Transparency?

There is game playing going on with the Mayor’s proposed $568 million capital spending plan. It’s intentional and disappointing. Let me walk you through what’s going on.

I’ll show examples of the straightforward and proper way that most of the spending in the plan is presented. Then I’ll show the back door curveballs the administration has thrown hoping to get funding for a few projects approved without public discussion. Some of this will be dense and require hopping between a few documents. I’m walking through the details so you can judge for yourself whether there’s any way to interpret what they’ve done except as an intentional effort to get two large projects funded without being upfront about the funding they are seeking.

Here’s how disclosure and transparency should work.

Let me give you a few examples of how disclosure and transparency about capital spending should work.

The Mayor issued a press release on October 22 about the capital spending plan. It mentions that “Twenty-nine million dollars completes the new Hillwood High School in Bellevue for an August 2023 opening.” Then, in the details exhibits in the actual legislation, you can go to page 2 of the detailed exhibits and find a listing for $29 million for “Hillwood High (Final Phase)”. Then you can go to page 21 of the detailed exhibits and get even more information. This includes a breakdown that $22 million is allocated to construction, $4 million for furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and $2.5 million for technology purchases. Lots of information that matches across several documents. This is the level of information that the administration is supposed to provide.

As another example, the Mayor’s press release also listed $30 million for a new Juvenile Justice Center campus. The press release described the new campus in detail: “A new, 14-acre campus will be a national model for how cities and courts can fully support young people and their families.” Back to the detailed exhibits — page 2 matches the press release (i.e., $30 million for “Juvenile Justice Center - Phase 1”) and page 17 of the exhibits lays out detailed information about prior funding, six categories of spending that make up the $30 million, and even a detailed explanation of what is expected to be covered by $4 million of “other anticipated project costs.” Again, this information matches across multiple documents. This is the way the disclosure and transparency is supposed to work for a capital spending plan.

The Mayor’s October 22 press release is many pages long and loaded with details from top to bottom about everything from new schools to repairing a swimming pool. For everything in the press release, it is pretty easy to track the proposed spending through the details exhibits like I have done in the examples. Clearly, the administration knows how this works and what level of information they are supposed to provide. In fact, they appear to have done it right for around 90% of the proposed capital spending.

Here’s how to do it wrong.

The $15 million of capital spending proposed for the zoo is listed in the press release and on the first page of the detailed exhibits. But the administration didn’t include the required “Capital Project Cost Itemization Form” for the zoo. The Mayor’s office advised the Council in a memo on November 12 that the form was mistakenly not provided: “Please accept our apologies for this oversight. The Capital Project Cost Itemization Form (CIF) for Zoo Parking was prepared but inadvertently omitted from Collective Exhibit B.“

I think I’m willing to take their word for this being an oversight. But now we now that not only do they know how to do it right (for 90% of the proposed spending), but they also know how to own up to an unintentional oversight.

Let’s move on to the major projects not mentioned at all in the press release…

I’ll start with the Jefferson Street Cap. I’ve walked you through how the process is supposed to work. I challenge you to read the Mayor’s press release, the real-time media coverage, the legislation, and the detailed exhibits, and find any reference to the Jefferson Street Cap. It’s not there. You can read my October 22 post for more details, but the only way to realize that the cap is in the spending plan for $15 million is to cross-reference the detailed exhibits with a separate 400 page document approved last June.

Why would anyone put $15 million of spending for the Jefferson Street Cap into the proposed spending plan without ever naming the project? It’s probably because the administration knows that there is substantial community pushback and there is no consensus yet on whether the project should even happen. See WPLN’s November 9 coverage here. After finding the hidden reference to the Jefferson Street Cap in the spending plan, I was disappointed, but glad to have shed light on it at least.

Unfortunately, on November 12 and 13, I learned that there is another $25 million of proposed spending snuck into the spending plan on a project that has not been announced yet. There is $25 million in the plan for “Early Acquisition of [Right Of Way"] to include six parcels for Phase I-North/South Arterial Boulevard between Spring Street and Woodland Street.” I would challenge anyone to find that in the proposed spending plan.

Spoiler alert — you can look at the press release, media coverage, the legislation, the detailed exhibits, and the 11 page memo of additional information from the Mayor’s office on November 12, and there’s no direct or indirect reference to this project.

I stumbled on this by asking questions about a totally difference piece of legislation on the Council agenda for November 16. On that agenda, there is RS2021-1237 and its attached exhibit. This legislation would approve an intergovernmental agreement with the State to spend about $50 million on a new arterial road on the East Bank, including acquiring six parcels for right-of-way for $40.88 million. I did not realize that this resolution had anything to do with the capital spending plan. I contacted the administration on November 12 to mention that this seems like a weird way to announce being financially committed to a new arterial road on the East Bank. There has been talk of it, I told them, but this legislation specifically names the acquisition of 6 parcels for $40.88 million — that’s pretty specific. I noted that, at the Budget & Finance Committee meeting on Monday, someone would likely ask where the parcels are, how the price was determined, when the purchase would be, and how much was Metro going to have to spend. I intended to be giving them a heads up to be ready for those questions.

In response, I was told that the cost split was 50/50 between Metro and the State. I asked whether Metro’s share was covered in some previous capital spending plan, or the current proposed one, or if it would be in the future. I was told that it was in the current proposed spending plan. I was surprised because I had thought that I’d read the spending plan carefully, but didn’t recall seeing an extra $25 million for a new road that’s not been announced.

On November 13, I received this explanation from the administration about where the $25 million for the new road is in the spending plan. It’s split between two categories. Most of it ($20 million) is in a category described as:

Restoration & Resiliency for areas hit by unforeseen events. State Routes & Partnership Funding for partnerships with TDOT/federal/state/public private entities. Innovation & Sustainability Corridors are living labs for technology/sustainability pilots.

I guess the phrase “…Partnership Funding for partnerships with TDOT…” is what the administration thinks makes this category applicable to building a new road??? The other $5 million is in another category described as:

Traffic Management Systems/Signal Upgrades funding specifically related to restoration/resiliency and partnership funding. To be used towards improved and smart technology/equipment in potential innovation coordinators in partnership with stakeholders and partnership dollars.

For this one, I guess they think the phrase “…partnership funding…” is supposed to tell us about the new road??

Any way you slice it, describing $25 million of capital spending on a previously unannounced new road in this way is not transparent and does not give the public fair notice about what the Mayor is proposing.

For the $15 million for the Jefferson Street Cap, there is no way to notice the spending in the plan unless you cross-reference the detailed exhibits against a separate 400 page document. And for this $25 million for the new road, there is no way at all to tell from the proposed spending plan that it includes this new road. Again, it’s very disappointing.

The capital spending plan isn’t back before the Council until December 7. Now that we know we’re playing “Where’s Waldo?” with it, we have a few weeks to look for any other surprises that might be tucked into spending plan.