Oshkosh Council reviews plans for infill workforce housing on Washington and Farmington sites

City staff outlined plans and policy choices for two city-led infill housing projects in Oshkosh—one on the Washington plat and a two-phase project on Farmington—during a council workshop, asking the council for guidance on income eligibility, developer roles and deed restrictions.

Kelly, a city staff member, told the council the projects respond to prior council direction and aim to create “additional houses, that are affordable in our community and then hopefully open up more houses for other people to move into.” She said abatement at the Washington site is complete, demolition contractors were mobilizing and a final plat would come back to council in a few weeks. Kelly said the city used ARPA to acquire the Washington site for $75,000, spent just over $200,000 on abatement and demolition, and currently estimates utility work at about $450,000. The council was told the Washington site would return 18 parcels to the tax roll.

On Farmington, staff said the project is in two phases and the city is closing on the second phase; that parcel will require a wetland delineation that could not be completed before winter. Staff’s estimate for phase 1 public-infrastructure costs was about $1.2 million, and about $1.1 million for phase 2. The Farmington layout discussed at the workshop contemplated about 31 lots.

Staff presented build-cost estimates gathered from local builders, permits and the Home Builders Association. The number used for planning was roughly $200 per square foot for the house structure alone (not including lot cost), and staff used a representative house of about 1,300 square feet to arrive at a rough construction price of about $260,000. Kelly cautioned these were “guesstimates” and said items such as garages, basements, landscaping and appliances could add costs; landscaping was not included in the $200-per-square-foot estimate.

Council discussion focused on how to define affordability and who should be eligible. Several council members said they preferred using Oshkosh median household income rather than the broader Winnebago County or HUD area median-income figure because county averages include higher-income municipalities such as Algoma and Neenah. Councilor Nichols said, “I don't necessarily wanna build housing for people that are first time homebuyers moving from Neenah or Algoma. I wanna make sure we're building homes for people that are in Oshkosh now that can't find or afford homes in Oshkosh now.” Several council members echoed interest in prioritizing current Oshkosh renters and workers such as teachers, firefighters and police officers.

The council also discussed how the city should participate financially and operationally. Staff proposed a few mechanisms: using CDBG and CIP funds for utility mains, modestly seeding a revolving fund by capturing a capped per-sale return (examples discussed ranged from about $10,000 to $25,000 per sale), or relying on tax revenue over time. Councilors debated the tradeoffs: a modest per-sale repayment could seed additional projects, but adding a per-sale charge could make a first-time purchase unaffordable. Kelly noted staff would return with bid numbers for public improvements to refine the analysis.

On program delivery, staff recommended issuing request-for-proposals (RFPs) for a master builder or builders to construct and market the homes; the chosen master builder would be expected to partner with a real-estate agent and to use capped commissions so buyer costs remain predictable. Council discussed requiring some public controls—such as prohibiting counteroffers above list price, prohibiting bulk purchases by investor funds, and capping marketing/transaction costs—to protect buyers and neighborhood compatibility.

Council members asked staff to explore fee waivers or bulk-inspection efficiencies so any savings would reduce buyer costs rather than simply boost builder margins. Staff noted permitting and inspection operations are run through an enterprise fund that relies on revenue; councilors asked staff to examine options for seeding a revolving fund without destabilizing enterprise accounting.

On long-term protections, the council favored an owner-occupied deed restriction and a resale-repayment or vesting model to limit speculative flipping. Staff presented examples used elsewhere (for instance, a 10-year deed restriction with a vesting repayment schedule). Several councilors supported a 10-year owner-occupancy requirement and a vesting repayment clause for sales during that period; staff noted Habitat-style models often use 10 years with a reducing repayment schedule.

Several councilors emphasized neighborhood compatibility and appraisal/assessment work to ensure new homes fit surrounding values. Staff said they had already consulted the assessor’s office about likely assessed values for the Washington designs and would continue to refine estimates once public-improvement bid results were available.

Council direction at the end of the workshop was to have staff draft a policy framework and RFP language incorporating the council’s preferences—emphasis on Oshkosh-targeted income eligibility, owner-occupied deed restrictions (staff to draft a 10-year model and vesting repayment options), RFPs for master builders with commission caps and marketing rules, and continued use of CDBG/ARPA/CIP where appropriate. Staff will return with more detailed cost estimates, RFP language and draft deed-restriction language for council review.