Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Infill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oshkosh council workshop narrows goals for Washington and Farmington infill housing projects
Summary
City staff briefed the Oshkosh City Council on two infill housing projects at Washington and Farmington, outlining costs, funding sources and program design choices including income targeting, developer selection, owner-occupancy restrictions and a proposed 10-year resale restriction to preserve affordability.
City staff presented details and sought policy guidance from the Oshkosh City Council on two city-led infill housing efforts — the Washington plat and a two‑phase Farmington development — focusing on costs, affordability targets, funding and how the city should select builders and buyers.
Staff member Kelly said the Washington property has completed abatement and the contractor would soon mobilize for demolition, with a final plat and utility lateral contract expected to come to council in the weeks ahead. "Acquisition was $75,000. We used ARPA for that," Kelly said, adding that abatement and demolition ran just over $200,000 and current utility estimates for Washington are about $450,000.
On Farmington, staff described a two‑phase plan with roughly 31 lots identified for the first phase and a pending purchase of the phase‑two parcel; a wetland delineation and comp plan amendment and rezoning for phase two will be required. Staff estimated phase‑one infrastructure costs at about $1.2 million and phase two at about $1.1 million, and said the city expects to use CDBG funds and CIP dollars to offset utility main costs.
Staff also summarized likely home construction costs. After consulting local builders and permit data, staff presented a working assumption of roughly $200 per square foot for construction (excluding land) and a probable finished house of about 1,300 square feet, producing an estimated build cost near $260,000. Kelly characterized those figures as preliminary "guesstimates" that could vary by design and market conditions.
Councilors raised several policy choices for staff to develop into formal proposals. On affordability targets, multiple councilors said they preferred using Oshkosh median household income to set eligibility, rather than the broader HUD/Winnebago County area median income (which includes higher‑income neighboring municipalities). "I don't necessarily want to build housing for people that are first time homebuyers moving from Neenah or Algoma," said one councilor, urging priority for current Oshkosh residents.
Councilors asked staff to pursue program elements that would protect long‑term affordability and owner occupation: a deed restriction or occupancy clause, a vesting or repayment formula if a property is resold within a set period, and limits on institutional buying. The council coalesced around a proposed 10‑year owner‑occupancy/repayment window as a starting point, with a vesting model (partial repayment) discussed as an option.
On program mechanics, staff recommended issuing requests for proposals (RFPs) for a "master builder" or builders to construct and market homes, with terms requiring transparent commissions and marketing practices (for example, requiring co‑broker compensation so buyer agents can participate). Councilors asked that any fee waivers or other city concessions be structured so savings reach buyers rather than simply increasing builder margins.
Members discussed whether the city should seek some financial return (for a revolving fund to seed future projects) versus prioritizing the lowest possible purchase price for buyers. Staff described options used elsewhere: modest per‑unit recoupments capped at a fixed dollar amount that would seed a fund, or relying on tax revenue and CIP allocations. Councilors asked staff to analyze tradeoffs and to craft mechanisms (including ordinance or policy language) to protect those funds and the program's intent across future councils.
Councilors and staff also addressed selection and sales processes: whether builders or the city administer buyer preapproval, how to prevent bidding wars or counteroffers that defeat affordability goals, and how to treat renovations and permitted improvements when calculating resale caps. Staff said these policy details — including occupant selection criteria, preapproval and resale formulas — would be brought back in draft form along with the RFP language and financial analyses.
The workshop produced no formal votes; staff left with direction to draft program policy language, a financial analysis of funding/recoupment options, and RFP materials for master builder procurement. Staff said they will return to council with drafts, bid results for public improvements and proposed ordinance or policy language to memorialize program rules.
