Eau Claire RDA previews large affordable-housing redevelopment district, seeks metrics and legal review

The Eau Claire Redevelopment Authority on Tuesday reviewed a draft plan to create a new, broad redevelopment district focused primarily on affordable housing and selective property remediation.

Staff presented a roughly 11‑page draft that maps a district including the Shawtown neighborhood, areas north of Madison Street and parts of Third Ward, and noted that a majority of the core area falls inside one or more qualified census tracts (QCTs). The plan frames the district’s purpose around blight removal, increasing housing for households earning below the county median income and selective, site‑by‑site redevelopment rather than large‑scale clearance.

The draft identifies specific potential commercial targets, including an abandoned dry cleaner on Seager Street that may have brownfield concerns and a former meat‑packing plant referred to as the Wisconsin HVAC building, and notes riverfront and floodplain constraints along the Chippewa River.

Why it matters: staff told the board the district would be the largest redevelopment area the authority has proposed to date and could allow the RDA to use its financing tools — capital improvement funding, tax‑increment financing and grants — to address long‑standing vacant and deteriorated properties and to support new affordable units.

Board members pressed staff for more specificity about performance metrics, partnerships and the RDA’s role as an owner and landlord. Commissioners asked for measurable targets (units per acre, affordable units needed at particular income bands, owner‑occupancy goals) and for clearer phasing and sunset language rather than a district “in perpetuity.” Several commissioners urged the draft be tied more explicitly to other city planning work, including the comprehensive plan and the 2022 housing study.

Staff said the draft intentionally left many redevelopment costs and specific targets project‑by‑project to avoid forcing incompatible projects into the plan, but offered to add benchmarking and a full plan review schedule (staff suggested every five years) and to incorporate additional plan references in an appendix. Staff also recommended legal review to ensure statutory requirements for RDA districts are met and said they would bring a redraft back in November for board adoption, then to City Council in December or January if revisions require a delay.

On the RDA’s potential role as short‑term owner of rental units, staff described a model in which the RDA would acquire and develop limited rental properties and then have the local housing authority manage them, with an expected temporary ownership window of about five to seven years before transfer under a memorandum of understanding. Staff said the housing authority already manages roughly 300 units locally and that long‑term affordability would be guaranteed by the authority’s role, not by deed restrictions.

Board members raised concerns about the RDA acting as a landlord and about tax and budget implications. Staff said they would confirm whether RDA‑held properties would be tax‑exempt during the ownership period and noted ongoing conversations about grant programs (including HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods and WHEDA programs) that could offset upfront costs.

The draft also lists a number of tools and partners the RDA could use — community partners for renovation (Habitat for Humanity and similar organizations were mentioned as examples), manufactured ADU solutions for infill, and targeted demolition and greenfield reuse on a case‑by‑case basis.

The board solicited and received multiple suggestions to add specific metrics (for example, units per acre, target affordable unit counts, and performance review intervals), to bring the housing study and other planning documents into the plan’s appendices, and to request formal feedback from the Housing Authority (referred to in the meeting as HAWK/HAW K and the Housing Opportunities Commission) before finalizing. Staff said they had already had informal conversations with the housing authority and would formally circulate the draft for comment.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft to add requested references and metrics, obtain legal review and return a redrafted plan to the RDA in November for formal adoption; staff also said they plan to send the final document to City Council for review in December or January depending on timing.

Ending: Board members agreed on the need for more specificity in performance metrics and for legal and partner review; staff will return with a revised package next month.