Commissionersback proposal for feasibility study on Rio Verde wildlife crossing; $250,000 suggested as placeholder

A subcommittee of the Budget Review Commission recommended funding a feasibility study — roughly $250,000 was discussed as a placeholder amount — to scope options for a proposed Rio Verde Drive wildlife crossing rather than proceeding immediately with the large capital estimate currently in the capital plan.

The nut of the issue is that the capital plan contains a placeholder cost estimate for a crossing that some staff materials show as about $35 million; commissioners and staff said that number reflects an unusually wide, 200‑foot concept used in an early cost estimate and may overstate Scottsdale’s likely needs. Commissioners urged a measured, data‑driven study of alternatives including narrower overpasses, underpasses, and timing the crossing with any future roadway widening.

Eric Filsinger, who identified himself as a longtime preserve volunteer and former Preserve Commission member, urged caution and asked whether the available data shows a strong need. “Most of my observations of the wildlife…they move east and west in the washes through that whole section that we call the Gooseneck,” Filsinger said in public comment, and he questioned whether the available roadkill and wildlife‑track data demonstrate a compelling safety or habitat‑connectivity problem at Rio Verde Drive.

Commissioner Brad Newman (subcommittee lead) summarized staff and subcommittee findings: there is disagreement about need and scope, traffic volumes cited in the materials ranged from roughly 5,000 to 9,000 vehicles per day, and existing Arizona Game and Fish data show most tracked movement is east‑west along washes rather than north‑south across Rio Verde. Newman said the recommended next step is a feasibility and data collection study to establish whether a crossing is needed now, what type of structure would be appropriate and where to place it, and whether a future roadway widening would provide economies of scale for construction.

Newman explained the subcommittee’s position: “The proposal is to move approximately $250,000 from the budget to spend that on a feasibility study,” and that the $35 million line in the capital plan reflects a high‑end, 200‑foot‑wide bridge concept that is likely excessive for Scottsdale’s urban setting.

Commissioners and staff also discussed implementation issues: whether fencing and animal guidance will be required for miles beyond the crossing, property‑owner and right‑of‑way issues east of Scottsdale city limits, and the merits of underpasses used elsewhere in the city. No formal vote on construction or on the feasibility appropriation was recorded; commissioners said a technical study would be returned to the commission and council for consideration in the next budget cycle.

Next steps identified in the discussion include directing staff to scope a feasibility study, assemble current wildlife and roadway data, and return with a cost‑and‑scope recommendation in time for the next budget decision cycle.