Courthouse Costs Hidden in Plain Sight

For the last eight months, confidential information breaking down the costs of could have been viewed by anyone with an internet connection and a base knowledge of spreadsheet programs like Excel. 

In that time, members of the City Council have argued that to protect the bargaining position of the city.

The confidential but easy to retrieve information is contained in a PDF file which can be downloaded from the city's website. The file, created by staff working for the First Choice design/build team which is now entering into contract negotiations with city officials to proceed with the project, was uploaded to the city website in mid March, of The file, which goes into detail about two schemes proposed by First Choice, was supposed to be redacted to conceal four pages containing tables breaking down the proposed costs of each. 

And on the surface, they are. Tables appearing on pages 26 through 29 are blacked out at first glance. But hovering a mouse cursor over the tables reveals that the information within can be highlighted and copied. Pasted into a spreadsheet, the information only needs a bit of formatting to fall in place and basic math to make sure the numbers add up. 

One-Time Costs Add Thousands to Project

The price tag most frequently bandied about for the First Choice concept is $35.7 million. However, this number does not account for at least $279,950 in one-time costs for things like moving expenses and office rentals for city employees forced to temporarily relocate during construction. Finding office space for the three city offices in Executive Plaza which will have to relocate makes up the majority of these costs, roughly $244,950. These one-time costs could grow, as well. First Choice's cost breakdown as it appears in the redacted tables says that the city's legal and financial expenses are "unknown."

The $35.7 million price tag, as presented in the redacted tables, only includes costs for construction itself. That price tag is also spread out across three different phases, the renovation of the first floor of executive plaza to be the temporary home of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the renovation of the existing General District Court building, and the new court facility. 

According to the redacted tables, it will cost $1.27 million to turn the first floor of Executive Plaza into the temporary home of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The renovations of the existing General District Court are project to cost $5.47 million. The new Circuit Court building makes up the majority of the costs at a projected $28.9 million.

Those costs are further broken down into construction sub-categories. Demolition, site construction and building construction costs for all three sites are projected at $26.4 million. Architectural, engineering and interior design services add $2.3 million. Legal expenses are projected at $125,000. Property acquisition is projected to cost $1.1 million. Furniture and equipment for the new facilities is projected to cost $1.8 million. Another $744,000 is projected to go toward other costs like surveying, quality control, inspections, wiring, hazmat testing, permitting and utility hookups. 

The reconstructed redacted tables can be viewed here.

When presented with the redacted numbers, Raymond Booth, project manager for the First Choice team, said that they are accurate to a certain degree. He noted that since the initial concept proposal was posted online, there have been some minor changes to the proposal, such as the addition of costs to expand the number of finished courtrooms.

Flaws Revealed in Handling of Redacted Data Online

Redacted data shouldn't be this easy to retrieve, but sloppy data security procedures, or the lack thereof, may be to blame. 

According to Assistant City Manager Mark Whitley, there are no standard procedures used at City Hall for screening redacted documents posted online. The task of redacting the documents was left to the individual design/build teams themselves, and each team used slightly different methods. Once their redacted documents were received, they were posted online without a review. So far, no other instances of sloppy redaction have yet been discovered among the publicly available documents on the city website. 

Why no standard procedure? The novelty of posting documents containing a mix of public and confidential information may have something to do with it.

"It's not what we hoped," said Whitley. "I think at this stage in the game, there it is, but usually we put stuff out there and it's out there because it's public. This is a bit different for us, we don't put a lot out there that has a lot of redaction in it."

A number of software companies produce redaction tools for PDF files, perhaps the most prolific and widely used being Redax.

Had the data been leaked earlier, or had a similar situation unfolded in another bid evaluation process, it could potentially give a competing contractor an unfair advantage during negotiations. 

But with a preferred team selected by City Council, both Booth and Whitley think that this leak won't have much of an effect on the final contract negotiations.

"I'd almost call it O.B.E.," said Whitley. "Overtaken by events."

"It would concern us a lot if everyone was bidding on the identical thing," said Booth. "Everbody's numbers relates to their particular concept here, everybody's building the way they laid it out…so you can't compare apples to oranges."

According to Whitley, a contract is expected to be before the City Council for approval at its November 8 meeting.