Greater Greater Washington

Gray budget proposal eliminates DDOT "Unified Fund"

One provision slipped into the Budget Support Act in the middle of the night eliminates DDOT's "unified fund," which dedicates transportation revenues for transportation improvements.


Photo by Lester Public Library on Flickr.

Why should you care about this esoteric budget management tool? The Unified Fund gives DDOT the flexibility to move projects much more quickly than in the typical government agency. It can respond to sudden needs, quickly implement new technology, and adapt to overruns or under-budget projects.

DOT has sometimes pushed the envelope on using this power, and sometimes there's not enough transparency. But any reform of the Unified Fund should happen with more public discussion. The proposal wasn't floated publicly until the middle of last night, and it doesn't affect the FY2011 budget gap at all. The Council should hold off on any change until the next budget cycle or a separate bill.

If an intersection really needs to be modified for pedestrian safety, DDOT has the power to move its money around to do that. When DDOT decided to upgrade parking meters to credit cards following the "16 quarters" backlash, they could do that thanks to the Unified Fund. If DDOT is able to expand Capital Bikeshare as they are hoping, the Unified Fund will give them the flexibility to do that. It made it possible to launch CaBi in just 12 months.

Sometimes federal money suddenly becomes available at a moment's notice, and DDOT can move things around to take advantage of it. Last year's snowpocalypse/snowmageddon suddenly cost $16 million in overruns. Other projects end up coming in 20% under budget.

Under the standard budgeting process, each change from one project to another requires the Mayor to submit a reprogramming request that goes to the Council. DDOT would have to submit hundreds of these every year. Most likely it would also mean that every project under budget puts its revenue into the general fund, but new projects would be hard to get through the Council.

DDOT can run a little more like a business than many government agencies. It can be nimble, at least when it's run by an innovative director.

There's also value in keeping the revenues from transportation in transportation. Many fees involve collecting money from suburban commuters and visitors. The money will go to DC priorities one way or the other, but by ensuring that drivers' money goes to improving transportation that benefits those drivers in some way through better transportation systems, it reduces political conflicts.

In the same way it gives DDOT some flexibility, the Unified Fund also gives them the ability to move money around in ways that elected officials can't always see. Sometimes DDOT plays a bit of a shell game, suddenly moving money from one place to another behind their back so that it's harder to control.

The Council is right to examine this fund and look into reforms that might curb abuses or at least increase transparency. However, it's particularly ironic to fix a DDOT transparency problem through a process that has very little transparency of its own.

Nobody publicly floated the idea of changing the Unified Fund until last night. DDOT and the CFO's office say they weren't involved in analyzing the change and suggesting alternatives. We haven't discussed it and I haven't been able to understand the details. And we haven't been able to discuss options other than wholesale elimination.

The change is even obscured in the bill:

SUBTITLE C. DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OMNIBUS ACT OF 2010
Sec. 621. Short title.
This subtitle may be cited as the "District Department of Transportation Omnibus Act of 2010".
Sec. 622. Section 9(c) of the Department of Transportation Establishment Act of 2002, effective October 20, 2005 (D.C. Law 16-33; D.C. Official Code § 50-921.11) is repealed.
Where the rest of the sections of the Budget Support Act have descriptive titles, like "SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TRUST FUND" or "RECIPROCAL STATE-FEDERAL OFFSET PROGRAM," this section is mysteriously listed just as "OMNIBUS ACT" even though it only does one thing, and makes no mention in the legislation of the Unified Fund or anything about what's in §50-921.11. (It's the Unified Fund.)

I can't know, but it smells like someone was trying to put that in without anyone noticing. I only knew what this was because I had heard the Council budget office was considering changing the Unified Fund, and when this odd-looking provision appeared, immediately looked to see if that's what this referred to.

Update: Justin Constantino in the budget office says that there were other provisions in there, which is why it was called omnibus, and then they deleted those others but neglected to change the title.

It'd be irresponsible for the Council to drastically overhaul the way DDOT manages its budget with a small, opaque provision in a last-minute budget bill. That bill's purpose is to close the gap; this isn't a gap closing measure. Therefore, there's no reason not to give this some light and air. The Council should strike this section today and then consider separate legislation and a real hearing for any change.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

>The Unified Fund gives DDOT the flexibility to move projects much more quickly than in the typical government agency.

This may be a bad move, but I don't think we can claim to be surprised by it. Gray spent his whole campaign talking about slowing things down, doing more planning and less shooting from the hip. Obviously he'd seek to change the budget to take out the funding sources for such planning-light activities.

by BeyondDC on Dec 7, 2010 11:44 am • linkreport

Mayor-elect Gray may have proposed it, but Council needs to approve it. Have there been past abuses or is this just another micromanagement tool wanted by the Mayor's office?

by Rick on Dec 7, 2010 12:15 pm • linkreport

If this in any way slows down the bikeshare program that will be very unfortunate. There is such a thing as too much oversight.

by JohnDC on Dec 7, 2010 1:13 pm • linkreport

Hard to see that as not being a slap at Klein.

by Fritz on Dec 7, 2010 1:16 pm • linkreport

This is only my second budget cycle since I've been paying attention to the process, but is this kind of thing common? Slip in a little provision at the last minute in the middle of the night? Why does the Council standing rules allow this?

by OctaviusIII on Dec 7, 2010 1:40 pm • linkreport

There's also value in keeping the revenues from transportation in transportation.

There's also value in using revenues from transportation for other stuff. I wish the entire budget would be seen as one single unified fund. I do not like dedicated tax streams, nor do I like dedicated budgets. There should be one single treasure coffer we pay in to, and one single one that spends money. This is good for transparency.

by Jasper on Dec 7, 2010 2:27 pm • linkreport

is this kind of thing common? Slip in a little provision at the last minute in the middle of the night?

The 'middle of the night' is itself a bit of spin. The way I heard it described, the Council works up into the middle of the night hammering things out. It's like when you hear about Congress working late to resolve something. There's no 'slipping it in' or anything like that. It's more a matter that it takes everyone being tired and wanting to go home before agreement is made on some of these things. Now whether the 'everyone' is the Council itself (or more likely) their staff responsible for financials, I don't know. But I do know it's not the 'slip it in in the middle of the night' which David gets a lot of mileage out of ...

by Lance on Dec 7, 2010 2:35 pm • linkreport

You get who you vote for (Gray). This move shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

by Nick on Dec 7, 2010 3:09 pm • linkreport

Sources close to the historic John A. Wilson building tell me that Gabe Klein won't be serving in the Gray administration, while Harriett Tregoning will. Numerous other gov't chieftains were told today that their services will not be retained.

Film at 11.

by Fritz on Dec 7, 2010 6:59 pm • linkreport

This is a REALLY bad idea. Revenues from transportation uses and taxes should be fed back into maintenance, operation and improvement of the transportation system. PERIOD!

The transportation function of DPW ended up in such a mess at the end of the Barry years because all department funding came out of general fund. They couldn't even provide their local match funds for federal-aid projects.

by Some Ideas on Dec 7, 2010 11:58 pm • linkreport

I think that this could be a good way to slow this down and give the Mayor and Council a chance to look at the fund and put in certain safeguards which haven't been there.

It should be a topic to be discussed in the next budget cycle and reviewed carefully.

by Peter Rosenstein on Dec 8, 2010 11:42 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or