A Bond Oversight Commission discussion on Wednesday morning over the implementation of the 2012 Bond Program turned into an uncertain question over the purpose of the commission.
In 2012, Austin taxpayers passed a $306.6 million package, approving six propositions that included projects for transportation and mobility, open space and watershed protection, parks and recreation, public safety, health and human services, and library, museum and cultural arts facilities.
More than four years later, only $131 million has been spent, and another $32 million encumbered to unperformed projects, which leaves $143.6 million still unspent. The city's website includes an
interactive map depicting how the funds have been spent.
There was some uncertainty in Wednesday morning’s discussion over whether this bond project was on schedule. While a “Bond Implementation Primer” put together by the City of Austin said this timeline meets the typical expectations of full bond implementation over a six-year period, commissioners still questioned whether a precise spending plan had been followed.
This bar graph depicts the status of the $306.6 million 2012 Bond Program. The green shows how much is unspent; the red indicates how much is encumbered and blue depicts how much has been spent so far.[/caption]
“Nobody has been able to tell us what the initial schedule was and if what has happened so far is different from that original schedule, and if so why?” Commissioner Jay Sands said.
The question over whether or not the spending schedule of the 2012 Bond Program was in line with the original plan led to a broader, existential conversation over the purpose of the Bond Oversight Commission in the implementation, planning and oversight of the city’s bonds programs.
Commission Sumit DasGupta said the commission needed clarity of its charter, which emphasizes the commission’s role in the “implementation” of bond programs and projects. However, commissioners on Wednesday began to question what the term “implementation” even meant. If it means planning the construction of a bond program, the commission would need to begin discussing the outlines of the upcoming 2018 bond program.
Keri Burchard-Juarez, chair of the Bond Oversight Commission, said the question was whether having a hand in planning a bond program would overlap with the work of other groups, such as the Bond Election Advisory Task Force, which is tasked with prioritizing spending for bond projects.
“I see our role as oversight,” Burchard-Juarez said, but said that some commission members interpret the charter to say that the commission’s duty is to help in the planning. The commission plans to draft a memo to send to council asking for clarification.
The question over clearly defined roles coincides with the question Austin City Council members are having regarding its committee structure. Just last week, at the council’s strategic planning meeting, council members said the duties of committees and council-appointed commissions needed to be further explored to avoid redundancies in work.
This bar graph depicts the status of the $306.6 million 2012 Bond Program. The green shows how much is unspent; the red indicates how much is encumbered and blue depicts how much has been spent so far.[/caption]
“Nobody has been able to tell us what the initial schedule was and if what has happened so far is different from that original schedule, and if so why?” Commissioner Jay Sands said.
The question over whether or not the spending schedule of the 2012 Bond Program was in line with the original plan led to a broader, existential conversation over the purpose of the Bond Oversight Commission in the implementation, planning and oversight of the city’s bonds programs.
Commission Sumit DasGupta said the commission needed clarity of its charter, which emphasizes the commission’s role in the “implementation” of bond programs and projects. However, commissioners on Wednesday began to question what the term “implementation” even meant. If it means planning the construction of a bond program, the commission would need to begin discussing the outlines of the upcoming 2018 bond program.
Keri Burchard-Juarez, chair of the Bond Oversight Commission, said the question was whether having a hand in planning a bond program would overlap with the work of other groups, such as the Bond Election Advisory Task Force, which is tasked with prioritizing spending for bond projects.
“I see our role as oversight,” Burchard-Juarez said, but said that some commission members interpret the charter to say that the commission’s duty is to help in the planning. The commission plans to draft a memo to send to council asking for clarification.
The question over clearly defined roles coincides with the question Austin City Council members are having regarding its committee structure. Just last week, at the council’s strategic planning meeting, council members said the duties of committees and council-appointed commissions needed to be further explored to avoid redundancies in work.
