Oro Valley council gets 30% design for Vistoso pond; residents press for faster construction, raise water and parking concerns

The Oro Valley Town Council on Sept. 17 received a 30% design update for the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve Desert Ecosystem Restoration Project, including plans for a 2.5‑acre pond fed with reclaimed water and detailed designs for circulation, liner options and landscaping.

The presentation by Rebecca Field, senior project manager with Kimley‑Horn and Associates, described the pond as about 8 feet deep with a safety shelf and two liner options under consideration, including a poured-in-place liner (ESS‑13). Field said the pond’s circulation will rely partly on irrigating adjacent landscaping and that staff added a memorial plaza after a donation from a private resident. She told council the pond design package has reached 30% and that the team is aiming for 60% by year end and 90% in January, with bidding possible after 90% design.

Why it matters: the pond has been a long‑promised element of the preserve since the town acquired the former golf course; neighbors and trail users said its degraded condition is a safety and aesthetic problem. Council, staff and nearby residents debated how quickly the town can finish design, go to bid and begin construction, and whether reclaimed water and parking plans are acceptable.

Key details from the presentation and public comments:

- Design and timeline: Kimley‑Horn presented detailed cross‑sections showing liner, recirculation and parking. Field said the firm hit its 30% target and is pushing to deliver 90% design in January with final design by February, but cautioned coordination with a water‑quality specialist and multiple engineering trades can delay the schedule. Staff and the consultant estimated a realistic procurement and mobilization window of roughly two to three months after bids are issued; council and staff said that makes a best‑case ground‑breaking in March–April 2026 if January bids and normal procurement timelines are met.

- Water source and water quality: Councilmember Murphy asked whether the pond will use reclaimed water; Field answered, "That is correct. It is reclaimed water." During public comment, Charles Stack, identifying himself as a water‑conservation engineer and university faculty member, warned against reclaimed water because of contaminants including PFAS and said, "This is a really bad time to build a pond that's going to rely on reclaimed or potable water." The town said it has engaged a water‑quality expert to design appropriate recirculation and monitoring.

- Costs and funding: Field said the driving‑range restoration package (erosion control, desert cobble, seeding, accent plantings and two‑foot cart‑path shoulders) has construction costs under $300,000 and about $400,000 when soft costs are included. She said the combined full pond concept remains near the previously discussed ~$3.7 million "if we did everything," language used in the presentation to indicate the all‑inclusive cost estimate.

- Donation and scope: A private donation made possible a memorial plaza inside the pond footprint and directed any remaining proceeds toward revegetation. Staff told council the donated house has not yet sold, so donated proceeds were not yet available; the town has roughly $200,000 in annual budget capacity it said could be applied to restoration needs.

- Parking and public‑access issues: Multiple residents and councilmembers said the parking shown behind adjacent homes is unacceptable. Council directed staff and the consultant to explore alternative parking locations and to bring parking concepts to the 60% design submittal. Staff also agreed to look at short‑term weed trimming and to address nonworking restrooms that residents reported near the driving range.

- Procurement and delivery: The consultant recommended against going to bid on incomplete plans (30% or less) because bidders may overprice for uncertainty; she said a traditional design‑bid‑build approach typically bids at the 90% stage. Staff said the town can manage procurement in‑house once the documents are ready.

Public reaction: Eleven speakers addressed the item during call‑up. Several speakers urged acceleration: Phil Zelensky said, "I'm discouraged. I'm disappointed, and I feel disrespected over this project," and Richard Beam called the pond "a blight" that needs a win for nearby residents. Others urged patience and care: Matt Wood asked staff and the consultant to avoid rushed work; Rosa Daly and other residents suggested an itemized landscape package so donors can sponsor specific plants, benches or trees.

What council directed: The meeting produced no formal vote on the pond design itself. Council asked staff and Kimley‑Horn to:

- Return with parking alternatives at the 60% design review; - Continue to pursue the January/February schedule for 90%/final designs if feasible; - Engage the water‑quality consultant and incorporate their findings into the final design; - Perform near‑term vegetation trimming and address restroom access issues where possible; and - Use donation proceeds as agreed with the donor once funds are available.

Next steps: Staff said it will return to council with 60% pond design and parking alternatives; the consultant said 90% documents could be possible in January if the water‑quality work and other coordination proceed on an accelerated schedule.

Ending: Residents asked for speed and transparency; council and staff said they share that objective while emphasizing the technical and public‑safety reasons the consultant gave for completing design before bidding.