The Citizens Bond Oversight Committee on (date not specified) reviewed the financial status of the voter‑approved 2019 bond program and pressed city staff for clearer, project‑level detail on budgets and supplemental funding sources.

Budget Director Scott Celine told the committee that the bond program is split into three questions: Question 1 (parks, recreation and senior services), Question 2 (community spaces and infrastructure) and Question 3 (public safety and technology). He said the presentation’s graphs show inception‑to‑date (ITD) budgets versus future funding and that the slides cover only Bond 2019 proceeds, not general‑fund or other outside funding sources.

Celine summarized ITD totals as of the presentation (figures discussed on slides included but not restated here) and explained that during the new fiscal year ITD budgets typically increase while future funding amounts decrease as budgets are unlocked for projects. He cited specific changes that affected Question 1, including reassigning most of a previously listed $6 million for the Cactus Pool project to a $250,000 feasibility study and moving Granite Reef Senior Center funding to later years.

Chair Du Bois and several committee members pressed staff on the remaining scope: 25 of 58 bond projects have been completed and about 33 remain. Du Bois estimated approximately $78.5 million in future bond funding remains and asked how confident staff are that those funds will cover the remaining projects without supplementation.

Celine and City Engineer Allison Timku said staff are re‑estimating projects through the capital improvement program (CIP) process, running feasibility studies (notably for the Cactus Pool), and applying escalation factors to account for inflation. Timku said staff evaluate project scope and look for options to deliver intent within existing budgets. Celine said he could not categorically promise no additional funding would be needed and offered to provide a detailed listing of past project overruns and the source of supplemental funding.

Committee members asked that staff provide the monthly spreadsheet that underlies the presentation’s graphs, broken down by project with original budgets, actual expenditures and identification of projects at risk of overrunning. Celine agreed to provide that sheet and to include an itemization of future‑funding changes in future presentations so committee members can reconcile shifts between meetings.

The committee did not take formal action on bond funding at the meeting; members said they expect ongoing monitoring and more detailed reconciling information at the next update. The presentation also noted that some projects will require outside approvals (for example, land acquisitions involving the Arizona State Land Department) and that certain projects remain at early design stages.