Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Dash Park Splash Pad topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council discusses proposed Dash Park splash pad but takes no action pending land status

3338083 · May 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Councilors debated safety, ownership and approval pathways for a proposed splash pad at an expansion area near Dash Park. Staff said the project likely would be developed privately and later conveyed, so council deferred formal approval.

The Onalaska Common Council reviewed discussion from the park board and residents about placing a small splash pad in an expansion area adjacent to Dash Park but did not vote to approve placement.

Amanda (city planner/staff) told the council that the proposed splash pad sits on privately held land under development consideration and that the park board had presented the idea prematurely. “We don’t own the land,” she said. “It’s hard for us to approve the placement of a splash pad on land we don’t own.”

Council members raised safety concerns about unsupervised children and vehicle access because Dash Park is bordered by roads on multiple sides. Alder Steven Knott and Alder Kathy Lowendorf said any future proposal would need explicit plans for supervision, vehicle access and traffic mitigation. “I do still have concerns in general about using Dash Park as a location for child-specific recreation resources, especially if it’s a resource that whether intended or not will encourage people just dropping their kids off and leaving them,” Knott said.

Staff and the city attorney noted that if the developer ultimately gifts or sells the parcel to the city the council would have authority over placement; if the city contributes funds to a private development project, that would also trigger council review.

Councilors asked staff to continue discussions with the developer about ownership, fence and access issues. No motion was made; the council took no action pending clarification of land ownership and any required development approvals.