Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Detroit council committee asks law department to probe high transcript fees and missing recordings at BZA hearings
Summary
Multiple callers told the committee that Board of Zoning Appeals video recordings and transcripts are being withheld or charged at high rates; the committee asked counsel to investigate and return a memo about the city’s practices and contractor fees.
Citizens told the Neighborhood and Community Services Standing Committee that access to Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) records is being restricted or priced beyond reach, prompting the committee to ask the Law Department to investigate.
Tyson Gersh said the city has “a contract with remote, legal, slash Precision Reporters, LLC,” and told the committee that “the zoning board is trying to charge me $4,749.80 for transcripts that I have to have for my appeal.” Other callers described sudden changes in recording practices and said the city’s contract should not leave residents unable to access hearing records for appeals.
Council members treated the matter as urgent. Chair Councilman Young called for a memo and asked the Law Department to review whether the practice is typical, whether the city has contracted away fee authority and whether caps apply. “I like to make a motion to see, what the process is in charging fees in terms of, videos and for, you know, particularly when you're going to appeal for the board of zoning appeals,” the chair said; a motion to investigate and request a memo was made and accepted.
Graham Anderson of the Law Department said he needed clearer facts from the caller but characterized an $8,000 request mentioned in the discussion as “definitely seems excessive.” Anderson offered to follow up if the caller or council staff share contact details and documents.
Why it matters: Several callers said the city pays contractors to record and store hearings (they named Remote Legal/Precision Reporters LLC) and then charges citizens steep fees to obtain transcripts needed for appeals. Callers framed the practice as a potential due‑process and access issue for low‑income residents who cannot afford thousands of dollars for records.
The committee instructed counsel to prepare follow‑up and asked staff to connect the citizen with the Law Department for more details. No formal changes to the contractor agreement were made at the meeting; the Law Department agreed to research the facts and report back.
Ending: The committee closed public comment and moved the matter to follow up by counsel; members said they would expect a written memo and outreach to the caller so any miscommunications or misorders can be resolved.
