Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vernon County adopts housing study calling for about 58–60 new homes a year
Summary
Supervisors adopted a UW–Madison Extension housing study that recommends strategies to produce 58–60 new housing units annually, addresses a 25% cost-burden rate among households, and lists five funding and zoning strategies to expand housing variety.
At their August meeting, the Vernon County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the countywide housing study developed with UW–Madison Extension, accepting a set of recommendations aimed at expanding housing supply and affordability.
Kristen Runge, program manager for community and economic development at UW–Madison Extension, told the board that the study combines public data and resident input: "We found that we're going to need 58 to 60 new housing units annually in order to accommodate growth." She said the study drew on an 850‑respondent county survey and community conversations across five towns.
The report identified several immediate findings: roughly 25% of Vernon County households are cost‑burdened under HUD definitions (paying more than 30% of gross income on housing), the county's housing stock is aging (about 80% of homes built before 1980), and 82% of housing units are single‑family detached. The study also reported a rising median single‑family sale price (inflation adjusted to $251,000) and called out limited rental and multifamily options.
Runge summarized the task force's five recommended strategies: increase production and rehabilitation of housing stock; implement targeted funding strategies (including permanently affordable approaches and public–private partnerships); encourage local zoning reforms and other housing‑friendly actions; build a workforce pipeline for trades needed to construct housing; and expand community education and partnerships to support implementation.
Supervisors asked questions about the Plain community's data representation and the role of property taxes and interest rates; Runge said those effects are real but that the study provides options tailored to local incomes and commuting patterns. The board adopted Resolution 20‑25‑41 to accept the report and its recommendations. The resolution passed by voice vote; recorded tallies were not entered into the transcript.
The study packet referenced in the meeting includes the full draft Vernon County housing report, a two‑page summary, resident survey results, and case studies on funding tools such as land trusts and TIF usage. Runge offered to be a county resource for follow‑up questions and technical support.
