Aug. 29, 2026
By Tim Hundt
VIROQUA Wis. – The Viroqua Common Council has voted to move forward with the Viroqua Green public park project at the corner of Main and Decker streets, but only after a lengthy and confusing debate over shifting budget estimates, and uncommitted funding sources.
The approval during the August 25 meeting represents a major step forward for the prominent downtown corner, which formerly housed Viroqua’s old City Hall building. The landmark 88 year old structure was demolished in 2024 after city officials determined that the deteriorating property was no longer worth saving. The decision followed the completion of a new $3.2 million City Hall facility on Decker Street, which administrative staff occupied in May 2022. Rather than selling the vacant lot, municipal leaders decided to clear the corner to improve traffic safety and visibility at the tight highway intersection, eventually exploring a public park concept.
Viroqua officials initially tried to find a commercial developer for the site, but after receiving no bids, they turned to a public green space as an alternative. Sponsoring the motion to proceed with the Viroqua Green project, Alderperson Seth McClurg urged the council to approve the plan so that the city could secure a preliminary $50,000 grant from the state of Wisconsin, but noted that the scope of his motion was strictly limited to the site plan itself.
“I would like to make a motion to move forward with our park plan,” said McClurg.
Lori Polhamus, the Viroqua City Clerk, clarified the motion on the table and prepared the council for a formal vote, noting that any project involving municipal expenditures requires a recorded roll-call.
“Motion by second to Todd to move forward with the Viroqua Green Project, that was the end,” said Polhamus. “And I, if you’re approving this and there’s money involved, we need to do a roll call.”
The debate quickly shifted to the financial details presented by Cyndy Hubbard, the Tourism Commission and Historic Preservation Commission chair. Hubbard explained that the base construction drawings would cost $78,362, with design fees bringing the total design cost to $103,500, which would be covered by $53,500 in Tax Increment District 6 funds and the $50,000 state grant. However, her budget also included $48,000 in uncommitted in kind donations, including public memorial benches, a mural, and a shade structure, which sparked intense questioning from other council members.
This final budget represents a significant leap from earlier estimates presented to the council. In May 2026, former administrator Nate Torres outlined a total project budget of $90,000, which was later revised to $94,000 with a $70,000 estimate for construction materials and a $20,000 placeholder for design fees. By June, the city finalized a design contract with Middleton based Parkitecture for $20,400, but Torres warned that additional unbudgeted expenses, including a $2,500 electrical engineering fee and a $2,000 topographic survey, would likely push costs higher.
“Construction costs, those are the $78,362, and then in order for us, you can see down below TID six (Tax Increment Finance District), we decided in our CIP (Captial Improvement Plan) we approved $53,500 for the old city hall site and the vibrant spaces is worth $50,000, so that brings us to $103,500,” said Hubbard. “And you can see that there’s a lot of in-kind costs.”
Alderperson Tanja Birke questioned the lack of clarity regarding which municipal departments would be forced to absorb the actual labor and materials costs if those donations failed to materialize.
“Whose budget does any cost come out of, whose budget is paying for any cost that ends up being incurred,” said Birke. “I have a hard time approving something that I don’t understand how we’re paying for it.”
Alderperson Todd Spaeth pointed out that the complex project would ultimately be paid for by dragging funds from multiple city departments.
“It looks to me like on that top infrastructure section would come out of hers (public works),” said Spaeth. “Picnic tables would come out of park and rec.”
Alderperson Steve Willis agreed with the need for strict budget accountability, warning that the city could not simply rely on the hope of public charity to complete a contractually obligated municipal park.
“Because then, like you said, if it has to be a certain design, or we can’t change it so much, then we can’t just delay the whole park while getting the grant money,” said Willis. “Like we have to build the park, so it has to come from somewhere.”
Polhamus also reminded the council that state grants are strictly reimbursable, meaning the city would have to spend its own cash upfront before seeing a single dollar from the state.
“I will say these WEDC grants are reimbursable, so you have to pay for that stuff up front and then get reimbursed,” said Polhamus. “So just keep that all in mind when you’re looking at this as well.”
Ultimately, the council voted to approve the Viroqua Green project, but the decision was not unanimous. Birke cast the dissenting vote, explaining that her opposition was based on the overall scope of the project rather than the budget itself.
“I am going to be voting no to this project,” said Birke. “Just wanted that to be clear because I’m going to get a lot of kickback, and I just I’m opposing it because of the project scope.”
With the project officially approved, Viroqua will proceed with submitting its full grant application to the state, though city staff must still resolve several outstanding questions regarding department budgets and construction management before breaking ground next spring.
“So our wages and the gas and everything like that would come out of street,” said Grainger. “We haven’t had the conversation of who is actually buying the erosion control fence for instance.”
Beyond the budget, several residents urged the council during public comment to think about the long-term economic and environmental impacts of the site. Local resident Chuck Driscoll suggested that the city should focus on projects that generate a clear financial return rather than building a monument on a noisy, high traffic corner.
“I think as we consider the next 20 years, we have to think strategically in the moment that we’re in right now, and that means having a long term perspective on what the corner lot represents in terms of the esthetic value of green space versus the possibility of using that land for income and tax revenue going forward,” said Driscoll. “Beyond that, I’d like you to consider if we’re going to commit to the park, do we have a hard and fast number of the cost, which I haven’t seen yet.”
Resident and architect Aaron Parker, who serves on the Historic Preservation Commission, spoke against the park plan, arguing that conventional downtown planning requires solid buildings on major intersections to anchor the business district. Parker warned that a permanent park would block commercial development for generations.
“If we invest some six figure sum building this history vacant lot, this important parcel at the north end of at the north entrance to our central business district will remain a vacant lot for at least the next 50 to 100 years because we’ve made that investment,” said Parker. “I ask the city council to consider spending a minimal amount, keeping this parcel a nice, well maintained lawn with a few historical markers.”
Add comment