Waukesha City Public Works on Thursday voted to recommend that the City Council hire Ayers Associates to conduct a feasibility and master‑planning study of the water impoundment locally called Saratoga Lake, at a proposed cost of $138,437.

The study will analyze alternatives including dredging the impoundment, removing the Barstow Street dam that creates the impoundment, and other options to address vegetation, recreation access and long‑term management. A consultant recommendation came after the city solicited proposals from 14 firms and received three responses.

City staff told the Public Works panel the study is intended to give a single, up‑to‑date technical picture of options so the council can make informed decisions. A staff member summarized the recommendation to move forward with Ayers Associates “at the cost of $138,437.” The panel then discussed environmental risk, likely costs of dredging, permitting and community preferences before approving the recommendation to the council.

Why it matters: the impoundment between the Barstow Street dam and the Morland/Moreland Bridge — referred to in city materials as Saratoga Lake — has seen declining recreational use and heavy vegetation, and there is local concern about contaminated sediments from historic industry. The study will provide updated sediment sampling, regulatory analysis and cost estimates that the city says are needed to evaluate whether dredging, dam removal or other actions are feasible.

Discussion highlights

- Contamination and disposal: Multiple speakers raised concerns about legacy pollutants, including PFAS and PCBs, and the likely need to landfill dredged material if dredging is recommended. Staff confirmed earlier, limited sampling done in 2018–19 identified contaminants and that more recent sampling is required for regulatory credibility.

- Regulatory window: Staff said the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires recent data and typically treats sediment data older than five years as invalid for permitting decisions; the study will collect new samples the city can use for permitting and planning.

- Cost uncertainty: Panel members warned the study could identify remedies the city cannot afford. A preliminary, broad cost figure of about $15 million for major dredging was referenced as a rough previous estimate; panelists noted the study is intended to refine such numbers. Staff warned the cost of dredging depends on sediment volume and contaminant handling requirements.

- Dam removal vs. retention: The scope requires evaluation of both keeping the dam and removing it. Staff emphasized the study will compare hydrology, flood implications, ecosystem effects and regulatory requirements associated with each alternative.

- Prior work and scope: Panelists and staff noted a 2018–19 preliminary study provided limited cross‑section data and a structural review of the dam, but the DNR and the city need a more comprehensive, current analysis to answer today’s questions. One of the firms that responded to the RFP, Snyder & Associates, was judged to have not met the full scope because it emphasized dam removal without adequately addressing the “leave the dam in place” alternative.

Vote and next steps

The Public Works panel voted to forward the consultant selection and contract recommendation to the City Council for final approval. The panel’s action was recorded as “motion carries”; the person who seconded the motion was Kevin Riley. The recommendation directs staff to proceed with the Ayers Associates contract and to present the study results and comparison with the 2018–19 analysis when the matter goes before council.

What the study will cover

According to staff, the study will: sample and characterize sediment chemistry and volume; model hydrology and flood effects for both dam‑in and dam‑removed scenarios; evaluate dredging methods and disposal options if contaminants are present; estimate permitting requirements and timelines; and produce cost estimates for realistic alternatives so the council can set policy and funding priorities.

Community context and concerns

Panelists and staff emphasized the study’s high public profile because the impoundment lies adjacent to Frame Park and the Riverwalk, areas heavily used and viewed by residents. Some panel members said they expect strong public interest in whether the dam remains, whether dredging would restore recreational access, and how contamination and long‑term maintenance would be handled. Staff also noted the DNR sometimes supports dam removal and provides grant programs for removals, which could affect options and funding pathways.

The panel’s recommendation does not authorize construction or remediation; it funds only the planning, sampling and alternatives analysis needed to present options and costs to the City Council.