Detroit advances third‑party rental‑inspection contracts amid debate over compliance and fees

Detroit City Council members voted to send four third‑party rental‑inspection contracts to formal review with a recommendation to approve, prompting extended questions about enforcement, fees and the wider rental ecosystem.

The council advanced three‑year contracts for third‑party inspections covering single‑family and two‑family rental units. The contracts named on the record were: Prospections LLC (contract 6007051), The Inspection Group (contract 6007052), Custom Built Construction (contract 6007047) and Safe Built Michigan (contract 6007048). The council’s action was recorded as “sent to formal with the recommendation to approve.”

Why it matters: city staff and council members said improving rental‑inspection compliance is central to addressing habitability problems in Detroit’s rental stock. Staff said roughly 80,000 rental properties exist in the city and about 11,000 currently have certificates of compliance, and that the new inspection checklist will focus on core life‑safety and health items.

City staff described how the program will operate. Arthur Rushen, who the administration identified as the lead on the contracts, said the contracts will “provide a more streamlined inspection process utilizing these inspection companies” and described the inspection workflow: “you register your rental property, you schedule your inspection, you make the repairs, and then you call back for reinspection.” He said the new checklist is a shorter 15‑item list focused on life‑safety and health issues.

Deputy Chief Operating Officer Andy Taverna said the third‑party work supplements city inspectors and that the program is intended to concentrate the city’s in‑house staff on multifamily properties. Taverna and Rushen said the third‑party firms have worked with the city for years.

Council members pressed administration staff on scale and outcomes. Council member Verner (administration staff answered) and the vice chair both asked how the contracts would be divvied by ZIP code and whether the city could use its own staff. The administration said vendors will be assigned by ZIP code; larger firms will take larger ZIPs and smaller firms other areas.

Staff also described goals for compliance and volume. The administration said the city currently has roughly 11,000 certificates of compliance and is aiming for a 40–50% increase in certificates over time. Administration officials clarified that they expect about 5,000 inspections per year across all contractors initially and estimated it will take three to five years to approach a 40–50% total compliance increase for the full universe of properties.

Council members repeatedly raised the question of tenant nonpayment and the broader market ecosystem: how to encourage landlords to invest in repairs if rents are not collected and how to ensure long‑term landlord participation. The vice chair said the council needs a two‑sided approach that addresses both landlord incentives and tenant payment behavior.

Council members seeking fee clarity were told the fee for a single‑family rental inspection is $195 and the proposed two‑family inspection fee is $220; staff said a minor adjustment to the two‑family fee schedule was under consideration and that inspections are paid by property owners, not the city. The administration also gave the public a scheduling phone number: (313) 628‑2451 and said online scheduling will be available on the city web page.

On the vote: after discussion and public Q&A, the council moved items 6.3, 6.4, 6.7 and 6.8 to formal with the recommendation to approve.

Ending: Council members and staff said the rental inspection initiative is part of a multi‑year effort to raise minimum living standards and that the city will continue landlord outreach and public education as the program rolls out.