The Amanda Underwood Interview

Clayton Council member Amanda Underwood ran on transparency and accountability. Now, from inside Town Hall, she says the issue is not simply whether information exists, but whether Council and the public can actually use it in time to understand major decisions before they are made.

In our first Dispatch interview, Underwood talks about the Town’s budget process, utility increases, development pressure, downtown parking, public engagement, and what she believes Clayton government needs to do better as the town keeps growing.

“Transparency shouldn't depend on whether the question is comfortable to answer.”

You ran as someone who wanted more transparency and accountability in Clayton government. Now that you're on the inside, what looks better than you expected, and what looks worse?

What's better is the people. Clayton has employees doing hard, essential work every day, often under real pressure from how fast we're growing, and a lot of them are genuinely good at their jobs and invested in this community. I don't want anything I say here to obscure that.

What's worse is how hard it can be for Council to get the underlying information behind a major decision. I expected policy disagreement. I didn't expect so much of the process to run on summaries, presentations, and reassurances instead of records we can actually check ourselves. I've also been surprised by how often a detailed question can be treated as more of a problem than whatever the number itself turns out to be. Transparency shouldn't depend on whether the question is comfortable to answer.

“The answer is not micromanagement. It is better reporting.”

During the budget process, you asked for more detail before feeling ready to move forward. What specifically were you trying to understand?

Whether what residents were being asked to pay was fully necessary, and what it was actually for. The budget comes to us mostly at the fund and department level. I asked for the layers underneath that: current spending on professional and contract services, which departments were running over and why, and how internal support costs get split between the General Fund and the utility funds. General Fund support-service costs are allocated to the enterprise funds, and I wanted to understand which costs were included, why utility customers were covering them, and how those amounts were calculated.

I also want us tracking costs by program and purpose, not just department, so we can understand what kind of return we're getting for our spending. An event or initiative can cross several departments and funds, and by the time everything is rolled into department totals, it can be difficult to determine what that specific effort actually cost. I've raised this directly with the Town Manager and Budget Manager. Some of the limitation appears to be our current financial system, and the Town is now designing a new one. I've made clear that program-level tracking needs to be part of that build, not an afterthought.

A balanced budget tells you the numbers add up. It doesn't tell you whether every expense is justified or assigned to the appropriate fund or purpose.

Do you feel Council currently gets enough information to make informed budget decisions, or is too much of the process still happening at a high level?

Too much of it is still high level. We're working with roughly a $140 million budget across the General, Water and Sewer, and Electric funds, and Council should be able to trace meaningful changes from what was actually spent to what's being requested next. Right now, we receive totals, narratives, presentations, and a recommendation. Those are useful, but if Council cannot independently test whether a significant number holds up, then we are relying on the recommendation rather than independently evaluating it. We are trusting that the number is right. Those aren't the same thing, and Council's job is supposed to include the first one.

When staff says certain records or breakdowns would take significant time to produce, how do you weigh that against the public's right to understand where the money is going?

Staff time isn't unlimited, and I don't think every request deserves a custom report. But when the information concerns a major recurring expense, a rate increase, or how money moves between funds, producing it is part of doing the budget responsibly. It should not be treated as an unusual burden added onto the process. If pulling important information together is genuinely difficult every time, that's worth fixing at the system level instead of accepting it as the permanent answer.

What budget information should be routine and public every year without a council member having to ask for it?

At minimum: prior-year actual spending, the current-year budget, current-year projections, and the next year's proposal, shown side by side. There should be a clear list of what increased or decreased and why; contract and professional-services spending by vendor and purpose; new or eliminated positions and their full cost; departments projected to run over budget, with an explanation; how money moves between funds and the formula behind it; and major capital projects showing their original estimate, current estimate, money spent, and expected completion. We should also clearly distinguish what is legally or contractually required from what is discretionary. And all of that should be available in a usable, searchable format, not only in a slide deck.

Clayton kept the tax rate the same while residents are also seeing utility increases. How should the Town talk honestly about the real cost to residents, not just the rate?

Talk about the household bill, not just the tax rate. Saying the tax rate stayed at 49 cents is accurate. It's also incomplete if that same household is paying more for water, sewer, electric, and solid waste. People don't experience their finances as separate government funds. They experience one household budget. Using the Town's own estimate, the combined increase for a typical residential customer came to about $16.64 a month, or close to $200 a year. That should be one of the first things communicated, not a footnote.

It also isn't enough to tell residents what happens if rates do not increase. We should show what alternatives were actually considered and what the tradeoffs are. We ask residents what services they value, but we rarely ask them to weigh the actual tradeoffs: whether they would rather accept a higher bill, defer a project, reduce a service, or use reserves. That is the kind of engagement that would make budget priorities more meaningful.

Right now, the administration largely presents the priorities and residents are asked to react to them. That is not quite the same as involving them in setting those priorities.

Do you think Council should have more line-item visibility, or is the current department-level budget flexibility appropriate?

Both things matter, and right now I think the balance leans too far toward flexibility without enough visibility to go with it. Staff needs room to manage day to day. I'm not asking Council to approve every purchase or run departments from the dais. But Council should be able to see enough detail to identify a pattern, duplication, a recurring overage, or spending that may no longer be serving its original purpose. I don't think our current reporting consistently allows us to do that.

The answer is not micromanagement. It is better reporting.

Where is the line between trusting staff and doing Council's oversight job?

Trust means starting from the assumption that people are acting in good faith. Oversight means checking that a recommendation is actually supported by evidence. Those aren't opposites. In a healthy organization, staff should expect elected officials to ask how a number was calculated, what alternatives were considered, and what assumptions were used. Council's job isn't to run daily operations. It's to set policy, approve the budget, evaluate the manager, and make sure public money is used well. We can't do that job by simply trusting that someone else already checked.

I'll say this honestly: I'm not always sure that is how it works in practice right now. At times, the practical sequence can feel reversed: staff develops the policy direction and Council is asked to approve it, rather than Council setting the direction and staff developing options to carry it out. I don't think we consistently question the reasoning or assumptions behind recommendations as much as we should before voting on them.

"Housing itself isn't the problem. People need somewhere to live, and Clayton needs different kinds of housing."

Clayton is growing fast, but growth does not automatically pay for itself. What kinds of growth do you think are helping Clayton, and what kinds are creating long-term costs?

Clayton's growth and tax base are heavily residential. Growth helps when it strengthens the tax base without creating a matching or greater demand for publicly funded services and infrastructure. Industrial investment, major employers, commercial development, medical services, and genuinely mixed-use projects can help provide that balance. Growth becomes expensive when residential density is approved without adequate roads, utility capacity, stormwater systems, recreation, public-safety resources, and coordination with school-capacity planning to support it.

Housing itself isn't the problem. People need somewhere to live, and Clayton needs different kinds of housing. The problem is when the timing and amount of revenue do not match the infrastructure and service costs created by rapid growth. Existing residents can end up carrying that gap. That is part of why Council has been discussing the need for more commercial and industrial development relative to residential growth.

When a rezoning or development proposal comes before Council, what are the first things you look for?

I start by comparing the request with the adopted land-use plan and the development pattern the community was previously told to expect. If it departs from that plan, I want a real public-interest reason, not simply the fact that the applicant has already put time and money into the proposal. Then I look at density, traffic, road access, utilities, stormwater, parking, sidewalks, connectivity, and whether the proposed conditions are actually enforceable rather than merely promised. I also ask who benefits and who carries the risk. Does the developer cover the infrastructure the project requires, or does that cost eventually land on existing residents and ratepayers?

How should Clayton evaluate projects that promise tax base or jobs but also bring traffic, utility demands, road impacts, or quality-of-life concerns?

With a real fiscal and infrastructure analysis, not just a headline number. A projected tax value or jobs count does not tell Council enough on its own. We should also see the anticipated utility demands, road improvements, public-safety needs, incentives, ongoing maintenance obligations, and who is expected to pay for them. We should distinguish permanent jobs from construction jobs, and firm commitments from projections.

Not everything reduces to a dollar figure, either. Traffic, neighborhood impact, environmental conditions, and quality of life are part of the public-benefit calculation, not an afterthought to it.

Do you think the Town has been aggressive enough in making developers carry the cost of the infrastructure their projects require?

Not consistently. State law limits some of what municipalities can require, and major infrastructure often involves NCDOT, Johnston County, utility providers, or several developments at once, so it is not entirely within the Town's control. But within the authority we do have, I think we should identify infrastructure needs earlier and hold the line on proportional costs instead of pushing them into a later phase or onto the broader ratepayer base.

We also tend to evaluate each project individually instead of showing Council the cumulative effect of several projects landing on the same roads, intersections, pipes, and public services. One project may not create the entire problem. That does not mean the cumulative problem is not real.

Are there any types of development where you think Clayton needs to slow down or raise the bar?

High-density residential development that departs from the adopted plan or depends on infrastructure that is already strained. That doesn't mean apartments or townhomes are inherently the problem. Clayton needs a range of housing, but density belongs where roads, utilities, and public services can actually support it, with meaningful design standards and clear responsibility for long-term maintenance. I'd also raise the bar for projects outside the Town limits that place demands on Clayton's roads, utility systems, or long-term planning while not contributing the same municipal property-tax revenue as development inside the Town.

“Downtown also needs the practical work underneath them: better wayfinding, lighting, cleanliness, maintenance, and a real strategy for creating daily foot traffic.”

You live and work close to downtown and have spent a lot of time documenting small businesses. What do you think downtown Clayton needs most from the Town right now?

Consistent execution of the basics. Businesses need customers to be able to find them, know where to park, and walk safely from that parking to the front door. They need predictable communication about closures, construction, events, and policy changes. The Town also needs to understand that a bad week of access or confusing communication can materially affect a small business even when the underlying project is worthwhile.

Clayton has invested a lot in branding and events, and those things have value. But downtown also needs the practical work underneath them: better wayfinding, lighting, cleanliness, maintenance, and a real strategy for creating daily foot traffic across all of downtown, not just relying mostly on occasional events.

Parking is a constant complaint downtown, even when the actual number of spaces may not be the whole problem. Is this a parking problem, a signage problem, a planning problem, or all of the above?

All of it, but not evenly. The parking study was intended to measure how the existing supply is actually being used. At certain times, especially during events, downtown appears to reach or approach capacity.

There is also a small irony in holding major events in space that would otherwise be available for parking. The event itself uses some of the supply it depends on. That doesn't mean events should stop. It means we should be evaluating creative solutions and planning for the conflict now rather than waiting until it becomes a crisis. Some pedestrian safety improvements we should be pursuing, like crosswalk bump-outs or wider sidewalks, would also take away some on-street parking, so we need to plan for that tradeoff instead of letting it surprise us later.

Before assuming the only answer is building more parking, we should make the existing system easy to understand and continue measuring how it is used as downtown grows.

Do you think the Town has done enough basic wayfinding and communication around downtown parking?

No. A visitor shouldn't need local knowledge to find public parking. Signs should be visible before someone drives past the entrance, public parking should be clearly marked as public, and walking routes from parking areas should be understandable. The information should also be easy to find online.

How do you balance downtown as a destination with downtown as a neighborhood where people actually live?

Events, nightlife, restaurants, and a walkable downtown are part of what makes it appealing in the first place. But that activity should not intrude on residents' daily lives any more than it reasonably has to. Part of that is timely communication so people are not blindsided by closures, noise, or access changes. Part of it is directing the most intense activity toward the downtown core and away from adjacent residential blocks when possible. You can hold both ideas at once: a downtown that draws people in and a downtown where people can still get a decent night's sleep.

“Scrutiny should be treated as quality control, not disloyalty.”

What has surprised you most about how Town Hall works?

How much power sits in who controls the flow and framing of information. Council sets policy and approves the budget, but staff substantially shapes what reaches the agenda, how the issue is summarized, and which alternatives are presented. That makes the quality and completeness of that communication enormously important.

In many cases, it can feel like the hardest questions have effectively already been answered before the issue reaches Council in public. Sometimes the most substantive discussion occurs in a work session that fewer residents watch, and by the time the item reaches a regular meeting, the range of options can appear much narrower. The Town could do a much better job identifying in advance which upcoming items would genuinely benefit from public input, instead of merely posting an agenda and expecting residents to comb through it on their own. I already try to do that for the items I believe matter most. The Town has a much larger reach and could do it at scale.

Where do you think Clayton government is working well right now?

We're covering a lot of ground for a community growing this quickly, and many individual employees are doing that well. I see real competence among many of the people delivering public safety, utility operations, parks, library services, planning, inspections, and other essential functions. The Town also has valuable infrastructure and significant economic-development opportunities.

The gap isn't that everything is falling apart. It is whether our governance, reporting, project management, and public communication are keeping pace with how much the organization has grown.

Where does it need the most improvement?

Building accountability into the system instead of relying on whoever happens to be paying attention. That means better financial reporting, clearer project timelines, documented responsibility when something runs over budget or behind schedule, stronger contract management, and easier access to records. It also means a cultural shift in how questions are received. Scrutiny should be treated as quality control, not disloyalty.

Do you think Clayton has a culture of accountability, or is that still a work in progress?

It is a work in progress. There are people and departments that take accountability seriously. Institutionally, though, I think the instinct is often to keep moving a project or recommendation forward rather than pause and ask why something cost more, took longer, or delivered less than expected. Accountability means more than saying lessons were learned. It means identifying what happened, correcting the process, and showing Council enough information to determine whether the correction worked.

What is one thing you think Council should be asking more often?

"What evidence shows that this is producing the result we were promised?" That applies to consultants, new programs, staff expansions, development agreements, communications efforts, capital projects, incentives, and recurring contracts. Government can become very focused on inputs: how much was spent, how many people were assigned, how many meetings were held, or how many things were produced.

Council should be more focused on outcomes. Did it work? Was it worth the cost? Did it solve the problem it was supposed to solve?

Have you felt pressure to go along to get along?

Yes. It's rarely an explicit request to vote a certain way. It shows up as advice about tone, suggestions to raise concerns privately instead of publicly, or the implication that asking a difficult question in public undermines confidence in staff. I try to distinguish fair, constructive advice from pressure to be quieter about a legitimate concern. I'll reconsider how I say something if it is unfair, inaccurate, or unnecessarily personal. I won't pretend I have information I don't have, or that I'm comfortable with something I'm not.

Collegiality matters. It can't mean skipping real disagreement.

“Engagement needs to happen while the options are still open, not mostly after the direction is already set.”

A lot of residents feel like decisions are already mostly made by the time they hear about them. Is that fair?

In a lot of cases, yes. By the time something reaches a public hearing, staff and an applicant may have been working on it for months. The recommendation is written, advisory boards may already have voted, and Council may already have received briefings. Residents then receive a short presentation and three minutes each to respond to something that is already fully formed.

That doesn't mean every outcome is predetermined. It does mean there is a real imbalance between the people who shaped the proposal and the people encountering it for the first time at the podium. Engagement needs to happen while the options are still open, not mostly after the direction is already set.

What would meaningful public engagement look like to you, beyond surveys, hearings, and three-minute public comments?

Earlier engagement, with enough plain information for people to participate rather than simply react. Residents should receive the background, real options, costs, tradeoffs, and a clear explanation of what is still open to change before being asked for input. I would also move general public comment closer to the beginning of the meeting so residents are not waiting until late at night to speak about an issue that isn't part of a formal hearing. There also needs to be a loop back: what did the Town hear, and what changed because of it? Without that, engagement can become a formality people are asked to go through without any clear connection to the outcome.

I also think Clayton's communications are often geared toward staff, partner organizations, and institutional audiences, while direct, practical resident information remains comparatively limited. Even when the Town offers something genuinely useful, residents may not know it exists. Long-form videos have a place, but basic information such as library programs, hours, road closures, and public meetings should also be direct, searchable, and easy to find.

How can the Town make complicated issues understandable without watering them down?

Lead with the actual decision. What is the current situation? What is proposed? What does it cost? Who pays? What are the alternatives? What happens if Council says no? Then link to the complete material underneath for anyone who wants to go deeper. Plain language doesn't mean removing complexity. It means organizing it. It is also more honest to say that a number is an estimate within a range than to present something precise-looking without showing the assumptions behind it.

What should residents do when they feel like they're not being heard?

Put the concern in writing. Ask specific questions and request specific records. General frustration is understandable, but documented, specific questions are harder to wave off. Contact the whole Council, not just the member you believe already agrees with you. Speak during public comment. Get involved early, before the proposal is effectively complete. It also helps not to do it alone. A concern raised by one person can be treated as isolated. The same concern raised by several people, in writing, over time, is more difficult to dismiss.

Mostly, don't stop after the first unsatisfying answer. Public institutions improve when the public keeps expecting more from them.

“Information can technically be public and still be nearly impossible to find, compare, understand, or use in time to affect a decision.”

What did you hear most from voters when you were campaigning?

That people felt disconnected from their own government. Growth, traffic, taxes, utility costs, and development were common concerns. Underneath most of them was the same frustration: residents either did not understand how a decision had been made, or understood it perfectly well and still felt that what they said along the way had not mattered to anyone in the room.

I ran in part to find out where the buck actually stops in this town. I still don't think residents are given a clear answer when something goes wrong. Responsibility can become so distributed among departments, consultants, legal advice, management, and Council that no one appears fully accountable for the outcome. Voters told me they wanted someone who would do the reading, ask the follow-up question, and be willing to disagree publicly when it mattered.

Has serving on Council changed your view of what residents misunderstand about local government?

It has shown me how much is genuinely outside the Town's direct control because of state law, jurisdictional boundaries, NCDOT, Johnston County, existing contracts, and other constraints. Some things that look like a simple local fix are not.

But I also think complexity gets used as an excuse more often than it should. The fact that Council can't fix everything doesn't mean we should accept a weak explanation for the things we can influence.

What have you changed your mind about since taking office?

I have more respect for the institutional knowledge behind decisions that can look routine from the outside, and for how much operational and legal risk staff may be managing that the public never sees. I've also realized that transparency isn't achieved merely by putting a document online or holding the required hearing. Information can technically be public and still be nearly impossible to find, compare, understand, or use in time to affect a decision.

I came in mostly focused on getting more information out. I now think the larger need is improving how information is created, organized, tracked, and reported in the first place.

Where do you think your instincts differ from the rest of Council?

I default to slowing down when the record is incomplete or the public benefit is unclear, even when everyone agrees on the ultimate goal. I want the underlying documents, not just the summary, before I vote. That doesn't mean delay is always right. It means the amount of time something has already spent in the pipeline should not become the reason Council approves it.

Momentum is not evidence.

How should residents judge your first year on Council?

By whether I did what I said I would do. Did I show up prepared? Did I ask questions that otherwise might not have been asked? Did I explain my votes? Did I distinguish what I could prove from what I suspected? Did I correct myself when I got something wrong? They should also judge results, not just effort: better information, earlier public input, and clearer accountability.

I don't expect everyone to agree with every vote I cast. I do want people to be able to see how I got there.

One year from now, what would you like to be able to say you helped change?

That Council and the public receive a genuinely clearer picture of Town finances before the budget is adopted: real budget-to-actual reporting, transparent allocations between funds, better tracking of contracts and major projects, and clear explanations behind rate increases. That residents are brought into significant decisions earlier instead of primarily at the end. And that asking a hard question is treated as part of the job here, not something you have to brace for. I would like high standards and rigorous questions to be the norm here, not the exception.

Council Member Underwood, Thank you for your time.

Anytime – Always a pleasure!