Three numbers, not one
The scale, the screen, and the allegation are three different quantities.
Every dollar figure GOOD|GOAT publishes about 3PI falls into one of three categories. Confusing them -- treating the program's full scale as if it were challenged spending, or treating GOOD|GOAT's preliminary screen as a finished allegation, or as a City classification -- would misstate what the record shows.
Program scale · not a spending finding
$499,314,312
The scale of the voter-restricted program across the 383 approved projects in the public Explorer projection. This is not a finding that the whole amount was invalid, fraudulent, improperly spent, or challenged.
Preliminary GOOD|GOAT screen of City records
$143,556,257
A preliminary GOOD|GOAT screen of City records identified 143,556,257 dollars in reported expenditures across 199 projects requiring further review. Not a City classification, a final allegation, or a finding -- matches may contain authorized portions, false positives, or mixed-purpose work requiring factual separation.
GOOD|GOAT's allegation
More than $100 million
GOOD|GOAT’s allegation concerning improper spending. The preliminary $143.6M screen is not used as if it were the final proof or amount of this allegation.
GOOD|GOAT's preliminary screen of City records
How GOOD|GOAT built the $143,556,257 screen, and what it does not establish.
A preliminary GOOD|GOAT screen of City records identified $143,556,257 in reported expenditures across 199 projects requiring further review. GOOD|GOAT ran this screen against the City's own project-level financial and classification records; it is GOOD|GOAT's screen, not a City classification. A project can screen into more than one category, so the category amounts below overlap and are never added together -- only the deduplicated union across all 199 screened projects is a meaningful total.
| Candidate category | Projects | Candidate-screen amount |
|---|---|---|
| Preliminary screenGolf | 9 | $3,851,365 |
| Preliminary screenThird-party and cultural facilities | 29 | $10,605,747 |
| Preliminary screenAdministrative support | 15 | $4,979,406 |
| Preliminary screenRepairs and existing facilities | 144 | $77,303,163 |
| Preliminary screenStaffing and operations | 34 | $57,564,803 |
| Preliminary screenPlanning and studies | 7 | $2,150,055 |
| Deduplicated candidate union | 199 | $143,556,257 |
Required caveat
A preliminary GOOD|GOAT screen of City records, not a City classification. Matches are not legal conclusions. Categories overlap, and some matches may include authorized portions, false positives, or mixed-purpose projects. The $143,556,257 union is deduplicated by project code but is not GOOD|GOAT’s final challenged amount or proof of the more-than-$100-million allegation.
Methodology GOOD|GOAT matched each project’s approved public name and approved public classification fields, drawn from City-reported records, against six keyword categories, then summed each matched project’s reported expenditures. It is GOOD|GOAT’s keyword and classification pattern match -- not a City classification, not a project-level legal review -- and its amount measure (reported expenditures) is not the Explorer’s Full Reported Project Total measure.
What each category still requires
- Golf: This is GOOD|GOAT’s preliminary candidate-screen total, not the Project Total Explorer’s guided golf view. The Explorer’s q=golf / programs=Golf view uses a different selection rule and returns 8 projects totaling $3,761,374 -- the two figures answer different questions and are not directly comparable.
- Third-party and cultural facilities: Candidate projects involving third-party cultural facilities require review against the voter restriction and project-level records.
- Administrative support: Planning and administrative matches are screening candidates, not findings of invalid use.
- Repairs and existing facilities: Repair and replacement matches require project-level review to determine whether the work was an authorized improvement or an existing obligation.
- Staffing and operations: Staffing and operating-cost matches require a budget crosswalk before any supplanting conclusion.
- Planning and studies: Planning and administrative matches are screening candidates, not findings of invalid use.
Golf: the one category with a published finding
The golf candidate-screen total is not the Explorer's golf view.
Golf is the only category where GOOD|GOAT has also published a full finding (see The Golf Bailout). Three separate golf-related figures appear across 3PIC, and none of them should be substituted for another:
- $3,851,365 across 9 projects -- GOOD|GOAT's preliminary candidate-screen amount for the Golf category above, identified by screening the City's own project-level records.
- $3,761,374 across 8 projects -- the Project Total Explorer's guided golf view (
q=golforprograms=Golf), reporting controlled City-reported project totals under the Explorer's own selection rule. The Explorer does not use the overinclusive Recreational Facility = Sports Course facet, which returns 9 projects totaling $5,148,488 and incorrectly includes Encanto Park Lake Repairs. - $1.85 million (Papago, 2011) and $15,032,000 (Golf Fund debt, reported over three years) -- the two City transactions described in the Golf Bailout finding. These are separate liabilities, are never added together, and are not Explorer project rows.
These four figures answer four different questions. None of them is directly comparable to another, and none of them is the same as GOOD|GOAT's disclosed, more-than-$100-million allegation above.