The Budget, Finance, and Audit Committee of the Detroit City Council met on April 8, 2026, to discuss and take action on several items, including the approval of minutes, public comments, a detailed presentation on the city-wide payroll performance audit, and multiple new business items. The meeting began at approximately 10:00 AM and concluded after several hours of deliberation.
Public comment was taken from both in-person attendees and callers via Zoom. Speakers raised a variety of concerns:
Council Chair McCampbell responded to several comments, noting that the rec center is already under construction (not dependent on the Pistons), and that follow-up would be made with the library, elections department, and on the BZA points raised by Mr. Gersh.
The Auditor General Laura Goodspeed and Stout Director Ray Roth presented the second interim report of a citywide payroll audit, covering fiscal years 2022 and 2023 (July 2021 – June 2023). Key findings:
Council members (Vice Chair Johnson, Member Waters, Member Corley) raised concerns about the low response rate to recommendations, the need for adequate staffing and training in payroll departments, and the financial risk of manual processes. The committee voted to bring the item back for further discussion on April 29, 2026.
The committee considered a resolution to approve an NEZ certificate for three new single-family homes at 1463, 1802 Fisher, and 1707 McClellan in the East Village neighborhood. Matt Temkin of Greatwater Homes presented:
Johnson present. Councilmember Waters. Mr. Chair, we have quorum. Thank you so much. And that'll move us on to the approval of the minutes. Folks should have received the minutes. And with that, is there a motion to approve? Motion. If there are no there's been a motion to approve and not seeing any objections, the minutes should stand approved. That will move us on to chair remarks. As folks know, yesterday we did pass um the fiscal year 2027 budget. But one that also uh one that delivers for Detroiters. And just want to know, you know, as we go throughout, as we go up to the next fiscal year and through the next fiscal year. Um I know this committee will be charging, we'll be working to make sure that what we have allocated in the budget goes to the actual services and programs that our residents are counting on. So just wanted to thank everyone. Um it was uh it was uh it was it was a busy season, um, but one that um was needed. So thank you all so much. And that will end my chair remarks and move us on to public comment. Um we are now back to two minutes for public comment. Um we will take folks in the room and then go to Zoom. We'll close request for public comment at 11. And we will start with folks in the room. Is there anyone that would like to give a public comment? Not seeing anyone here in person that'll move us on to Zoom. Um, how many folks do we have joining us virtually? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. We have nine hands raised as of right now. And our first caller is Tyson Gersh. Thank you so much. Uh good afternoon. Uh Mr. Gersh, you have two minutes. Hi, thank you. Um I guess uh if we could just actually dive into the BZA budget stuff. I mean, I know the memo says what it says, and I I think there's gonna be an attempt to explain revenues as being um purely the product of the um appeal or of the the appeal fee schedule, but I I think council needs to see the actual numbers because the actual cases and the charge the authorized charges related to each of those cases should equal like a very predictable amount, right? And I don't think they do. What is it like the like an appeals like 15 like a hardship um relief petition, which is effectively a conditional use variance request, um $1,500. Um I don't think the BZA caseload equals that revenue and fiscal year 2024. The revenue tripled, but the caseload didn't do anything like that. Also, the caseload graph that was presented to council previously, like the numbers are totaled wrong. Um there's only like a 13% increase in the caseload. Um, like I mean, literally just count them. Um and the fact that they're not organized by fiscal year is I mean, come on, like we're in budget season, like the only thing that should matter is is like those numbers during the fiscal year, um, because that is how the city structures um its financial reviews, so it's it's worthless if it's not done in the context of the fiscal year as opposed to the calendar year. Um like this stuff should just be transparent. Like we shouldn't have to kind of even dig, it should just be clear as day. Thank you. And just for folks to know, if there are responses, we'll do that at the end of public comment. But I am taking note here.