Oconomowoc council rejects village green reconstruction contract after months of debate over pavilion and bathrooms

The Oconomowoc Common Council on March 18 approved another round of design work for the Village Green improvements but failed to pass the construction contract and budget amendment that would fund a permanent pavilion and year‑round restroom building on the downtown lakefront.

The failure to secure the contract vote came after hours of public comment and council debate about site placement, design compatibility with the downtown historic overlay, project cost and financing. The council voted 5–3 against the contract and the related budget amendment; the earlier resolution to approve additional design services was approved unanimously.

City staff presented the project scope and costs. “The design right now, as it sits, it was $163,710 design. And the request right now is to add $68,500 to complete the design work,” said Staff member Jason Herzog, describing a total design expense of about $232,210 that staff says has already been incurred. Herzog told the council the low construction bid for the full site package came back at roughly $3.6 million.

Residents and downtown business representatives gave sharply contrasting views during the public comment period. Gary Kollenberg, a resident, urged the council to pause and rethink the plan: “Building a pavilion at Village Green would be a mistake on the lake,” he said, arguing the city should instead expand the lakefront and address public restroom needs more cheaply. Downtown events organizer Sarah Ninman, director of community events for the Chamber of Commerce of Oconomowoc, urged approval, saying, “If the vote becomes yes today... I think it’s going to be well received,” and stressing a need for a timely solution for restroom access to support recurring events.

Council discussion touched on how the project would be funded and how much of the design work is reusable if the larger project is postponed. Council members and staff described a financing plan made up of multiple sources: tax increment financing (TIF) allocations, park impact fees, tourism funds, use of reserves and a proposed debt component to fill a remaining funding gap that staff placed at about $846,543. Alderman Rosack and others warned the proposed debt would impose a tax impact and questioned whether the city should proceed while a neighboring property owner has threatened litigation over access and setbacks.

Alderman Spiegelberg, who supported moving the project forward, defended the public outreach and financing approach and called the proposal a “legacy project.” Other members, including Alderman Cloth and Alderman Ellis, said the project had grown beyond the scope they originally expected and urged scaling back — for example, building bathrooms without the pavilion or reducing the number of stalls — so the city could avoid a large new debt commitment.

The council previously approved a resolution to fund additional design services needed to finish construction documents; that measure passed on a unanimous roll call. Later votes required a supermajority (six of eight members) to approve the contract and a budget amendment. After debate and two failed motions (a motion to table and the motion to approve with an amended funding gap figure), the final motion to award the reconstruction contract and adopt the budget amendment failed 5–3.

With the contract vote defeated, the council did not authorize construction to begin. Mayor Magnus said the project is unlikely to move forward in the immediate months ahead because of scheduling and bid timelines. Council members who opposed the measure said they still support providing restrooms downtown but prefer a smaller, lower‑cost solution or more donor/grant commitments before committing to the full pavilion and year‑round building.

Staff said many design elements could be reused in a revised plan, and the administration noted potential additional revenue sources — including naming rights and philanthropic grants — that could reduce the city’s out‑of‑pocket need. The council did not set a follow‑up date at the meeting; staff warned that rebidding or redesigning would add time and could increase costs.

Votes at a glance: The council approved Resolution 25‑R3264 (additional design services) on a unanimous roll call. The subsequent resolution to award the village green reconstruction contract and associated budget amendment failed to obtain the required supermajority and did not pass.