Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Detroit committee pulls several bond-funded demolition contracts for finance and contamination review
Summary
Council members voted to bring back a set of bond-funded emergency demolition contracts in one week after staff flagged zero balances on a committee report and the administration confirmed changes to backfill sourcing following an investigation into contaminated dirt.
Chair Gabriela Santiago Romero and Vice Chair Denzel Anton McCampbell asked administration officials to pause action on several bond-funded emergency demolition contracts and return with clearer finance and environmental oversight details.
"It does say 0 funding," the chair said when reviewing the committee report and asked OCFO staff to explain how demolitions would be paid. Group Deputy CFO Regina Greer told the committee that residential emergency demolitions were intended to be paid from bond funding but that the committee report the staff received showed an insufficient appropriation and needed correction.
Vice Chair McCampbell moved to bring the bond-funded items (6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.9, 6.11 and 6.13) back in one week so staff could reconcile fund availability; the motion passed without objection.
Members also pressed the administration on the source and safety of backfill used after demolitions. Lawan Counts, interim deputy director of public services, said the city suspended use of one source—referred to in the meeting as the Iron Horse pit—and has limited contractors to eight approved pits. "We have moved to a monthly inspection," Counts said, describing a shift from annual inspections. Counts said the city had tightened protocols for verifying backfill sources after concerns about contaminated material.
Council member Mary Waters asked for a list of commercial properties where the city had placed liens or was pursuing reimbursement after emergency demolitions and requested identification of contractors who accepted the contaminated backfill for the committee’s follow up. Counts said some contractor identities could not yet be shared publicly because of an active investigation but that the administration would provide an update.
The committee’s action did not block the demolitions themselves—staff said many were already complete—but it directed staff to return with corrected fiscal documents, a list of affected contractors and the updated inspections and pit approvals before the council advanced the bond-funded contracts.
The committee also sent the remaining demolition items that were funded from blight or other available funds to formal with a recommendation to approve.
