Under constructionThis deployment is live for testing only. Data, features, and findings may change without notice. To contribute — code, tips, corrections, or legal review — info@lexdoge.org.
SourcesBudget PDF· 2h|Legistar· 18m|Open Data· 47m|KPPA Pension· 4d|EMMA Bonds· 1dBuildsha256:dev·Next ingest: 23m
/ anomalies · fy26

Anomaly Flags

live · /api/v1/anomalies
This page lists patterns in Lexington-Fayette's public financial records that don't look like the typical pattern — things like a budget line that jumped sharply year-over-year, or one vendor receiving several contracts in a short window. Hovering over the underlined terms below pulls up a plain-English definition. These are starting questions, not accusations. Most flagged items have legitimate explanations; the point is to make patterns visible so citizens can ask informed questions.
Total flags
503
Patterns the system has surfaced for citizen review. Not accusations — starting questions.
High-severity
317
63% of all flags. Highest statistical strength — most likely to be worth a closer look.
Most common pattern
367
— hover for definition.
Latest sweep
May 27, 2026
The system runs detection daily and republishes anything new. Idempotent — duplicates ignored.
⚠ observations, not accusations
Anomaly flags are generated by automated analysis of public financial data. They identify patterns that deviate from expected distributions and warrant further review. Flagged items may have legitimate explanations. No allegation of wrongdoing is intended or implied. Any flag that names an individual person is held for human before publishing.
sort
severity
type
reset
showing 351–400 of 503 flags
sorted by severity · page 8 of 11
50 flags · on this page
sorted by severity
May 27, 2026
Bluegrass Community and Technical College: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $160,000 The vendor Bluegrass Community and Technical College received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $160,000. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Bluegrass Community and Technical College" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:3249dc77…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Community and Technical College
contracts
{"id":"f9bfdc57-ea75-4d0f-9341-fbd746125aff","date":"2022-12-07","amount":60000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7ca11446-56d1-4bcb-80e0-142aad4ee7d2","date":"2023-02-01","amount":100000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
160,000
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Bluegrass Community and Technical College: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $68,000 The vendor Bluegrass Community and Technical College received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $68,000. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Bluegrass Community and Technical College" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:aaf20c93…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Community and Technical College
contracts
{"id":"6553542f-903b-4b9f-90d9-b201914e3e3a","date":"2021-04-15","amount":60000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d7848d69-1ac9-4806-b815-4dba89b15d6d","date":"2021-06-28","amount":8000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
68,000
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Bluegrass Area Development District: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $99,320 The vendor Bluegrass Area Development District received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $99,320. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Bluegrass Area Development District" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:630a34c0…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Area Development District
contracts
{"id":"daa68b45-50ef-404a-81bf-fc9b5c40c18f","date":"2018-05-17","amount":2100,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"519dc842-35d7-4ed4-8f59-5441522ed426","date":"2018-06-22","amount":97220,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
99,320
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Bluegrass Area Development District: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $67,609 The vendor Bluegrass Area Development District received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $67,609. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Bluegrass Area Development District" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:7b410fe2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Area Development District
contracts
{"id":"9fa66975-5e00-457b-b7f1-38c3b53d60a0","date":"2018-03-13","amount":65509,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"daa68b45-50ef-404a-81bf-fc9b5c40c18f","date":"2018-05-17","amount":2100,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
67,609
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Bluegrass Area Development District: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $88,706 The vendor Bluegrass Area Development District received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $88,706. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Bluegrass Area Development District" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:ef2f27da…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Area Development District
contracts
{"id":"85cb4e8c-3714-4e85-a9f1-46757b2a83d2","date":"2015-07-30","amount":40096,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"889f903f-089f-4d8e-8d56-1b0d06bc43ee","date":"2015-09-17","amount":48610,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
88,706
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Bluegrass Area Development District: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $105,204 The vendor Bluegrass Area Development District received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $105,204. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Bluegrass Area Development District" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:1944bd77…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Area Development District
contracts
{"id":"d918b2b5-459f-4d83-ac61-e9a04e680eba","date":"2015-05-27","amount":65107.95,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"85cb4e8c-3714-4e85-a9f1-46757b2a83d2","date":"2015-07-30","amount":40096,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
105,203.95
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Benevate: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $102,879 The vendor Benevate received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $102,879. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Benevate" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:483ad0ae…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Benevate
contracts
{"id":"809ddc08-7eca-4e95-b2a3-660c3dbca1f1","date":"2021-06-21","amount":57000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6f0dccfd-2053-40d0-b569-2f6f9ddfbc7d","date":"2021-09-02","amount":45879,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
102,879
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Benevate: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $59,362 The vendor Benevate received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $59,362. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Benevate" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:833974a6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Benevate
contracts
{"id":"d029ae29-078f-4942-ac62-c8b46a8f97a2","date":"2021-04-19","amount":2362.5,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"809ddc08-7eca-4e95-b2a3-660c3dbca1f1","date":"2021-06-21","amount":57000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
59,362.5
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Benevate: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $55,362 The vendor Benevate received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $55,362. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Benevate" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:7b3b1650…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Benevate
contracts
{"id":"80890187-8986-455b-9a19-8dc01f0ea0a2","date":"2021-03-09","amount":53000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d029ae29-078f-4942-ac62-c8b46a8f97a2","date":"2021-04-19","amount":2362.5,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
55,362.5
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Benefit: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $175,500 The vendor Benefit received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $175,500. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Benefit" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:fece6a1c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Benefit
contracts
{"id":"2608bbab-a463-4101-a87b-cb8bb8b87a48","date":"2015-10-02","amount":58500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3d9eb193-de52-4854-b4a4-7ccbadbd89ff","date":"2015-11-06","amount":117000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
175,500
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Banks Engineering: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,130,830 The vendor Banks Engineering received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,130,830. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Banks Engineering" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:fe2c8ea2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Banks Engineering
contracts
{"id":"1e47383e-be64-44d5-b6a7-0b4cee7df7dc","date":"2019-01-14","amount":488415,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"01d45a49-ff06-4131-bfcc-f97f822c8e8f","date":"2019-04-08","amount":642415,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,130,830
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
ATS Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $11,836,953 The vendor ATS Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $11,836,953. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "ATS Construction" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:10a54ef9…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
ATS Construction
contracts
{"id":"c7de90f8-9f4f-485d-a97c-d2fd554de92f","date":"2023-09-11","amount":5692528.37,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e09c0816-f2cb-402e-bfd8-89115ace12c2","date":"2023-11-27","amount":6144424.79,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
11,836,953.16
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Atlantic Emergency Solutions: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,303,731 The vendor Atlantic Emergency Solutions received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,303,731. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Atlantic Emergency Solutions" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:9a68fc9d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Atlantic Emergency Solutions
contracts
{"id":"efc614b8-7bf6-4c72-8ee5-3e205a3bd739","date":"2026-02-04","amount":1960731,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5cfc5ab1-82ba-488e-ad93-f2e2e5639dbf","date":"2026-04-22","amount":1343000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,303,731
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Atlantic Emergency Solutions: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,480,713 The vendor Atlantic Emergency Solutions received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,480,713. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Atlantic Emergency Solutions" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:e90398b7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Atlantic Emergency Solutions
contracts
{"id":"21b7015c-4c4e-4fe1-b799-fa1f6ea51a31","date":"2025-03-11","amount":59613.65,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"86009ef7-bcf7-4552-be88-0610604d33e7","date":"2025-03-11","amount":1421099.11,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,480,712.76
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Atlantic Emergency Solutions: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,664,331 The vendor Atlantic Emergency Solutions received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,664,331. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Atlantic Emergency Solutions" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:2ab2e813…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Atlantic Emergency Solutions
contracts
{"id":"3f3cebd5-0416-4604-8fbf-d18372afa3da","date":"2023-09-13","amount":1151768,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2c6c5ba3-6d28-4e13-9e16-b55b9889ab02","date":"2023-12-10","amount":1512563,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,664,331
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Aramark Correctional Services: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,799,752 The vendor Aramark Correctional Services received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,799,752. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Aramark Correctional Services" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:6726ad0f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Aramark Correctional Services
contracts
{"id":"78ede7fb-366e-4d78-9c57-5ac38e8dc231","date":"2018-08-03","amount":1753752,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b515fd05-f58e-488f-9133-e72c27f4ac15","date":"2018-08-03","amount":46000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,799,752
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Angel Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $149,950 The vendor Angel Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $149,950. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Angel Contracting" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:e0a0c4a2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Angel Contracting
contracts
{"id":"f83a3629-66e8-4bae-b5c7-130d9d46d75b","date":"2015-03-02","amount":30350,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8df21a97-322b-4844-ab4a-727598590948","date":"2015-03-27","amount":119600,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
149,950
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Alpha Mechanical Services: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $961,634 The vendor Alpha Mechanical Services received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $961,634. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Alpha Mechanical Services" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:17b91866…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Alpha Mechanical Services
contracts
{"id":"054949f0-fd58-4f8a-ad99-6050bc6327c8","date":"2016-01-12","amount":879267,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"24f5368e-8754-4f2f-85a4-2a5ab0605c1d","date":"2016-03-14","amount":82367,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
961,634
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Airbus DS Communications: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,163,027 The vendor Airbus DS Communications received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,163,027. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Airbus DS Communications" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:5cc13986…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Airbus DS Communications
contracts
{"id":"29a7a88a-11c3-4ba2-9236-29bbc712a9fd","date":"2015-11-04","amount":1599771,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"af436c67-2a88-4d72-8d79-12a31cc48b4a","date":"2016-01-29","amount":1563256,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,163,027
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
AE Electrical Solutions: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $665,961 The vendor AE Electrical Solutions received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $665,961. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "AE Electrical Solutions" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:8de7f8f4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
AE Electrical Solutions
contracts
{"id":"58061603-285c-442c-95ea-b2bdeefd8233","date":"2025-04-28","amount":254160.82,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d0ffddee-102a-4385-8e0c-37cae7db176b","date":"2025-05-08","amount":411800,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
665,960.82
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
AE Electrical Solutions: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $299,224 The vendor AE Electrical Solutions received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $299,224. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "AE Electrical Solutions" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:5b4c3d0e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
AE Electrical Solutions
contracts
{"id":"7d42a7fa-5007-4579-b7b5-0314a240afd3","date":"2021-02-04","amount":130635.5,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7d7b17d5-7ea5-4ffe-a149-36117bc49db2","date":"2021-02-09","amount":168588,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
299,223.5
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
AECOM Technical Services: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $6,749,390 The vendor AECOM Technical Services received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $6,749,390. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "AECOM Technical Services" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:5bded78f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
AECOM Technical Services
contracts
{"id":"5bbaeb4d-6fc7-408e-bde7-a75f8e88c8fa","date":"2020-04-15","amount":3348841.5,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f51184c9-5842-40f2-b976-c38c5d78ce4a","date":"2020-06-24","amount":3400548.5,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
6,749,390
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Advanced Mulching Technologies d/b/a EcoGro: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $312,924 The vendor Advanced Mulching Technologies d/b/a EcoGro received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $312,924. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Advanced Mulching Technologies d/b/a EcoGro" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:4cf712ef…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Advanced Mulching Technologies d/b/a EcoGro
contracts
{"id":"5012f31d-4095-4e7d-8fbf-4cd06d573090","date":"2019-06-24","amount":152962,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d112de2a-bc28-4cf4-a3b1-d784eb7a561d","date":"2019-07-30","amount":159962,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
312,924
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Advanced Mulching Technologies: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $323,325 The vendor Advanced Mulching Technologies received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $323,325. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Advanced Mulching Technologies" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:56a93617…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Advanced Mulching Technologies
contracts
{"id":"56cbe560-0051-4374-b114-6721a9dbaaf9","date":"2015-09-17","amount":303250,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"505ddde3-c8eb-4218-90f2-06e552c1cf66","date":"2015-10-26","amount":20075,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
323,325
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Adams Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $185,000 The vendor Adams Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $185,000. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Adams Contracting" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:f588abc4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Adams Contracting
contracts
{"id":"273639a8-1f2a-4160-b8ca-5e1abe5c696f","date":"2016-09-29","amount":29500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"53c8b762-c4e8-4d02-8cd3-4de7e6cf9b21","date":"2016-11-01","amount":155500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
185,000
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Adams Contracting: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $292,000 The vendor Adams Contracting received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $292,000. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Adams Contracting" received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:69bc0568…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Adams Contracting
contracts
{"id":"4e2472de-b2f0-4516-88e8-27407cd24fae","date":"2016-09-16","amount":107000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"273639a8-1f2a-4160-b8ca-5e1abe5c696f","date":"2016-09-29","amount":29500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"53c8b762-c4e8-4d02-8cd3-4de7e6cf9b21","date":"2016-11-01","amount":155500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
292,000
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Adams Contracting: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $620,980 The vendor Adams Contracting received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $620,980. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Adams Contracting" received 4 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:b8e6d856…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Adams Contracting
contracts
{"id":"a9b6f504-c0a9-4ad2-864e-446fcd896c54","date":"2016-09-07","amount":328980,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4e2472de-b2f0-4516-88e8-27407cd24fae","date":"2016-09-16","amount":107000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"273639a8-1f2a-4160-b8ca-5e1abe5c696f","date":"2016-09-29","amount":29500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"53c8b762-c4e8-4d02-8cd3-4de7e6cf9b21","date":"2016-11-01","amount":155500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
620,980
contract_count
4
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Accela: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $105,609 The vendor Accela received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $105,609. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Accela" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:eb25d54b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Accela
contracts
{"id":"5b768548-ed26-4884-af25-576686b34d81","date":"2015-08-03","amount":41284,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7b9e26e5-487a-4c5d-ab81-0ffdf2496e4a","date":"2015-08-17","amount":64325,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
105,609
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Accela: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,454,241 The vendor Accela received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,454,241. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Accela" received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:c5a1a1b6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Accela
contracts
{"id":"1331923f-8f8c-40b4-ba0a-91ef92e99657","date":"2015-05-27","amount":1348632,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5b768548-ed26-4884-af25-576686b34d81","date":"2015-08-03","amount":41284,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7b9e26e5-487a-4c5d-ab81-0ffdf2496e4a","date":"2015-08-17","amount":64325,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,454,241
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Accela: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,682,172 The vendor Accela received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,682,172. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Accela" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:0b0e8596…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Accela
contracts
{"id":"ceb02db9-8db6-4fdf-94da-0e93287160df","date":"2015-04-10","amount":1333540.2,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"1331923f-8f8c-40b4-ba0a-91ef92e99657","date":"2015-05-27","amount":1348632,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,682,172.2
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
LEXCALL budget is 93.9% personnel cost ($1,174,724 of $1,251,347) The LEXCALL department's FY2026 budget is 93.9% personnel ($1,174,724 of $1,251,347). Departments operating at this personnel-to-total ratio have effectively no operating or capital headroom, which warrants review against the department's stated function and historical method. Common explanations include service-delivery departments where personnel is the service, or departments whose operating costs are budgeted under a sibling unit. This is a structural flag, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: department-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishLEXCALL spends almost all of its $1,251,347 budget on personnel, with very little for supplies, equipment, or programs. That's not automatically wrong — but it's worth understanding what services are actually being delivered.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · personnel_monoculturehash:3c455cdd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
categories
{ "Operating": 76623, "Personnel": 1174724 }
department
LEXCALL
dept_total
1,251,347
fiscal_year
2,026
personnel_pct
0.9388
personnel_total
1,174,724
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
ACCOUNTING budget is 95.5% personnel cost ($1,933,416 of $2,025,062) The ACCOUNTING department's FY2026 budget is 95.5% personnel ($1,933,416 of $2,025,062). Departments operating at this personnel-to-total ratio have effectively no operating or capital headroom, which warrants review against the department's stated function and historical method. Common explanations include service-delivery departments where personnel is the service, or departments whose operating costs are budgeted under a sibling unit. This is a structural flag, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: department-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishACCOUNTING spends almost all of its $2,025,062 budget on personnel, with very little for supplies, equipment, or programs. That's not automatically wrong — but it's worth understanding what services are actually being delivered.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · personnel_monoculturehash:5b511134…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
categories
{ "Operating": 91646, "Personnel": 1933416 }
department
ACCOUNTING
dept_total
2,025,062
fiscal_year
2,026
personnel_pct
0.9547
personnel_total
1,933,416
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
BUILDING INSPECTION budget is 96.1% personnel cost ($3,607,129 of $3,754,873) The BUILDING INSPECTION department's FY2026 budget is 96.1% personnel ($3,607,129 of $3,754,873). Departments operating at this personnel-to-total ratio have effectively no operating or capital headroom, which warrants review against the department's stated function and historical method. Common explanations include service-delivery departments where personnel is the service, or departments whose operating costs are budgeted under a sibling unit. This is a structural flag, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: department-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishBUILDING INSPECTION spends almost all of its $3,754,873 budget on personnel, with very little for supplies, equipment, or programs. That's not automatically wrong — but it's worth understanding what services are actually being delivered.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · personnel_monoculturehash:38c3f19f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
categories
{ "Operating": 147744, "Personnel": 3607129 }
department
BUILDING INSPECTION
dept_total
3,754,873
fiscal_year
2,026
personnel_pct
0.9607
personnel_total
3,607,129
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
WASTE MANAGEMENT — WASTE MANAGEMENT — Capital (General Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($500,000) The 'WASTE MANAGEMENT — Capital ()' in WASTE MANAGEMENT (Capital, General Fund) is budgeted at $500,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishWASTE MANAGEMENT — Capital (General Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:3308e7ca…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
General Fund
grain
100,000
amount
500,000
category
Capital
line_item
WASTE MANAGEMENT — Capital (General Fund)
department
WASTE MANAGEMENT
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
PARKS & RECREATION — PARKS & RECREATION — Capital (General Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($800,000) The 'PARKS & RECREATION — Capital ()' in PARKS & RECREATION (Capital, General Fund) is budgeted at $800,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishPARKS & RECREATION — Capital (General Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:5aee7372…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
General Fund
grain
100,000
amount
800,000
category
Capital
line_item
PARKS & RECREATION — Capital (General Fund)
department
PARKS & RECREATION
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
ENGINEERING — ENGINEERING — Capital (Right of Way Fund) budgeted at exact $1M multiple ($1,000,000) The 'ENGINEERING — Capital (Right of Way Fund)' in ENGINEERING (Capital, Right of Way Fund) is budgeted at $1,000,000 — an exact multiple of $1M. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishENGINEERING — Capital (Right of Way Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $1M. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:f3294ac6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
Right of Way Fund
grain
1,000,000
amount
1,000,000
category
Capital
line_item
ENGINEERING — Capital (Right of Way Fund)
department
ENGINEERING
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$1M
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Engineering (2026 Bond Projects) budgeted at exact $1M multiple ($1,000,000) The 'ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Engineering (2026 Bond Projects)' in ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS (Division Total, 2026 Bond Projects) is budgeted at $1,000,000 — an exact multiple of $1M. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Engineering (2026 Bond Projects) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $1M. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:0baab6cd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
2026 Bond Projects
grain
1,000,000
amount
1,000,000
category
Division Total
line_item
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Engineering (2026 Bond Projects)
department
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$1M
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING — TRAFFIC ENGINEERING — Capital (General Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($1,400,000) The 'TRAFFIC ENGINEERING — Capital ()' in TRAFFIC ENGINEERING (Capital, General Fund) is budgeted at $1,400,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishTRAFFIC ENGINEERING — Capital (General Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:c51442bc…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
General Fund
grain
100,000
amount
1,400,000
category
Capital
line_item
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING — Capital (General Fund)
department
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
GENERAL SERVICES — GENERAL SERVICES — Facilities and Fleet Mgmt (2026 Bond Projects) budgeted at exact $1M multiple ($3,000,000) The 'GENERAL SERVICES — Facilities and Fleet Mgmt (2026 Bond Projects)' in GENERAL SERVICES (Division Total, 2026 Bond Projects) is budgeted at $3,000,000 — an exact multiple of $1M. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishGENERAL SERVICES — Facilities and Fleet Mgmt (2026 Bond Projects) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $1M. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:b2b6cfda…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
2026 Bond Projects
grain
1,000,000
amount
3,000,000
category
Division Total
line_item
GENERAL SERVICES — Facilities and Fleet Mgmt (2026 Bond Projects)
department
GENERAL SERVICES
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$1M
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
STREETS & ROADS — STREETS & ROADS — Capital (General Fund) budgeted at exact $1M multiple ($3,000,000) The 'STREETS & ROADS — Capital ()' in STREETS & ROADS (Capital, General Fund) is budgeted at $3,000,000 — an exact multiple of $1M. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishSTREETS & ROADS — Capital (General Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $1M. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:10ef1482…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
General Fund
grain
1,000,000
amount
3,000,000
category
Capital
line_item
STREETS & ROADS — Capital (General Fund)
department
STREETS & ROADS
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$1M
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Streets and Roads (Municipal Aid Program budgeted at exact $1M multiple ($3,000,000) The 'ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Streets and Roads (Municipal Aid Program Fund)' in ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS (Division Total, Municipal Aid Program Fund) is budgeted at $3,000,000 — an exact multiple of $1M. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Streets and Roads (Municipal Aid Program Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $1M. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:accba245…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
Municipal Aid Program Fund
grain
1,000,000
amount
3,000,000
category
Division Total
line_item
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Streets and Roads (Municipal Aid Program Fund)
department
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$1M
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
POLICE — POLICE — Capital (Police Confiscated State Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($3,200,000) The 'POLICE — Capital (Police Confiscated State Fund)' in POLICE (Capital, Police Confiscated State Fund) is budgeted at $3,200,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishPOLICE — Capital (Police Confiscated State Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:bd78c7b6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
Police Confiscated State Fund
grain
100,000
amount
3,200,000
category
Capital
line_item
POLICE — Capital (Police Confiscated State Fund)
department
POLICE
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
PUBLIC SAFETY — PUBLIC SAFETY — Police (2026 Bond Projects) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($3,200,000) The 'PUBLIC SAFETY — Police (2026 Bond Projects)' in PUBLIC SAFETY (Division Total, 2026 Bond Projects) is budgeted at $3,200,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishPUBLIC SAFETY — Police (2026 Bond Projects) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:c53a4554…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
2026 Bond Projects
grain
100,000
amount
3,200,000
category
Division Total
line_item
PUBLIC SAFETY — Police (2026 Bond Projects)
department
PUBLIC SAFETY
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
PUBLIC SAFETY — PUBLIC SAFETY — Transfers (General Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($6,200,000) The 'PUBLIC SAFETY — Transfers ()' in PUBLIC SAFETY (Transfers, General Fund) is budgeted at $6,200,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishPUBLIC SAFETY — Transfers (General Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:bf78f637…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
General Fund
grain
100,000
amount
6,200,000
category
Transfers
line_item
PUBLIC SAFETY — Transfers (General Fund)
department
PUBLIC SAFETY
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
STREETS & ROADS — STREETS & ROADS — Capital (Sanitary Sewer Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($6,500,000) The 'STREETS & ROADS — Capital (Sanitary Sewer Fund)' in STREETS & ROADS (Capital, Sanitary Sewer Fund) is budgeted at $6,500,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishSTREETS & ROADS — Capital (Sanitary Sewer Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:1f317633…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
Sanitary Sewer Fund
grain
100,000
amount
6,500,000
category
Capital
line_item
STREETS & ROADS — Capital (Sanitary Sewer Fund)
department
STREETS & ROADS
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Streets and Roads (2026 Bond Projects) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($6,500,000) The 'ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Streets and Roads (2026 Bond Projects)' in ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS (Division Total, 2026 Bond Projects) is budgeted at $6,500,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Streets and Roads (2026 Bond Projects) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:b2c0b14d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
2026 Bond Projects
grain
100,000
amount
6,500,000
category
Division Total
line_item
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS — Streets and Roads (2026 Bond Projects)
department
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & PUBLIC WORKS
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
PARKS & RECREATION — PARKS & RECREATION — Capital (General Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($7,100,000) The 'PARKS & RECREATION — Capital ()' in PARKS & RECREATION (Capital, General Fund) is budgeted at $7,100,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishPARKS & RECREATION — Capital (General Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:1b898c44…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
General Fund
grain
100,000
amount
7,100,000
category
Capital
line_item
PARKS & RECREATION — Capital (General Fund)
department
PARKS & RECREATION
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
GENERAL SERVICES — GENERAL SERVICES — Parks and Recreation (Parks Fund - Ballot Initiative) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($7,900,000) The 'GENERAL SERVICES — Parks and Recreation (Parks Fund - Ballot Initiative)' in GENERAL SERVICES (Division Total, Parks Fund - Ballot Initiative) is budgeted at $7,900,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishGENERAL SERVICES — Parks and Recreation (Parks Fund - Ballot Initiative) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:242dc6a3…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
Parks Fund - Ballot Initiative
grain
100,000
amount
7,900,000
category
Division Total
line_item
GENERAL SERVICES — Parks and Recreation (Parks Fund - Ballot Initiative)
department
GENERAL SERVICES
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
NON-DEPARTMENTAL — NON-DEPARTMENTAL — Personnel (General Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($8,700,000) The 'NON-DEPARTMENTAL — Personnel ()' in NON-DEPARTMENTAL (Personnel, General Fund) is budgeted at $8,700,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishNON-DEPARTMENTAL — Personnel (General Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:d11a5780…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
General Fund
grain
100,000
amount
8,700,000
category
Personnel
line_item
NON-DEPARTMENTAL — Personnel (General Fund)
department
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
· May 27, 2026
PUBLIC SAFETY — PUBLIC SAFETY — Personnel (General Fund) budgeted at exact $100k multiple ($88,700,000) The 'PUBLIC SAFETY — Personnel ()' in PUBLIC SAFETY (Personnel, General Fund) is budgeted at $88,700,000 — an exact multiple of $100k. Budget amounts derived from headcount × pay rate, lease obligations, or itemized capital rarely land on clean round numbers. Legitimate causes include sealed-bid contract amounts, fixed transfers to a designated fund, or one-shot grant accruals. This is a statistical flag for review against the underlying methodology, not a finding of impropriety. Tier 2: line-item-named aggregate observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishPUBLIC SAFETY — Personnel (General Fund) is budgeted at an exact multiple of $100k. Budgets full of perfectly round numbers tend to reflect estimates rather than itemized planning — useful to know what's behind them.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · round_numberhash:a26487e4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fund
General Fund
grain
100,000
amount
88,700,000
category
Personnel
line_item
PUBLIC SAFETY — Personnel (General Fund)
department
PUBLIC SAFETY
fiscal_year
2,026
grain_label
$100k
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).