Winnebago County board debates $3.5M housing revolving loan fund, refers measure back to ARPA commission

Winnebago County supervisors spent the bulk of one meeting session debating a proposed $3.5 million allocation from the county's ARPA "spirit fund" to seed a Housing Revolving Loan Fund aimed at supporting workforce housing and closing financing gaps for new construction.

Housing specialist Lou Shear, who led the presentation, described the fund as a reusable financing tool that would prioritize households at or below 140% of county median income and be managed by a nonprofit selected through an RFP. "The money goes out and it comes back, you know, when it's paid off with interest so we can recycle this funding," Shear told the board, adding that the program would use deed restrictions and an advisory board to guard against flipping and short-term rentals.

Public commenters and several supervisors voiced strong support for the concept. Tom Simon, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Oshkosh, said demand is clear: "We had 36 families applied to build with Habitat for 4 homes that we could build," he said, urging the board to act.

But many supervisors pressed for greater specificity before releasing funds. Supervisor Hansen repeatedly asked, "I want to know who the nonprofit is," expressing reluctance to free $3.5 million without knowing the proposed administrator, the advisory-board makeup or how startup and operating costs would be paid. Other supervisors raised questions about underwriting, the county's lien position, developer risk, the size of matching commitments from municipalities and whether the program would meaningfully boost housing production.

Finance director Paul Geiser said the ARPA/spirit-fund framework contemplates revolving funds and endowments and that the proposed use fit the fund's stated goals. Administrators said an RFP would specify the nonprofit administrator and the fee structure, and that semiannual reporting would be provided to the board.

The discussion shifted from policy design to a technical/legal question about how the spirit-fund interest had previously been classified. Supervisor Hansen argued that prior board action had moved accrued interest into a "county government project" category and that deploying interest to a nonprofit-administered program could conflict with that earlier decision. After motioning first to indefinitely postpone and then withdrawing that motion, Hansen moved to refer the item back to the ARPA/Spirit Fund commission for clarification of language, categories and implementation details.

On a recorded vote the board approved the referral, 25'0. (25 in favor, 9 opposed), sending the measure back to the ARPA/Spirit Fund commission for revision and further review. Next steps listed by supporters and staff include revising the RFP language, clarifying the definition of county government projects versus community projects, and codifying reporting and oversight requirements to return for board consideration.

What happens next: The ARPA/Spirit Fund commission is expected to rework the language and address legal and operational questions before returning a revised proposal to the board. Administrators and supporters said they view the referral as an opportunity to tighten guardrails while preserving the program's flexibility to work across differing municipal contexts.