Kyiv’s residents could notice how in recent years, the lighting of city streets, especially major highways, has been actively updated. With this important area of work, the city authorities are killing several birds with one stone: outdoor lighting networks are becoming more modern and convenient for road users, safety is improving, and an economic effect is achieved. It is not the repair itself that should help save money from the city budget (this is, of course, an expense), but the replacement of lamps with energy-saving ones — the old mercury and sodium ones with LED ones. Lanterns with LED elements shine better, last longer and, most importantly, significantly save electricity consumption.

As of now, activities in this area are regulated by the City target program of outdoor lighting in Kyiv for the period of 2019-2022. The four-year program budget is UAH 2.72 bln. Out of this amount, UAH 1.76 bln is allocated from the local budget, and UAH 0.96 bln accounts for other sources (national budget or loan). The program is implemented by the Department of Transport Infrastructure of the Kyiv City State Administration, to which ME Kyivmisksvitlo is subordinate. This company is the balance holder of all outdoor lighting networks in the city and, accordingly, the procuring entity of works on their renewal.

In February 2021, the specialized department reported to the MPs of the Kyiv City Council on the implementation of the program in 2020. And judging by the report, it is the major repairs of street lighting networks with the replacement of lamps that is the most successful area of work of Kyivmisksvitlo. Last year, works for UAH 326 mln were carried out instead of the planned UAH 146 mln.  If to count in the lamps, 6,515 were replaced instead of 2,666. Allegedly, there were even savings in this case: the planned cost of one lamp was UAH 55,000, and the actual cost was less than UAH 50,000.  

The ME compensated for these successes by not fulfilling other planned program items. The company did not replace lanterns in parks and garden squares at all, did not build lighting networks for highways, and did not carry out major repairs to architectural and decorative lighting networks. The outdoor territories were also almost untouched — 4 objects were worked on, 93 are in the plan.

Shortly after the report on the work of the ME, mayor Vitali Klitschko instructed to conduct an unscheduled audit of it. This is what the Department of Internal Financial Control and Audit did, which in a fairly short time — only a month and a half — prepared the “Assessment of the activity of ME Kyivmisksvitlo on compliance with the law during tender procedures and fulfillment of contractual obligations for 2019-2020.” 

Golden supports

In general, the inspectors who analyzed the work of Kyivmisksvitlo for 2019-2020, covered procurement transactions worth UAH 262.4 mln. Out of this money, the detected violations amounted to only UAH 0.5 mln of losses. At the same time, the auditors also recorded violations amounting to UAH 27 mln, which did not lead to losses. They also noted the inefficient use of funds with estimated losses of UAH 16.8 mln.

As far as the last point is concerned, the bureaucratic wording sounds much more neutral than the facts behind it. We are talking about an audit finding on the cost of lamp supports. For major repairs with replacement of lamps, which were discussed above, not only LED lamps are purchased, but also lamp supports. Kyivekspertyza specialists checked the cost of works on 31 major repairs (22 objects in 2019, 9 in 2020) and came to the conclusion that outdoor lighting supports with a height of 8-10 m were purchased at prices that are 46-60% higher than market prices.

According to experts, the total amount of losses in the procurement of supports was UAH 16.8 mln, or 9.9% of the cost of all inspected works.

To determine the market value of the supports, Kyivekspertyza sent requests for a commercial offer to five manufacturing enterprises: TOV Company Metal Invest, TOV Metalogalva, TOV Eurorize, TOV Dolight, BLAGOUST. Based on their responses, the auditors formed their own sample of prices. Moreover, experts note that they used not the average, but the highest values of offers. And still, the difference with the price that Kyivmisksvitlo put in the estimate was 60% for 8-meter supports and 46% for 10-meter supports (overestimation in ME). 

Kyivekspertyza also studied the websites of support manufacturers and suppliers. There, the cost of supports is also lower than the price that Kyivmisksvitlo paid for the supports in 2019-2020.

Moreover, even if you search for these supports on the internet, they are sold cheaper than what Kyivmisksvitlo paid. For example, the 8-meter 103/220 OVOG support (these are the ones that ME buys) is offered for UAH 15,440, and this includes VAT. Ten-meter ones can be found for UAH 16,500 apiece.

That is, probably, approximately UAH 7,000 was overpaid for each pole with a lantern.

ME representatives do not agree with the auditors’ conclusions. Director of Kyivmisksvitlo Volodymyr Krutsenko responds: to form the price of supports, the company sent requests for a commercial offer to three manufacturing plants in 2019 and four in 2020 (it also received three responses). ME formed estimates already on the basis of their price. And they, in turn, received positive reports from the SE Ukrderzhbudekspertyza.

Interestingly, the audit covered only approximately 16% of lighting repairs procurement in Kyiv (at the expected cost), which Kyivsvitlo conducted in 2019-2020. The Kyivaudit did not explain to us how procurement transactions were selected for inspections. However, procurement transactions with such prices for supports significantly exceed the 30 included in the audit. Accordingly, losses can be significantly higher than UAH 16.8 mln.

In addition, Kyivaudit found an overestimation of the cost of supports for procurement of Kyivmisksvitlo during its previous audit in 2019. Back then, it analyzed procurement transactions for 112 facilities for 2018. The auditors found that ME conducted a market assessment based on only two offers, made its own one by asking prices with five companies, and considered that Kyivmisksvitlo spent UAH 15.9 mln inefficiently. To correct this violation, ME undertook to identify the official responsible for analyzing current prices on the market when determining the cost of direct costs when drawing up estimate documentation.

Subtleties of power consumption

Another interesting finding of the auditors concerns not losses from inflating the price, but the so-called “lost profits” due to inefficient use of municipal resources.

In 2020, ME Kyivmisksvitlo purchased electricity for powering outdoor lighting networks for UAH 134.8 mln (62.3 mln kWh). The auditors found that 520 of the 1,485 connected facilities consume more than 50,000 kWh per year. They account for 60% of the total amount of the electricity used. The audit advises equipping these facilities with hourly electricity metering systems — ASKOE/LUZOD — to save on resource procurement in the future.

The fact is that there are now two types of non-household consumers — “A” and “B” on the electricity market, which in Ukraine is becoming more and more free and technologically advanced. “A” is a group of enterprises whose sites are equipped with automated systems for reading power consumption data. The most common of these systems is ASKOE, an automated system for commercial electricity metering. It records consumption indicators on an hourly basis and transmits data from the company’s meters to its own server and the power supply company’s server. Therefore, in the future, group “A” enterprises can consider hourly electricity prices, adjust their electricity costs, and receive more favorable tariffs. 

Group “B” includes all other consumers who are not equipped and, what is perhaps a little strange, Kyivmisksvitlo as well. 

Therefore, in their conclusions, the auditors advise the company to pay attention to this omission and give the following calculations:

The cost of equipment for ASKOE 520 points that consume 60% of electricity will amount to UAH 10.5 mln. Lights mostly work at night, and then the electricity tariff is cheaper. Therefore, if the ASKOE records the time of its consumption, it will be possible to reduce the cost of lighting. According to experts, these savings for Kyivmisksvitlo may amount to about 13% per year. In 2020, it would be UAH 8.1 mln. Therefore, the payback period for the arrangement of 520 facilities with ASKOE systems will be only 1.5 years.

ME representatives responded to this recommendation by stating that they were already saving budget funds by replacing mercury-sodium lamps. And this saved UAH 28 mln in 2017-2020. They are not sure about the conclusions on the effectiveness of the implementation of the ASKOE because they do not see the proof of the above calculations of the cost of equipment and its payback. However, perhaps they will address this issue. 

The phrase “And now we are collecting money for curtains” became a meme in the community of Ukrainian parents of schoolchildren. Until a few years ago, few parent-teacher meetings at the beginning of the new school year could do without this call from teachers or representatives of the parent committee.

“Now I ignore a group of active parents who always come up with some purchases, referring to the request of the school. I’m fed up with it, and I don’t see the point. However, in elementary school, we were all quick at paying for some furniture and household goods. Curtains, for example, were bought twice in the first four years,” says Olha, mother of a Kyiv schoolgirl.

Where do the previous curtains disappear? For many years, parents from educational institutions in different parts of Ukraine have asked this question.

“The children ruined it,” “cleaning is more expensive than new ones,” “the previous class bought with their money and took it away, moving to another office,” “we need to update, don’t you want comfort for your children” — typical reasons were given to the parents we asked.

“I preferred not to argue about those curtains and ask why we need new ones in two years. I know for sure that the first ones were white tulle and the new ones were the same, only with some drapery,” Olha recalls with a smile.

However, curtains like other goods necessary to ensure the educational process must be purchased and are purchased with budget funds.

In the last two years alone, almost UAH 40 mln has been spent on curtains, drapes, blinds, shutters, and tulle for schools and kindergartens.

In 2020, they were purchased more actively: then it took UAH 24.5 mln. This year, in nine months, UAH 14.5 mln was spent on such a need.

The Kyiv oblast accounts for the highest number of curtains — UAH 7 mln.

The Lviv oblast ranks second — UAH 3.7 mln was spent.

The Sumy and Kharkiv regions share third position, with expenses of UAH 3.2 mln for curtains. The Chernivtsi region, on the contrary, tails behind in comparison with them — a little more than UAH 170,000 was paid for curtains.

You can check whether your school is among these procurement transactions in the table.

Even if you couldn’t find your school there, we recommend that you check the procurement transactions of the school itself or the Department of Education to which it is subordinate on the online school procurement map or DOZORRO.

Looking at what your school has purchased is useful to understand what its needs have already been funded. After all, even though municipal schools and kindergartens are supported at the expense of local budgets, cash grabs from parents are still widespread.

Until a few years ago, teachers themselves often raised money for school needs. However, the Ministry of Education and Science clarified that they did not have the right to do this. In particular, in 2018 and 2020, it sent letters to teachers stressing the free nature of school education and that any form of pressure on parents to pay funds or purchase something is illegal.

However, in some places the money is collected not by teachers and the administration of educational institutions, but by the parents themselves. More precisely, their committees. It is almost impossible to bring them to justice through forced levies because legally, they have nothing to do with the financial affairs of a school or kindergarten.

This works most effectively with first-graders and in primary school, when children are still sitting in the same class. Then parents strive to make this room as comfortable as possible. The question of how much the District Department of Education spent on the school and what exactly the director of the institution ordered for the year does not yet arise at the start of school.

Natalka from Kyiv told us about a similar algorithm in a municipal kindergarten her child attends in the overpopulated district Osokorky.

“Although the kindergarten is entirely new, it was put into operation together with our micro district, but the purchase of decor and arrangement in groups was shifted to the parents for the most part. Although it is difficult to understand now, were these critical needs for the group, or did the parents just want to do everything as good as possible, in their opinion,” the mother recalls.

“The first needs — the very same curtains, a rug, something of small furniture for the group — that’s what the teachers told us. But now, when we have been in this group for the third year, and the parents’ committee is still coming up with new expenses (the last one was climate technology), I am already more confident telling the group of parents that I have had enough and will not pay,” says Natalka.

If you decide to help a school or kindergarten yourself, one of the most secure ways to do this is to transfer funds to the treasury account of the educational institution.

The local department and the Department of Education also have such accounts. You can specify the intended purpose of the money: for example, that you transfer it for cabinet repairs or equipment procurement. Further, these funds are spent in the same way as budget funds. In other words, all procurement transactions for them will be made through Prozorro.

What else can be done to help the school in a convenient way, as well as how to help allocate funds for school needs, can be found in the special handbook for parents. There are instructions on how to properly issue parental contributions, and how to write requests to the school administration or the Department of Education. These explanations will help you find out what funds have already been allocated for, and inform you about the need to finance something else.

The material was co-authored with Yaroslav Pylypenko, TI Ukraine’s public procurement specialist. 

 

With onset of cold weather and new market prices for gas, people almost in every household think of how to make the house warmer and its maintenance cheaper. In those apartment buildings where residents thought about this even after the first wave of rising energy prices in 2014-15, they already had the opportunity to take advantage of state and local thermal modernization programs with the help of budget funds. How and for how much was it implemented in Kyiv — we’ll figure it out by example.

“Oberih” (Lucky charm) of the program

The building on Pozniaky, whose wall is decorated with solar power plant batteries, is noticeable from afar. A residential building on Bazhan Avenue, 16, appeared here in the line of buildings of a relatively new wave — in the first half of the 2000s. However, the spectacular and modern house was without insulation from the developer. Ten years later, a housing cooperative was established here, the chair of which actively began to search for ways to improve both the heating and payment systems. Housing cooperative “Oberih” in a matter of years implemented several projects of insulation and energy efficiency in partnership with the Kyiv city administration.

The 70/30 city program provides for competitive selection of housing cooperatives and other associations of residents of apartment buildings to co-finance thermal modernization measures. The main condition is the ability (supported by financial documents) and the desire of residents to pay 30% of the cost of insulation. The remaining funds will be provided by the city authorities. The offer is very attractive, moreover, the future result of such a rather modest investment of personal funds is savings on heat payments for years to come.

Housing cooperative “Oberih” has implemented three such system projects at once:

• 2017 — windows and doors were replaced, and the facade was insulated;
• 2018 — the heating and hot water supply system was reconstructed;
• 2019 — solar panels were installed to generate electricity.

Solar panels have become a particularly spectacular event because green energy is a global trend, and now it is finally supported in Kyiv, even at the level of such a socially oriented program.

The pace and frenzied success of this house was all over the news, the housing co-ops became the “showcase” of the city’s 70/30 program, and its chair Valerii Nikitchenko headed some associations of heads of co-ops, including the board of the Association of Cooperative Housings of Kyiv.

What else was done under the program?

According to information provided by the Department of Housing and Municipal Infrastructure of the Kyiv City State Administration, in recent years, approximately UAH 100 mln a year has been spent on projects of the competition for thermal modernization of the program. In 2021, the expected expenses may amount to UAH 155 mln. Let us remind you that this is 70% of the cost of projects, and another 30% is paid by co-ops.

Time frame	Budget funds of Kyiv (UAH mln)
2015	5.0
2016	20.0
2017	115.9
2018	98.2
2019	85.3
2020	126.5
2015-2020	450.9
2021	155.0 (planned)

 

What were these funds used for?

First of all, most often, houses are repaired, reconstructed, or new individual heating stations are installed. These are automated installations that transmit heat energy from external heating networks (boiler station) to the heating and hot water supply system. Insulation of facades, replacement of windows and doors in entrances are also performed quite often. It is also popular to install motion sensors that turn on/off lights in entrances and replace lamps there with energy-efficient ones. A little less often — new meters for hot water and heating are installed in houses, or roofs and basement floors are repaired and insulated. Even less often, the program is used to repair or re-equip electrical networks or reconstruct heating and hot water supply systems using renewable or alternative energy sources. It is for this purpose that “Oberih” installed solar panels.

General approach to thermal modernization:

1. Replacing windows and doors in common areas of buildings (elevators, stairs, halls), as well as repairing the roof and basement, if necessary.
2. Only then comes the insulation of the façade, if necessary.
3. And the next step is updating the internal networks, install modern meters, and change energy sources.

Since housing cooperation must also invest its funds — which means that these costs will be included in the tariff of the house or residents separately collect money for the project — the association must calculate its capacity and align its desires with opportunities.

No grand scale

The housing cooperative of the house next to “Oberih” — on Bazhan Avenue, 14, — decided to approach spending in moderation. They did not strive for solar panels, and most of the measures were taken within the usual tariff for the maintenance of the house territory, without an additional fund.

“We replaced windows under the 70/30 program, and now we are also replacing doors under it. This is about UAH 1.5 mln from the city. Thanks to these measures, we upgraded the heating station (at our expense), and also insulated the facade of one wall of the house, the coldest, under to the district 70/30 program. For this event, funds were raised specifically by residents of apartments in which this wall was located, and the co-op was a party to the transaction,” stated Viacheslav Masonskyi, the representative of the housing cooperation on Bazhan Avenue, 14. He also stressed that the members of the co-op introduced changes to the Charter of the Association, which forbade taking on loans. Therefore, those projects were chosen that co-op could realize on their own.

On grand scale

The example of the “Oberih” impresses not only with its scale, but also with its price. The total amount of projects implemented here reaches UAH 41 mln. The first project of facade insulation with the expected purchase cost of UAH 25 mln was won by the contractor with a price of UAH 20 mln, but then the procuring entity reduced the amount of work, and the price, respectively, decreased to UAH 14.1 mln. The second tender, with the expected cost of UAH 18 mln, was won by the same company with minimal savings. The procuring entity lawfully rejected more favorable bids. Payment for the works amounted to UAH 14.7 mln. The third tender — solar panels — with the expected cost of UAH 18 mln was won by the same supplier with savings of UAH 500 from the expected cost, the payment amount was UAH 12 mln.

Every year, the city spent 10-15% of the total budget of the 70/30 projects on the Oberih project. In total, in the energy efficiency of one house, USD 1.5 mln was invested.

The winner of all three tenders of this housing cooperative was the same company — TOV Universalbud 2000. It is registered at the same address as the house where it was a contractor — there’s nothing special about that. However, the fact that within the framework of the 70/30 project, this company was a contractor only for this object — is quite an important detail. Perhaps, this is somehow explained by the fact that at the time of the start of cooperation between “Oberih” and Universalbud 2000, the founder of this TOV was Valeriia Nikitchenko, the wife of the chair of the co-op, and Iryna Kalman, partner in his law firm.

It is also known that the housing cooperative “Oberih” took credit funds at 21% to participate in such large-scale modernization programs. Accordingly, residents still pay the loan and interest on it because even 30% of the contribution of the housing cooperative on tens of millions is still millions.

And that’s not all bad news. Special equipment for self-heating of the heat carrier and hot water to the network of the house (the second stage of the project) has not yet been put into operation. This is because the housing cooperative expected to heat water at night, at the cheapest tariff, but the conditions for energy supply changed before the equipment was ready, and there was no such tariff for co-ops. Therefore, the equipment is available, but it is located in basements, and the heat supply scheme had to be urgently changed. The situation with solar panels is also unclear. Now, according to the head of the housing cooperative, the energy they produce is used to light corridors and elevators. However, the housing cooperative no longer has the right to sell this electricity at the “green tariff” under the new market conditions.

That is, now the house has made thermal modernization, received good tariffs as for the city (data from the city’s specialized website, where you can view the cost of heating in city houses by month) and the quality of heat in apartments (reviews of residents). However, the budget paid more than UAH 30 mln for this, and residents of the housing cooperative are still paying their share of the loan.

Who are the contractors?

In fact, in addition to the “wow house,” there are hundreds of other co-ops that have successfully implemented much smaller programs and are happy with the result.

The procuring entity of all works under the 70/30 program since 2016 is a separate ME — “Implementation group of the energy saving project in administrative and public buildings of Kyiv.” Its procurement transactions are usually less large-scale than those described above, and range from UAH 0.5-1.5 mln. If you view the analysis of contractors of this ME, there are some leaders who take several dozen orders under the 70/30 program annually. Among them is TOV Energo-Invest, which actually works almost exclusively with procuring entities from the Department of Housing and Municipal Infrastructure of the Kyiv City State Administration (as well as with ME Kyivvodfond, ME Kyivteploenerho, ME Kyivkomuservice, ME Kyivzhylspetsexpluatatsiia). It is not possible to establish links between this enterprise and the KCSA, but the total amount for hundreds of contracts worth hundreds of millions is quite eloquent. Another similar leading contractor is TOV Building Technologies Systems, which also receives main orders from the Implementation group and Kyivteploenerho.

What happens next?

Good news for the mentioned contractors and for the residents of Kyiv as well — the 70/30 program is still in force, and this autumn, there is a competition for projects for thermal modernization.

In addition to it, the city has recently created another specialized ME — the municipal institution “Fund for modernization and development of the housing resources of Kyiv.” The KCSA made such a decision on October 7. UAH 400 mln was invested in the authorized capital of the new institution.

It will form a so-called revolving fund (repayable funds), which will provide loans to associations of co-owners of houses. The funds are promised to be lent at 3% per annum. The loan volume should not exceed 75% of the annual income of the housing cooperative, the loan amount will be multiplied by the number of years of repayment. That is, the city budget expands the possibilities of thermal modernization of houses, and will continue to moderate this process, but now not only on the basis of grant-in-aid, but also at the expense of house owners.

Local community participatory budgets, or, as they are more often called, public budgets, have become quite popular in the few years since their introduction. They have been created as an alternative to the existing mechanisms for allocating budget funds, when everything is decided by someone up the ladder: the executive body of the local council creates a program of expenditures, MPs can add their own ideas, and the council approves the plan and the estimate. Instead, the participatory budget provides for grassroots initiative: citizens unite in teams of like-minded people, put forward ideas on how to improve the lives of their local communities, form a project and estimate, participate in rating voting and, if they win, receive project implementation at the expense of the budget and local authorities.

Participatory budget is designed to expand the tools of real democracy and at the same time train citizens to develop cooperation skills and understand the real needs of their community. And since communities, as well as society as a whole, are quite heterogeneous, the draft participatory budget reflects this. Some activists perceive the budget as an opportunity to finally purchase everything for the social object of their district that the budget have not provided, while others — as a way to solve technical problems that officials do not notice. Others noticed in it the opportunity to embody creative and still unusual ways of improving the urban environment.

The PB format is constantly changing and improving. For example, the size of this budget in Kyiv has increased from UAH 50 mln in 2017 to UAH 200 mln in 2022 (current). Certain rules and requirements are also changing. In particular, this year, not only Kyiv residents with a residence permit can vote, but also everyone who works and pays taxes in this territorial community.

Another significant point in the development of the PB practice is that certain participants were recognized as dishonest and sanctions were applied to them. Last year, the commission of the participatory budget of Kyiv recognized several team leaders as dishonest after analyzing the work of participating teams. Moreover, four of them were at that time incumbent MPs of the Kyiv City Council, and one was an advisor to the deputy mayor of the capital. The main violation that the MPs were accused of was that they used their participation in the PB for their political advertising as a local MP. In 2020, the next local elections were just taking place.

MPs and the budget

On the one hand, MPs are representatives of the same community and can formally form their own teams and put forward projects for the PB. On the other hand, the very concept of the work of a local MP has long envisaged the established mechanisms for their participation in the distribution of local funds and the implementation of the needs of the district. Simply put: PB is an alternative to MPs, and they themselves have the opportunity (and are obliged) to submit applications from their district to the city’s socio-economic development programs adopted by the city council. It is these programs of distribution of the main budget of the city that provide for repairs of housing and municipal services and schools, new playgrounds, equipment of kindergartens and libraries. To do this, the MP, in fact, works in the commissions of the Kyiv City Council, and has professional assistants on a paid basis who work in reception rooms and create MP appeals and draft decisions. 

Plus, MPs of most local councils still have separate funds to fulfill the “orders of voters.” The size of such a fund in Kyiv now is UAH 1 mln per year. The MP can spend these funds at their own discretion — both for material assistance to voters, and to purchase what is necessary for the district.

MPs and the participatory budget 

However, despite the listed mechanisms of influence on budget expenditures, local MPs are actively involved in the promotion of projects through the PB. To achieve this, they use established relations with local administrations, cooperation with budget institutions (education, medicine) and work with voters. 

Last year, the commission of the PB of Kyiv disqualified the projects of several incumbent MPs of the city council because they used PB in their political campaigning. These projects, which have already gained quite high ratings, were removed from voting, and MPs, as a punishment, were banned from participating in the PB for a year. 

But the next cycle of the public budget has come — and for some reason the same faces are again among the leaders of voting for projects. This applies in particular to Yuliia Yarmolenko, MP of the eighth and current convocation of the Kyiv City Council, who promotes dozens of projects for her district through the participatory budget, not the city budget. 

PB-2022 involves ten projects submitted either by the charity organization “Vzaiemodiia” (Interaction), which she heads, or by her official assistants. This is evidenced by the call to action on the page of the organization. The total expected cost of the submitted projects is more than UAH 10 mln. Most of them relate to the current issues of the district where Yarmolenko’s public reception office (Nova Darnytsia) is located, and some of them relate to the needs of the entire Darnytskyi district. For each of the projects, Kyiv residents have already given 2-5,000 votes, which indicates a fairly decent rating.

How to circumvent the ban

Turns out it’s simple — the team just changed the name of its leader. In the case of “Vzaiemodiia,” instead of Yuliia Yarmolenko, the initiators of the projects were Oleksandr (her father) and Tetiana Yarmolenko and official assistants MPs Lidiia Hladysh and Dmytro Hrafskyi. As a result, on the rating page of projects with a sample for the Darnytskyi district, almost half are projects of this particular team, which seems to be deprived of the right to submit.

What projects does such a persistent MP promote? Video surveillance systems on the streets, equipment for social centers, equipment of cultural institutions, again cameras and playgrounds, club equipment by place of residence, sports grounds of educational institutions, sites in the Partisan Glory Park (which was recently repaired), special and office equipment for medical institutions. 

All these are important needs. And all of them can theoretically be satisfied either with the estimates of the institutions themselves (as medical institutions that receive funding from the National Health Service), or with the budget lists for the year of the relevant departments (Education, Culture, Housing and Municipal services). 

Why PB

It is difficult to say exactly why these projects are promoted precisely through the participatory budget. Perhaps something is preventing institutions from applying for these needs in the classic way. Or through the voting of mobilized groups, such as parents of schoolchildren, it is much faster and more profitable to promote these projects. 

In addition, this way, projects are less analyzed and criticized. For example, one of the most relevant proposals of “Vzaiemodiia” is to install growth figures “Shkoliar” at pedestrian crossings of Nova Darnytsia. They imitate a child and are designed to attract the attention of drivers, forcing them to slow down in certain areas. The project provides for the procurement and installation of 20 such figures for UAH 20,000 each. 

Kyiv resident and activist Serhii Pasiuta, who also participated in several PB projects in the field of road traffic, believes that the stated amount of expenses is almost twice as high. He also notes that this method of road safety is not provided for by the current regulations at all.

“These figures cover the triangle of visibility at crosswalks, which is prohibited by the State Construction Regulations. Installing shapes does not oblige the driver to do anything — they are not included in the traffic rules. Speeding safeguards are much more effective: raised crosswalks, safety islands, anti-enlarged sidewalks, speed cushions. However, all of them require coordination with the police and are more expensive,” explains Pasiuta.

To clarify the position of MP Yuliia Yarmolenko, head of “Vzaiemodiia,” regarding the projects submitted by her organization, we contacted the MP’s reception office, but she did not get in touch.

Yuliia Yarmolenko is certainly not the only one who uses the participatory budget in this way to increase her popularity in the district among voters. There are at least six officially registered participating teams associated with MPs on the PB website. By the way, Yarmolenko’s team is a record holder with its 94 projects. The remaining MPs have a maximum of 11 each.  

However, most often MPs support projects not officially, with the notification of the PB commission, but through their civil society organizations, foundations, and assistants. And some, as we can see, neglect even a direct ban on doing this for a certain time. In addition to Yarmolenko, MP Oleksandr Brodskyi, who was disqualified last year, is also indirectly participating in PB-2022, his assistant submitted several projects in his former district. 

There is no criminal liability for this, and voters actually approve of such actions of MPs — almost all of those, who were recognized as dishonest last year, were elected to the new convocation of the Kyiv City Council. Thus, PB is partly transformed either into an order table for heads of budget institutions of the district, who are more comfortable buying equipment without long stages of the budget process, or into an additional tool for promoting an MP in the district. Then, some really innovative or niche projects will slow down, unable to compete with the organized voting under the leadership of MPs.