Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Partnership And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland Center tells county it can contribute $1.5M toward infrastructure to spur subdivision on county land
Summary
Richland Center’s mayor and public‑works director presented a proposal to partner with the county on a single‑family subdivision on county campus land, offering at least $1.5 million to fund infrastructure and suggesting TIF and other grant strategies to make development feasible.
Representatives from the City of Richland Center briefed the Campus Reconfiguration Committee on a proposal to develop a county‑owned parcel for housing, arguing that the combination of city utilities, available land and a proposed $1.5 million city contribution creates a rare opportunity to attract builders.
Mayor (Richland Center) framed the issue as urgent for local employers and the tax base, saying, "We can't miss. We've got to get housing here," and noting employers have signaled they need housing to hire and retain staff. The mayor and city staff outlined long‑running research (first publicly presented in 2021) showing an aging housing stock, an acute shortage of buildable, serviced lots, and strong employer demand for more workforce housing.
Financing and tools: City officials described potential financing approaches, including re‑allocating a congressional/community project grant (the city referenced $2,500,000 originally earmarked for hospital infrastructure) and using a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district if the campus qualifies as blighted. The mayor explained how a TIF returns incremental property tax to pay developer debt and noted joint review‑board approval would be required; he cautioned that TIF timelines can span decades and that state rules guard against undue enrichment.
Infrastructure and technical constraints: City staff emphasized utilities and elevation constraints (water pressure limits at higher elevations), and the need for engineering estimates to determine true construction costs. The mayor said the $1.5 million could be used to enlarge Hive Drive improvements and to create an economy of scale for a developer to run utilities into the parcel. Committee members asked for rough infrastructure cost estimates; city staff committed to engage engineers and return cost‑to‑construct figures.
Market approach: The mayor recommended engaging multiple builders to determine the product mix and price points that will sell locally, and suggested considering modern manufactured housing and 0‑step duplex/townhome products to match demand. City presenters cited recent and planned projects such as Panorama 2 (95 market‑rate units) as evidence of ongoing activity.
Next steps: City staff asked for a firm county partnership to pursue engineering, grant alignment, and potential agreements on land price/terms. The committee tasked staff to continue conversations with city officials and to place the city proposal on the next meeting agenda for further discussion and possible action.
