Oconomowoc residents, businesses and aldermen spar over City Green bathroom plans as council seeks direction

Council and dozens of residents spent more than an hour on Oct. 21 debating where and how the city should add public restrooms as part of a multi‑year redesign of the City Green.

The largest proposal on the table — advanced earlier this year and developed in part with a private partner that occupies the adjacent etcetera building — would place a multi‑stall restroom on the green with a private rooftop seating area above. Supporters said the location matches foot traffic patterns; opponents and several aldermen said the public‑private relationship and final costs are not yet clear.

Why it matters: The City Green is Oconomowoc’s downtown waterfront gathering place; decisions affect tourism, downtown businesses and long‑term maintenance costs. Council members said any approved plan must be affordable, protect public space and comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.

Public comments centered on three choices: keep a restroom tucked behind the etcetera building as the private owner proposed, build smaller public restrooms in two locations that spread facilities through downtown, or adapt existing space behind City Hall (the former police garage or “sally port”) for public restrooms. Local business owners and the Chamber of Commerce told the council that downtown merchants regularly provide restroom access and that a public facility would relieve that burden.

- Lou Kaviewski, a downtown resident, urged caution on the public‑private plan and argued the City Hall sally port could “support Oz Plaza with a door opening on that side and a door opening to the parking lot side” and serve boardwalk and boat launch traffic. - Heidi Latch, a downtown property owner, told the council: “Downtown business owners have become the default restroom providers for hundreds of people who enjoy that park every week.” She said donations and preallocated funds in the downtown business district could help offset building costs. - Laura Gibbs, who presented alternate concepts developed with a local group, said the city could meet everyday needs with two smaller restroom locations and use porta‑potties for large events. “We put two locations with basically the same footprint; you reduce your costs,” she told council.

Council members emphasized three practical constraints. First, the council needs reliable cost estimates before committing to design or construction. Alderman Rosick told the audience he would vote against projects that require new long‑term debt for residents: “If it’s $5,000,000 and we have to spend a million dollars in debt that’s gonna add $13 to everybody’s tax bill, I’m voting no.” Second, several aldermen said any year‑round public facility must be ADA accessible and sized for regular everyday use rather than occasional large events that require porta‑potties. Third, if a public‑private arrangement moves forward the council said the city should protect taxpayers by setting a clear, capped city contribution and by fixing contract terms for future maintenance and removal obligations.

Staff response and council next steps: City staff said the Village Green hardscape/landscape design is largely ready for the next procurement steps but that bathroom scope affects utilities, dumpster location and final layout. Director of Community Development Jason Herzog told the council that producing construction‑level engineering and reliable cost estimates would require a defined scope; small, two‑stall locations will cost less to sketch and estimate than a fully configured rooftop/private‑partner concept.

After an extended debate, council did not authorize a single concept for engineering. Instead members asked staff to return with a short set of follow‑up visuals and two procurement options: (a) a reduced, stand‑alone restroom footprint at the rear of the etcetera building (no rooftop seating), and (b) the larger private‑partner concept that includes rooftop seating, with the understanding that staff will seek clearer financial commitments from the property owner before the council approves an RFP. Council members also requested cost ballparks and clarified that any city spending beyond existing budget lines will require a six‑vote majority because it affects designated funding sources.

Ending: The council directed staff to prepare scaled drawings and preliminary cost ranges for the two options and to return to the council for further direction. Council members said they want one meeting with clear, comparable price estimates before authorizing full engineering or issuing RFPs.