Detroit City Council Planning & Economic Development Standing Committee – CDBG NOF Deliberations – February 26, 2026

The Planning and Economic Development Standing Committee of the Detroit City Council met on February 26, 2026, to deliberate on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Notice of Funding Availability (NOF) process. The committee reviewed eight appeals from applicants, discussed funding allocation methodology and scoring, and made decisions on the recommended funding chart for the 2026-2027 program year. The meeting included detailed discussion about fairness in funding, technical application issues, and future improvements to the application process.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were offered, either in person or online. The chair called for public comment three times; none were received.

Appeals Review & Decisions

• North End Village Nonprofit – Denied. The organization failed to submit proof of operation for the last two years; submitted an annual report dated July 15, 2024, and articles of incorporation, which do not meet the documentation requirements.
• Miracles to Inspire Change and Healing After Experiencing Loss (dba Michael Organization) – Approved. The applicant uploaded the required documentation, though in the wrong portal location. HRD located the documents and granted the appeal.
• Detroit African Youth Development Organization – Denied. The applicant did not list any board members in the application, which is a threshold requirement.
• Amore Esperanza – Denied. The organization did not submit a certificate of good standing; a staff misunderstanding led to the omission.
• Southwest Detroit Business Association (SWDBA) – Denied. The organization did not notarize the certification and has significant unspent funds from the prior year ($60,000 remaining of a $64,143 award) with only a month left to draw down funds. Leadership is exploring alternative solutions for this organization.
• Two additional unnamed applicants were approved because errors occurred on the city side (Office of Contracting and Procurement) rather than the applicant side.

Discussion Items

• Appeals Process and Documentation – The committee reviewed a memo clarifying HUD vs. City of Detroit required documents. Councilmembers discussed the need for clear written rules regarding funding allocation for new organizations and the appeals process.
• Scoring and Funding Allocation – Councilmember Benson raised concerns about “even-handedness”: four applicants with scores of 96, 95, 92, and 91 received $2,000 less than other applicants with the same scores in the same categories (education and recreation). He argued that funding should strictly correspond to score. HRD explained that new organizations are sometimes given slightly less funding to test capacity, but Councilmember Benson noted this was not clearly communicated in writing. The committee later approved a motion to send the chart back to HRD to recalibrate funding based on score equity, removing the “bump” given to experienced groups.
• Application Technical Issues – Multiple councilmembers discussed the high number of disqualifications due to missing documents or incomplete responses. Councilmember Tate noted that past improvements (Oracle to Bonfire) were expected to eliminate these problems, but human error in the Word document portion persists. HRD committed to working with OCP to make each question a separate field in Bonfire to prevent incomplete submissions.
• Historical Funding Data – Councilmember Johnson requested a 10-year history of CDBG allocations to the city to better understand funding trends and opportunities for new organizations. This motion was approved.
• Conflict of Interest Declarations – Councilmember Benson declared a conflict of interest with applicant #20 (Youth Connection) due to a non-financial relationship (serving as a delegate at a conference). He recused himself from discussion of the education category and left the meeting early. Councilmember Waters had previously recused herself from the entire process.

Key Outcomes

• Appeals Motion Approved – The committee voted to accept the appeals recommendations provided by HRD, approving three appeals (line items 5, 31, and 38) and denying five others. The approved appeals will be funded through a future reprogramming action.
• Funding Chart Recalibration – The committee voted to direct HRD to recalculate funding for four applicant organizations to ensure that funding amounts match scores within each priority category. HRD will provide an updated chart before the formal session.
• Process Improvement Commitment – HRD will work with the Office of Contracting and Procurement to restructure the Bonfire application portal so that each question is a separate required field, preventing incomplete submissions.
• Historical Report Requested – The committee approved a motion for CPC to provide a 10-year history of CDBG allocations to the city.
• Next Steps – The committee expects to receive the recalibrated funding chart and other documentation by Tuesday, March 2, 2026, in time for the formal City Council session where the CDBG NOF recommendations and appeals will be voted on.