Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Supply Local topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Local builder tells Marathon County committee permitting delays, land costs and third‑party reviews are major barriers to new housing

2246296 · February 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Corey Sillers, a local builder and former Wisconsin Builders Association president, told the Extension Education and Economic Development Committee that multiple overlapping regulations, uncertain landowner willingness to sell, infrastructure costs and rising materials/labor costs are constraining new home construction in the county.

Corey Sillers, a local home builder and former president of the Wisconsin Builders Association, told the Marathon County Extension Education and Economic Development Committee on Feb. 6 that multiple regulatory layers, limited buildable lots and rising materials costs are key barriers to increasing housing supply in area towns.

Sillers, who identified himself as a trustee for Red Mountain and a member of the Wausau School Board, said national studies his association uses show “$83,000 to $84,000 in a single new home that deals with regulation,” citing permitting, code requirements and wetlands/zoning constraints as drivers that increase costs. He described repeated delays caused by staggered reviews from local zoning, DNR and FEMA, which can add months to a project and raise financing and materials costs for buyers and builders.

Sillers gave several local examples: parcels adjacent to sewer and water in “Remountain” (as he described it) where landowners have declined to sell despite preliminary subdivision maps; a Remountain parcel beside Lake Wausau held up in permitting when FEMA requested a resubmission; and developer projects where builders retained lots rather than selling them, limiting the number of lots available to other builders. He also described local developer agreements that required private third‑party inspection, which added tens of thousands to initial costs in some projects.

Sillers proposed several remedies the committee could consider: streamlining permitting timelines and interagency coordination; encouraging creative financing or partnership arrangements so municipalities or townships could hold initial debt for infrastructure until lots sell; adopting incentives or covenants for tax‑delinquent parcels (a topic the committee later debated); and encouraging higher‑density infill such as two‑story townhouses where appropriate. He noted material and labor price inflation: “since July, August, there have been...doors, exterior doors, siding, windows, now shingles, everything...going up anywhere from 7 to 11%.”

Committee members asked about quality control and inspections. Supervisor Rosenberg asked how standards would be maintained without inspections and regulations; Sillers said apprenticeships, trade training and the market for reputable contractors are important, and that inspectors often serve as on‑the‑job teachers for less experienced builders. He also noted that an individual municipality can structure sale conditions, referencing Red Mountain’s prior experience requiring build‑out timelines on tax parcels.

Sillers left materials and guidance from state associations with the committee, including examples from the Builders Association, Realtors Association and the League of Municipalities on density and incentive programs. He offered to answer follow‑up questions by email or phone.