate anything but mark my words, I will still be driving over the same cracked concrete, and the public servants will be bloating their budgets now that we have handed over to them what they threatened that the taxpayers(they) need. The out of town firefighters will be going on volunteer calls in their own cities and getting paid for it, on top of the well deserved salary they make in good old SH.

  4. I was very upset that the millage passed. I can’t believe that our city is acting just as irresponsibly as our government when it comes to passing laws or amendments. The people who decided to give massive tax breaks to Chrysler and other companies in the city need to go back to math class. I don’t understand why they gave them such large tax breaks they could’ve reduced the amount say to 40% or 50% and that would’ve been fair. Now we the citizens are being asked to fill the gap. The job loss of 3000 or so Chrysler employees is bad but how many of those are actual residents probably half at best. The loss of 1500-2000 jobs doesn’t equate to taxing 130,000 residents. So I would love to hear how they plan on handling this same issue in 10 years because Chrysler and others will be back at the table asking for the same concessions. This is exactly how Detroit, Flint and Mt. Clemens started their downfalls. Hopefully I will be long gone from here by then but 40-50 years from now they could end up in the same place.

    • Mark,
      Just a couple of thoughts for you on your reply.

      Chrysler, Ford, et. al. have a legal right to those tax exemptions under state law. It’s not really a matter of the city “giving it to them” — it’s more of a formality that the city is going through in saying “we have checked this company out, it is in fact in the right type of industry for this exemption, and we the city council approve this measure because it conforms to state law.”

      Mr. Smith had it wrong. His votes were not intended to decide whether or not to “give out” the exemption. It was whether or not the city had performed its due diligence and verified the business conformed to state law in its request. This is a different matter entirely, and as I said, it amounts to little more than a formality. Sure, the council could have voted it down. The next thing to happen would not have been Chrysler or Ford leaving the city, it would have been a lawsuit, probably by the State Attorney General, against the city for not conforming to law. In the end, the business would have gotten the exemption. At least this is my read of the law as a layman. Now there is some discretion in the size of the exemption as you allude to, but the most the city ever gave out was 50%; that may have been the maximum under the law. They also had the discretion to determine for how long the exemption would be in effect. I am not clear on whether the businesses would have been allowed to reapply for an extension or not, but I think they might.

      In ten years from now, as you say, those businesses won’t be back asking for more. Why? Because barring some unforeseen change this summer, the state has decided to eliminate the tax these business were applying for partial exemptions on. This is all now a moot point.

      What you will see now is a very interesting test of Republican economic theory. The thinking is that the elimination of the personal property tax will attract more business to the state, and hopefully Sterling Heights, and that the increased land utilization will bring increased real property tax revenues to our city. That’s the theory, anyway. Whether or not it happens will be interesting to see. If it fails to jump-start our local economy and our empty buildings and vacant commercially-zoned properties remain as such, taxes on residents will have to go up again since there will be a loss of revenue sharing from the state and no personal property tax. You better hang onto your hat if you thought this millage increase was bad; $150 a year will seem like peanuts in comparison. Hope that doesn’t happen.

%d bloggers like this: