Detroit committee advances Neighborhood Opportunity Fund awards after ethics guidance prompts recusals; education category held

The Detroit City Council Development Standing Committee continued deliberations on Neighborhood Opportunity Fund (NOF) recommendations during a virtual meeting, advancing most funding categories while ethics guidance prompted recusals and held the education slate for more information.

Committee leadership and city staff told members they had received last-minute guidance from the law department and the Board of Ethics about potential conflicts of interest tied to family relationships and board service at applicant organizations. Marcel Todd, director of the planning commission’s legislative policy division, told the committee that “the conflict of interest issues that were raised yesterday must be addressed, before your honorable body goes any farther,” noting city attorneys and Board of Ethics staff had been consulted.

Why it matters: NOF distributes federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars for neighborhood programs and services. Advice from the Board of Ethics and the law department can trigger the need for additional disclosures or a waiver from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Those steps can delay or change who can vote on award approvals and — if not handled correctly — risk federal funding.

Board of Ethics and law-department guidance

Crystal Phillips, executive director of the Board of Ethics, joined staff online and offered procedural guidance. “I’m here to answer any questions you may have,” Phillips said. Committee members were told the most conservative legal advice was that some members with identified ties should file disclosures and, in certain cases, seek HUD waivers before participating further in NOF decisions.

President Pro Tem James Tate, whose wife serves as chair of an applicant group’s board, announced he would recuse himself. “The last thing I want to do is jeopardize any funding today, tomorrow, next year, simply from my presence and my wife's decision to volunteer for a very tremendous organization. So I'm going to, step out of the room, recuse myself from the rest of these proceedings,” Tate said on the record.

Council member Gabriel Santiago Romero likewise announced she would remove herself from deliberations after disclosing a family relationship with an employee of a subrecipient; staff said that relationship appears to be outside the narrow definition of “immediate family” under the city ethics code but that HUD guidance may still be needed to confirm no federal conflict exists. Council member Scott Benson was told his previously disclosed relationships required only a disclosure form because one relationship had already been reviewed and waived by HUD.

Public comment and program delivery questions

During public comment, city residents raised questions about NOF and CDBG spending priorities and local impact. One resident said, “I think you guys are misusing our CDBG money and our NOF funds,” urging more neighborhood-focused stabilization spending rather than development projects in areas such as Corktown and Joy Road.

Committee members and staff also repeatedly asked applicants’ representatives for more operational detail — for example, which Detroit schools or ZIP codes education providers would serve and how health and dental providers reach West Side residents from East Side locations. Carrie Battinger, program analyst for the Housing and Revitalization Department, answered several operational questions about long-standing NOF recipients and monitoring: she said some groups maintain out-of-city headquarters but operate programs that serve Detroit residents, and staff monitor to ensure city funds are spent inside Detroit.

Votes and next steps

Staff presented a chart of recommendations and asked the committee to act by category. The committee approved public safety, health, senior services (with one senior item separated for individual consideration), and recreation categories during the session. Members voted to defer the education category for follow-up information about where particular providers will deliver services and which schools they will serve.

Votes at a glance: Public safety — approved; Education — deferred for follow-up; Health — approved; Senior services — approved (one Ferndale‑based “Gay Elders of Metro Detroit” line was separated and subsequently approved after discussion); Recreation — approved.

What remains: staff and the law department said they will continue seeking written opinions and, where necessary, HUD waivers. Members were advised the committee should resolve these questions before final formal votes tied to budget approvals and HUD applications. Todd told the committee the matter should, if possible, be completed before the council’s upcoming budget sessions; staff set a follow-up opportunity for the committee’s next scheduled meeting (Monday at 2 p.m.).

The committee’s deliberations illustrated the procedural steps the city takes when potential conflicts intersect with federal grant requirements: disclosures to the Board of Ethics, possible waiver requests to HUD, and separating members from deliberations when guidance suggests they should not participate. Those measures aim to protect both federal funding streams and the integrity of the city’s awards process.