Budget panel backs $250,000 feasibility study for Rio Verde wildlife crossing, adds legal caveat on preserve funds
Loading...
Summary
The Scottsdale Budget Review Commission voted to recommend moving $250,000 from preserve reserves for a Rio Verde wildlife-crossing feasibility study and to move the $35 million construction placeholder out of the five-year capital plan — but added that the study fund be spent only if the city attorney deems it an allowable preserve-fund expense.
The Scottsdale Budget Review Commission on April 11 recommended that City Council fund a $250,000 feasibility study for a Rio Verde wildlife crossing and move the $35 million construction amount out of the five‑year capital improvement plan until that study is complete.
The vote followed detailed discussion on whether the preserve fund can legally be used to pay for a feasibility study. The commission added language that the $250,000 be authorized "if determined to be an allowable expenditure from the preserve fund" by the city attorney. Chair Smith called for objections and the commission approved the two recommendations as amended.
Why it matters: The $35 million figure had been on the city’s five‑year CIP but commissioners said the scope, need and cost are unclear and should be defined before committing construction funding. Moving the placeholder out of the five‑year plan signals the commission’s intent to delay capital commitment until a feasibility study clarifies purpose, cost and options.
Discussion and actions: Commissioners Newman and Carla jointly proposed the feasibility-study motion and the change to the CIP; the motion was seconded and then amended to include the legal caveat after a sustained discussion about the preserve fund’s allowed uses. City Attorney Sherry Scott told the commission she had no legal concern with forwarding the recommendation to council and that legal advice would accompany the item at council. Public comment in support came from Sonnie Kirtley of the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS), who urged commissioners to move forward with the study.
What the action does — and does not — do: The recommendation asks City Council to consider the feasibility study and to reclassify the $35 million construction placeholder to a "future" column, not to authorize construction spending. The legal caveat means staff will not spend preserve money for the study if the city attorney determines the expenditure would violate charter or statutory limits on preserve‑fund uses.
Next steps: The commission directed staff and the report authors to include the two specific bullets (the study funding request and moving the $35 million to "future") in the report to City Council for its April work session. If Council forwards the recommendation, the city attorney and staff will evaluate whether use of preserve funds to pay for the study is permissible.
Ending: The commission’s action creates a clear next step — a funded feasibility study (subject to legal review) and a reclassification of the construction placeholder — while leaving any construction decision to a later council approval after the study is complete.
