BZA director warns of falling revenues, high transcript costs as council moves budget items to executive session

Director Ray Brown, director of the Board of Zoning Appeals, told city council members on March 13 that the BZA’s proposed fiscal‑year 2027 budget reflects lower revenues, a leaner staffing model and continuing pressure from court‑reporter costs.

"Our total expenditures are $57,808. Our total revenues are $53,040. Net tax costs are $518,768," Brown said during his presentation, which also noted the office currently has three full‑time positions and that personnel and benefits make up roughly 71% of the budget. He said the department faces a roughly $112,000 reduction tied in part to the loss of one full‑time position and a mayoral freeze on position amendments announced January 14.

Brown tied the revenue declines to falling case volume: he gave annual case counts of 66 in 2023, 93 in 2024 and 42 in 2025, and said the department is currently at about 30–35 cases for the 2026 fiscal year to date. "We're trending down in terms of cases and that's where our revenue comes from," he said, adding that the department expects to average roughly 50–60 cases a year going forward as development patterns shift.

Technology and public access were a focus of the presentation. Brown showed a public desktop at the BZA front desk and said the department has implemented an Exela intake system to modernize applications and improve transparency. He said staff are uploading case files so residents can view BZA records without requesting a certified transcript.

Several council members pressed Brown on the cost and certification of transcripts. Brown told the council that the contracted court reporter charges in the range of roughly $6–$7 per page and that an average community appeal transcript runs about 300 pages, creating a significant cost burden for residents who seek a court transcript. Brown said he has sent a memo to procurement and is coordinating with the law department to review the court‑reporter contract.

Councilmembers raised several follow‑up concerns during questioning. Member McCampbell asked whether the city could bring court reporting in‑house; Brown said some proceedings require a certified court reporter and that departments currently use a shared contract but that centralizing or revising contracting is under review. Member Benson pressed on whether the reduced revenues will limit training; Brown said memberships for the Michigan Association of Planning are currently covered but the cuts could affect future travel and training participation.

Three motions to discuss related matters in executive session were made and adopted without objection: Member McCampbell moved to place the cross‑departmental court‑reporting conversation into executive session; Member Benson moved to place the full BZA budget into executive session; and Member Johnson moved to add a broader community‑outreach review to the executive session agenda. Chair called for objections on each motion and, "seeing none," stated the actions would be taken.

Brown and councilmembers also discussed administrative matters including notice practices (the ordinance’s 300‑foot notice threshold and site‑posting by petitioners), how approved minutes are made available (minutes are available the day the board approves them; the BZA meets three times monthly), and the appeals window to circuit court (Brown said appellants generally have 21 days after minutes approval or a signed decision to file in circuit court).

The presentation closed after a short exchange about a constituent who accidentally paid $600 to the BZA office; Brown said payments go to the city's treasury and refunds require a processing step via treasury. Andre Blair, who identified himself as an agency CFO during a final comment, offered to coordinate with BZA staff to transfer the ticket to the correct account to avoid a lengthy refund and re‑pay process.

The council then adjourned the item and moved to the next presenter, the Public Lighting Department.