HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.19.2022 RDA Full Agenda REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
of the City of Oshkosh
c/o Community Development Department
215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54902-1130 (920) 236-5055
(920) 236-5053 FAX
http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us
KELLY NIEFORTH
Executive Director
LORI PALMERI
Chairman
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH
January 19, 2022 4:00pm
WebEx
Due to the current COVID-19 emergency, this meeting will be conducted virtually only. There will be no
general public comment at this meeting of the Redevelopment Authority. Citizens are encouraged to
consider submitting written comments. Written public comments may be sent via e-mail to
amaier@ci.oshkosh.wi.us or placed in the City Hall dropbox. Written comments will be distributed to the
Redevelopment Authority and made part of the public record of the meeting. This meeting will be
available live on Channel 10 in the City of Oshkosh, live streamed on oshkoshmedia.org, live on WOCT
radio station 101.9 FM, live through Roku, Apple TV, and Amazon Fire Stick. You may also view the
meeting later on oshkoshmedia.org and the Oshkosh Media YouTube channel. If anyone requires other
reasonable accommodation, please contact the Community Development Office at
amaier@ci.oshkosh.wi.us or 920-236-5055.
Meeting Information:
Link: https://tinyurl.com/2p8mzwj2
Password: HvaHcAiS597 (48242247 from phones and video systems)
Phone Number: 1-510-338-9438 Access Code: 2556 143 3364
I. Roll Call
II. Approve November 17, 2021 Minutes
III. Land Acquisition for Day by Day update
IV. Draft Housing Study Update
V. RDA Properties Overview
VI. RDA Financials
VII. Executive Director’s Report – Next Meeting March 16, 2022
VIII. Other Business
IX. Adjournment
1
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES
November 17, 2021
PRESENT: Lori Palmeri, Susan Panek, Archie Stam, Steve Hintz, Jack Bermingham, Jason
Lasky
EXCUSED: Thomas Belter
STAFF: Kelly Nieforth, Executive Director/Community Development Director; Mark Lyons,
Planning Services Manager; Sean Fitzgerald; Economic Development Specialist,
Emily Tardiff; Grants Coordinator, Anna Maier; Administrative Assistant
Chairperson Palmeri called the meeting to order at 4:00pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum
declared present.
The minutes and closed session minutes of September 15, 2021 were approved as written. (Stam,
Panek)
21-20 Public Hearing: Approve Spot Blight Designation; Approve Acquisition of Property
Located at 420 Ceape Avenue and 0 Broad Street ($150,000.00)
Mr. Bill Wyman, 1373 Waugoo Avenue, Oshkosh, stated that he is the President and CEO of the
Oshkosh Community Foundation. The Community Foundation spent years developing an
entertainment area with the Leach Amphitheatre, invested a $1,000,000 loan to improve the
Convention Center, and invested $1,000,000 into the YMCA right around the corner. He believes
this area of town would be better used as an entertainment type district. He doesn’t think it is
appropriate to put a non-entertainment facility in the area. There could be other options for the
property. He doesn’t know what they are right now, but he does think it could be marketable for
some other entertainment facility.
Mr. Dan Schetter, 1698 Margeo Drive, Neenah, stated that he is the General Manager for the Best
Western Premier Waterfront Hotel. His real concern is the proposed location. He knows that there
is a homeless issue in Oshkosh and the community needs to come up with viable solutions. When
they’re trying to attract guest to the hotel, they’re trying to provide them the best experience
possible, not just from their team, but from a community standpoint as well. They hear wonderful
things from guests, but one of the black spots is what happens in this area. The activity and
sleeping bags became a little more pronounced during the pandemic. They’ve had many incidents
of individuals consuming alcohol, which happens throughout the day, and coming into the
Convention Center trying to get food or drinks. They’ll talk to wedding couples as they’re having
their ceremony on the Riverside Park lawn. They’ll have people in the stairwells of the hotel
because the building is open 24 hours making that difficult to control. It’s a large building with lots
of areas to hide, which is a safety concern for their guests and staff. He thinks the location for the
shelter is going to attract more activity to the immediate area. He knows there has to be a solution
and a way to handle this. It is a difficult decision as to what’s right and what makes sense. He
2
wanted to share some of the things they contend with on a regular basis. When people travel to
their community, they want to come to a safe community. Whether it’s perception or reality, how
safe they feel is going to affect whether they return or not. It’s a concern when there’s activity right
outside the windows of the Convention Center and inside of the hotel. If there’s an alternate
location, then it should be strongly considered.
Ms. Amy Albright, 5744 Ontario, Butte Des Morts, stated that she is the Executive Director of the
Oshkosh Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. She thinks this is a very hard decision and regardless of
what decision is made or what location is chosen, it is prudent that they accept the fact that they
have these issues and work together as a community to address them. If this is the right location,
then they really need to work on this from a visitor perspective because it is such a large part of
their economy that it would be crazy not to think about whether this is the right location. She
wanted to plead with everyone to really look at the reality of the situation for Mr. Schetter and his
staff. She thinks they’re caring and compassionate people who want the best for the neediest in
their community, but they have to make sure they’re looking at the whole picture and working
together to do the best things for their community and visitors.
Ms. Molly Butz, 3880 Crab Apple Lane, Oshkosh, stated that she is the Executive Director of Day
by Day. She lives and breathes this situation every day. She agrees with Ms. Albright that everyone
in the room wants what’s best for the community. She would invite them all to come and
experience what they experience every day. The increased bed capacity of the new facility will help
the community and surrounding area. They don’t have enough people on hand right now because
they weren’t prepared for the number they’re seeing this season. When she goes back to the shelter
one hour from now, 35 to 50 people will be standing the driveway and only 25 of them will get a
bed. The remaining 15 to 20 people will stand on the front steps and her job will be to get them a
to-go container and ask them what they need from their bins because they store all of their
belongings. Unfortunately the reason the sleeping bags Mr. Schetter mentioned have appeared in
their community is because they’re having to turn 20 people to the streets every night along with
their to-go containers. It’s become a job to figure out how to accommodate 20 people who thought
they were going to get a shower, get their laundry done, and have a bed. They have to figure out
how to get them up to make sure they’re gotten to their jobs, appointments, and responsibilities
because they’re trying to make a better life for themselves. She is going to be very honest with
them about the big picture. In the last four weeks, they’ve turned away 154 people. That is the
most they have ever turned away and it happened in only four weeks. Last year they turned away
72 people in a six month period, but they already turned away 72 people by day 14 of this season.
She understands it is a huge problem. They are trying to create a facility to take away that burden
from the community so that each night they know that their guests and the community are safe.
They’ve seen around two new people per night since they’ve opened the shelter. More and more
people are becoming homeless in their community and 80% of the people they serve are from
Oshkosh and were born and raised here. This is about timing, being responsible to the work that
they’re doing, the commitment they’ve made to the community, and serving their mission as an
organization. They just cannot go on like this.
Mr. Jason Havlik, 1944 West Breeze Drive, stated that he leads the Facilities Committee for Day by
Day and their biggest challenge is the location. The committee looked at three core principles for
3
this project. The first principle is the location and making sure that they build a shelter where their
guest are located and where their needs can be met. The second principle is the overall security for
their guests, staff, and the community. The third principle is financial responsibility. They need to
be able to build a facility that will allow them to be financially responsible to their donors and the
community. They looked at a variety of different locations, but this one made this most logical
sense to their group. They considered a renovation, but after one year of construction costs and
increased operating costs, they would be paying around $2,000,000 more to renovate a facility that
would have otherwise been gifted to them. They feel this is the best option given the location,
security, and cost. It is a good opportunity for their guests.
Mr. Wyman asked if he could make another statement.
Ms. Palmeri replied affirmatively.
Mr. Wyman stated that everything Ms. Butz said is absolutely right and he does not disagree with
anything she said. Homelessness is a problem in the community and there are a lot of different
people addressing it in different ways. He doesn’t disagree with that, but he does think there are
other places for a shelter. As he said before, the Community Foundation invested in the
entertainment side. They also support the Salvation Army, which is building a beautiful facility
right across the street from where the Day by Day Warming Shelter is located now. They also
invested into a free clinic that is in the same building as the existing shelter. He doesn’t know all
the details, but the Community Foundation is aware of another proposal with a different location.
He didn’t want to come up here and make it sound like he was opposed to the homeless shelter
because they do a terrific job. He just thinks that the location is not appropriate.
There were no more public comments.
Motion by Panek to approve 21-20.
Seconded by Bermingham.
Mr. Hintz stated that there seemed to be some big issues with regard to the location. He
appreciates that everyone perceives the need to address homelessness, but there are a variety of
contending thoughts about where the shelter should be located. Somehow that needs to be
addressed. This is not something that the RDA is asked to do. The RDA is asked to accept, at some
appropriate time, the offer from the Housing Authority for $150,000 and then, at some appropriate
time, sell and transfer the property to Day by Day for $1.00. By voting yes, they would be
providing payment for a specific site for the shelter. By voting no, they’re really not precluding
anything other than the fact that Day by Day would have to deal with the Housing Authority.
There are a couple possibilities. One is that the Housing Authority would lower the price for the
land and another is that Day by Day raises an extra $150,000 to purchase the land. Their decision is
really pretty limited in terms of what’s going to happen. He would prefer to defer the vote for a
variety of reasons. He thinks the various parties on the substantive issue need to get together and
talk a little bit more about the appropriate way to handle this.
Ms. Palmeri stated that as a reminder, RDA has a very limited scope which is the spot blight
designation and acquisition.
4
Mr. Lasky stated that he does not disagree with anything Mr. Hintz said and he absolutely agrees
with what the RDA’s role is in this. He asked if it would be appropriate for the RDA to allow the
market to play into this property disposition. He asked if the RDA could purchase the property for
$150,000 and then see what proposals they receive including the Day by Day proposal.
Ms. Nieforth replied that it would not be possible using CDBG funds as the funds are allocated for
a public facility to serve low to moderate income (LMI) individuals.
Mr. Bermingham asked for confirmation that the funding is tied to CDBG requirements.
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding this was approved in the 2021 CBG action plan and
funds have been allocated for this specific purpose. If the RDA purchased the property, it would
have to be for a specific use or for an organization that would use the property as intended in the
action plan.
Mr. Lasky asked if the RDA has funds other than CDBG that could be used for the acquisition.
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively.
Mr. Lasky asked if the RDA could choose to purchase the property with other funds and then see
what proposals they receive.
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively.
Mr. Lasky replied that he also thinks their role as the RDA is to see what kind of economic benefits
they can create through redevelopment, but the Housing Authority still owns it and would need to
agree to sell it for that price.
Ms. Nieforth replied that she cannot guarantee the price would remain $150,000 if they’re veering
away from the intended use. She has not discussed that with them and she does not want to go
down that road.
Mr. Lasky replied that the memo provided indicated that there hasn’t been a use.
Ms. Nieforth replied that the Housing Authority does not have an intended use for it, but it’s
something former staff worked on with Day by Day and the Housing Authority since 2017.
Mr. Lasky replied that he thinks there are alternatives to this proposal.
Mr. Stam stated that he does not recall the RDA ever being used as a conduit to transfer from one
organization to another. He is confused about their role in this.
5
Ms. Nieforth stated that in the past there have been times where the RDA has purchased a
property wanting to see some sort of development or redevelopment, although not specifically for
this use. The RDA has not done it in this specific way before.
Mr. Stam replied that it’s almost like designated funds and they’ve told the RDA the only place
they can spend those funds is at this location.
Ms. Nieforth replied that it could be for any location in Oshkosh, but there are specific
requirements for CDBG funds. Right now the proposed location meets all those requirements and
they planned for this location. They could potentially use CDBG funds if another location could be
acquired for $150,000.
Ms. Palmeri asked if Ms. Nieforth could provide the criteria for spot blight designation.
Ms. Nieforth replied that it’s usually underutilized properties that could either be vacant or have a
dilapidated building. The location is also a factor if it’s in a lower income area or an area where
property values are lower. Those are some of the parameters used to define a property as blighted
and they feel that this property meets those definitions.
Ms. Panek stated that she thinks Mr. Hintz did a good job of explaining the RDA’s role in this. Her
problem is that whatever they decide will negatively impact someone in the room. The location
has been vacant for a very long time. It is an old building that had one, maybe two tenants in it for
years before it was torn down. She gets what everyone is saying, but there also hasn’t been any
effort to develop the property. If it’s going to be used for entertainment, then someone needs to
work toward that.
Ms. Palmeri stated that her understanding is that this district has started to become an
entertainment or mixed used district. They don’t dictate to private entities. If it’s a permitted use,
they’re not telling them no. The RDA is looking at if it is blighted and if they’re going to acquire
the property.
Mr. Lasky stated that he’d like to remove the CDBG funding requirement to offer the flexibility
needed to create potential economic development. Having a non-profit on the site means they’re a
non-taxable entity.
Ms. Nieforth replied that they would need to include the funding source with the approval. If
they’re not using CDBG funds for the acquisition, then they will need to find something else to
spend the $150,000 on in the next three years.
Ms. Palmeri asked if they could approve the spot blight and acquisition separately.
Mr. Hintz stated that he is going to vote against everything and make a motion that they defer to
either the next meeting or the meeting after that to do it right and get some people talking to each
other.
6
Ms. Nieforth stated that the intention was to start construction in spring of 2022. There is an RDA
meeting scheduled for January and March, but they could also have a special meeting. RDA will
need to meet to approve selling the property to Day by Day. If he is going to move forward with
the motion, she would like for Mr. Hintz to clarify what he wants staff to do. Day by Day already
received approval from Council for zoning and a general development plan. She wants to make
sure that staff know what they need to know to come together.
Mr. Hintz replied that he doesn’t think staff needs to do much of anything at this point. They need
to communicate to various groups in the community that they’d like to have a robust consideration
of the site. Their role is a fairly limited one, but it has obligations that go much further than that.
Ms. Panek replied that if they follow Mr. Lasky’s suggestion, they would still need to know
whether or not the Housing Authority would sell it for the $150,000, so that would be something
for staff to follow up on and determine if the offer is contingent on the use.
Ms. Palmeri asked if the new Housing Authority Director was made aware of the meeting.
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively.
Mr. Lasky asked if there was a written agreement with the Housing Authority.
Ms. Nieforth replied that there isn’t an agreement and she does not have permission to enter into
an agreement.
Ms. Palmeri stated that Council approved the other parts of this, so the RDA would be taking a
different path than what the Council has approved.
Mr. Lasky replied that the RDA exists to make their own independent decisions.
Motion by Hintz to defer 21-20 until the next scheduled RDA meeting.
Seconded by Bermingham.
Motion carried 5-1 (No: Palmeri).
Ms. Nieforth stated that she knows Mr. Hintz said that there’s nothing City staff needs to do, but
she wants to make sure she knows what they need to bring to the next meeting. She asked if she’s
bringing back the same thing since it was only deferred.
Mr. Bermingham replied that his understanding was that it would be changed so that CDBG
funding was no longer included and they would check to see if it could be purchased at $150,000
without CDBG funding.
Ms. Panek replied that there is also the question of splitting out the spot blight designation from
the acquisition.
7
Ms. Nieforth replied that they could do that.
Ms. Palmeri replied that the entire public hearing was deferred, but the intent as she understood it
was to separate out the spot blight designation from the acquisition. She doesn’t know if there’s
something that would require them to be together statutorily. She also doesn’t know if they would
need to have a special meeting for that.
21-21 Public Hearing: Approve Spot Blight Designation; Approve Acquisition of Property
Located at 1203 South Main Street ($36,000.00)
Motion by Stam to approve 21-21.
Seconded by Bermingham.
Mr. Lasky asked if this was the car lot.
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that it is vacant now.
Mr. Lasky asked if the house next to it is the one that broke in half.
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that the City is working with them on code violations. It
does have a raze order. Staff have been working with AECOM and they didn’t find anything
concerning. They have EPA funding for the site investigations.
Mr. Lasky replied that he doesn’t have a problem purchasing the property and asked if there was a
need to purchase it.
Ms. Nieforth replied that there are some environmental issues, so someone would need to deal
with that.
Mr. Lasky asked if the phase one was completed.
Ms. Nieforth replied that it has not been completed and they aren’t moving forward with it until
they know they’re going to purchase the property.
Motion carried 6-0.
21-22 Approve Offer to Purchase 422 Otter Avenue; Megan Buss ($4,500.00)
Motion by Panek to approve 21-22.
Seconded by Stam.
Mr. Lasky asked if there was an existing house there.
Ms. Nieforth replied that there was not.
Ms. Palmeri asked if they were purchasing the property for an expansion of their space.
8
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that they own the house just to the north on the corner
of Waugoo and Broad. They don’t have that much yard in the back, so it would just be an
extension of their property to give them more space.
Mr. Stam asked why the parcels couldn’t be combined.
Mr. Lyons replied that the subdivision code does not permit through lots, in this case from
Waugoo to Otter. It also doesn’t permit triple frontage lots and in this case it is a double and triple
frontage lot.
Ms. Palmeri asked why the prices differ for 422 Otter and 1628 Liberty.
Ms. Nieforth replied that the Otter Street lot is smaller. The one on Liberty has a higher value due
to the size and location. They work with the Assessor to determine the fair market value for lots
acquired with CDBG funds.
Mr. Stam asked if the value of the lot would be degraded if they couldn’t combine the parcels. He
asked for confirmation that they couldn’t build on it.
Mr. Lyons replied that it would be extremely difficult to build on. They could not build a code-
compliant home on a lot that narrow on a corner.
Ms. Panek asked if the buyer understood this because her letter suggested otherwise.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that she has been advised about a through lot and that she cannot build an
accessory building on the lot.
Ms. Palmeri asked if Mr. Fitzgerald had that discussion with her before or after the letter was sent.
Mr. Fitzgerald replied that the discussion was after. He talked the individual on the phone about a
month before the letter arrived. There were some conversations in the month prior and a follow up
after the fact to remind her of the limitations of the property.
Mr. Lyons replied that Planning staff have had discussions with her regarding this property and
the limitations.
Ms. Palmeri replied that she would trust that staff will make that very clear before they sign
anything.
Ms. Nieforth replied that they would follow up with her to make sure that she’s fully aware.
Motion carried 6-0.
21-23 Approve Offer to Purchase 1628 Liberty Street; Shirley Stadtmueller ($14,500.00)
Motion by Bermingham to approve 21-23.
9
Seconded by Hintz.
Mr. Bermingham stated that it looks like someone independent is looking to purchase this for an
investment.
Ms. Nieforth replied that she has a family member that lives on one of the adjacent properties.
Mr. Fitzgerald replied that her child and his family own a property immediately behind it. She is
looking to purchase it as an investment property and is aware that they wouldn’t be able to
combine the parcel all the way through or put a fence on it. She’s looking at it as an extended
backyard for her children and grandchildren with the ability to sell it someday for the
development of a family home.
Ms. Palmeri stated that the letter references that they may build a home on it in the future.
Ms. Nieforth replied that they would have more flexibility than the Otter lot due to the size.
Mr. Lyons replied that they wouldn’t be able to build a large home on it, but it would be
significantly easier than the Otter lot.
Motion carried 6-0.
21-24 Approve Offer to Purchase 672 Jefferson Street; KZ Holdings LLC ($8,000.00)
Motion by Stam to approve 21-23.
Seconded by Bermingham.
Ms. Palmeri stated that it looks like RDA purchased this for $47,000 with CDBG dollars. She asked
if they were able to sell it for the lower amount regardless.
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that they plan to build a duplex right away.
Mr. Bermingham asked if this was tied to everything across the street.
Ms. Nieforth replied that the RDA owns everything across the street.
Ms. Palmeri asked if this was demolished in the past year.
Mr. Lyons replied that it might have been in the last two years, but it was relatively recently.
Motion carried 6-0.
Developer Presentations on 100 Block of West 6th Avenue Proposal
10
Mr. Jeff Edmunds, 1609 Weyerhorst Creek Road, Oshkosh, stated that he is the President of Aquire
Restoration. They recently built a new home on 8th Avenue. He is proposing to put a fourplex
townhome on the parcel similar to the homes behind Main Street. They’re individual units with
their own separate entrances, garages, and driveways. Each unit will be around 1,400 to 1,600
square feet with three bedrooms and three bathrooms. There needs to be significant storm water
improvement on the site and he’s received rough quotes for upgrading the storm water utility. He
knows that the asking price is $27,000, but he is going to incur over $50,000 for storm water alone.
He was being respectful with the $5,000 offer. The tax value after will be around $750,000 and he
estimates around $19,500 in taxes annually. The $22,000 difference from the $27,000 offer would be
caught up within one year of taxes. He knows there is a new development happening toward the
east of Sixth Avenue and Main Street, but this is an area with a significant need for housing to
support local businesses. There aren’t any homes in a four block radius. He originally wanted to do
a fiveplex, but he allowed the developer on 6th Avenue to take the 50-foot parcel to be a fair
neighbor. He is hoping to get around $1,500 to $1,600 for rent per month. He won’t be selling it
anytime in the near future because he wouldn’t be able to get his money back until the
surrounding neighborhood and empty parcels across the road are developed.
Mr. Brian Seaman, 3569 Sand Pit Road, Oshkosh, stated that he recently purchased Automotive
Specialists. They are looking to expand the parking lot and possibly put up a new building
separate from the existing building in the future. It would be a $500,000 building with a drive-thru
from one side of 7th Avenue to 6th Avenue. They would be the only ones able to travel through. He
was going to pay the asking price of $27,000.
Ms. Palmeri asked if they were able to have dual access with the two streets.
Mr. Lyons replied that the commercial rules are different from residential. He would have to make
sure that they don’t have any width to depth ratios that would need to be maintained.
Ms. Panek asked if he had any idea of the amount of taxes that would be collected.
Mr. Seaman replied that the property they purchased from Automotive Specialists is already on
the tax base, so this would just increase what they have now.
Mr. Hintz asked what kind of building they would be building in the future.
Mr. Seaman replied that it would be a possible quick lube alignment building.
Mr. Hintz asked how this is zoned right now.
Mr. Lyons replied that it is urban mixed use.
Ms. Nieforth stated that she just wanted to point out that this is part of the South Shore
Redevelopment Plan which includes proposed land use. The area in question is mixed commercial
and residential and the commercial uses are intended to be compatible with residential uses like
11
retail and offices. She just wanted them to be aware of the existing guidance for redevelopment in
the South Shore area.
Mr. Lyons stated that both projects are permitted uses.
Ms. Palmeri asked for confirmation that the rent for the townhomes was $1,500.
Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that townhomes are a type of housing that will be
addressed in the housing study. They know that there’s a gap in what they’re calling the missing
middle. They don’t have housing available for folks who don’t want to be in apartment setting, but
aren’t quite ready for a house. It is a need that has been identified in the community.
Mr. Lasky asked if there was a recommendation.
Ms. Nieforth replied that if she had to recommend one offer, she would probably go with the
housing because there’s a need for housing in the area and she’s not sure if the automotive
proposal is in line with the redevelopment plan.
Ms. Palmeri asked Mr. Seaman what he would do with the property to mitigate noise.
Mr. Seaman replied that the shop opens at 7:30 and closes at 5:30, so there would be no evening
disturbance. They’re open only weekdays.
21-25 Approve Offer to Purchase Vacant Properties Located at the 100 Block of 6th Avenue;
Aquire Restoration, Inc.
Motion by Hintz to approve 21-23.
Seconded by Lasky.
Motion carried 4-2 (No: Stam, Palmeri).
21-26 Approve Offer to Purchase Vacant Properties Located at the 100 Block of 6th Avenue;
Seaman Real Estates LLC ($27,000.00)
Motion by Bermingham to approve 21-26.
Seconded by Lasky.
Motion failed 2-4 (No: Bermingham, Hintz, Lasky, Panek).
21-27 Approve Redevelopment Authority Bylaws
Motion by Bermingham to approve 21-26.
Seconded by Hintz.
12
Ms. Nieforth stated that she worked with Ms. Palmeri and the City Attorney on the revisions,
which involved changing the pronouns and removing a few items that were no longer applicable.
Ms. Palmeri stated that she’s not sure if it would be addressed in the bylaws, but she was
wondering if they could be amended to allow for an alternate or two alternates for the times their
quorum has been a little dicey.
Ms. Nieforth replied that she would reach out to the City Attorney to see what path they’d need to
take to allow that.
Ms. Panek asked if electronic voting is allowed.
Mr. Lyons replied that he would need to verify, but he thinks it might be permissible for certain
administrative items, but it is not permissible for quasi-judicial items.
Motion carried 6-0.
2021 RDA Budget & Financials
Ms. Nieforth stated that they’ve had a lot of staffing changes in the last year and are looking to use
the City’s accounting software to better track RDA’s finances moving forward. The RDA has an
annual budget, but it’s more of a pass-through account. The City borrows money from CIP for
acquisitions and demolitions and there’s also CDBG funding available. Something they’d like to do
for 2022 is get a good idea of how much it costs to maintain each property. Next time they see the
financials they will be a bit easier to read and understand and staff will have better tools for
tracking the costs per property.
Mr. Stam replied that it’s terribly difficult to understand.
Ms. Nieforth replied that they’re trying to make it more efficient.
Mr. Stam asked for confirmation that they didn’t spend any of the money budgeted in land
purchases.
Ms. Palmeri asked what the date range is for this.
Ms. Maier replied that this is for 2021. The transfers in from other funds represents in revenue
represent the dollar amount spent on acquisitions. The budget for land purchases is a placeholder
to show what the RDA could spend up to in 2021 for acquisitions.
Ms. Nieforth replied that it is an estimate that they come up with for budgeting in July.
Mr. Lasky replied that it still indicates they didn’t spend a dime.
Ms. Nieforth replied that they spent around $148,000 for acquisitions.
13
Ms. Maier replied that the $148,000 shows in revenue because it represents the amount that was
transferred in specifically for acquisitions.
Ms. Palmeri asked what the $4,469 expense for Franklin Street is.
Ms. Maier replied that it’s a special assessment for sidewalks.
Mr. Lasky asked if they might want to push to spend more money now that they have this data.
He also asked if the funds roll over.
Ms. Nieforth replied that the funds roll over, but there are time limitations on when they can spend
CDBG dollars. Obviously they want to spend it, but they want to be sure they are mindful of their
redevelopment plans and are thinking strategically about where to focus their redevelopment
efforts.
Mr. Bermingham thanked staff for sharing the financials.
Ms. Nieforth replied that they will try to make it easier for everyone to understand for next time
and make it clear what the costs are for each property.
Ms. Palmeri asked what the Covanta Holding Corporation expense for 1004 South Main is.
Ms. Nieforth replied that it’s environmental liquids. There was probably a storage tank they
needed to dispose of with the demolition.
2020 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
Ms. Nieforth presented the 2020 CAPER to the RDA and provided clarification about a revision to
the narrative under CR-15. The correct LMI benefit for the 2020 program year is 73.86%.
Ms. Palmeri asked where the Day by Day Warming Shelter is reflected in the CAPER.
Ms. Nieforth replied that it is not in the 2020 CAPER, but it will appear in the 2021 CAPER.
Near East Neighborhood and Redevelopment Plans
Mr. Lyons stated that since 2014, the Midtown and Historic Fourth Ward Neighborhood
Associations were established in this area. There have been five new homes in the area and 14
CDBG owner rehabilitation projects since 2006. They did a number of dumpster days in the
Midtown Neighborhood Association to help with some of the cleanup activities. There have been
650 code enforcement cases established and rectified since 2014.
Ms. Palmeri asked if Mr. Lyons was referring to the redevelopment plan or neighborhood plan.
14
Mr. Lyons replied that the neighborhood plan preceded the redevelopment plan.
Ms. Palmeri replied that it was an epic fail.
Mr. Lyons replied that neighborhood planning has improved. Midtown has a plan and a plan for
Historic Fourth Ward will be coming in the next couple of years. The Planning division has taken a
more proactive role in neighborhood planning compared to what was done in 2006. The numbers
he’s providing refer specifically to the redevelopment plan that came from the original
neighborhood plan.
Mr. Stam asked about the areas carved out on Main Street and who determines how the plan is put
together.
Mr. Lyons replied that the RDA and Council would have approved the final layout.
Ms. Panek asked what criteria was used.
Mr. Lyons replied that he could not speak specifically to the criteria used in 2006.
Ms. Palmeri asked if the plan is still relevant given the recent activity in the area and because some
of the objectives were already achieved.
Mr. Lyons replied that he would say the neighborhood plan is no longer valid as they have the two
neighborhood associations. There is some flexibility to determine if they want to continue with the
redevelopment plan. It helped to guide a lot of policies and programming. It still calls for
residential development of the area. He thinks that’s probably still valid, but he’s unsure if a
redevelopment plan is needed to continue down that path. He doesn’t think the activities will end
without the redevelopment plan in place.
Ms. Palmeri replied that respectfully, she has a little different and perhaps biased view because she
lives right there. They’ve had spot blight development and improvement, but they’ve also had
long standing blights in some central target areas. She asked if the plan needed to be kept as is or
terminated or if they could update the existing plan.
Mr. Lyons replied that all of those options are acceptable. One of the benefits of a redevelopment
plan is that it focuses their efforts for potential spot blight acquisitions.
Mr. Lasky asked how the areas of focus are chosen.
Ms. Nieforth replied that they don’t go out looking for redevelopment sites. They come to the City
and if staff feel the acquisitions make sense, then they come to RDA. A good future meeting item
would be to take a look at the properties the RDA is holding, some of which were acquired in the
early 2000s for land banking, to see if that same path and strategy still make sense.
Mr. Lasky replied that he would welcome that and it would give them an opportunity to learn.
15
Ms. Nieforth replied that the information will be helpful as they roll out the results and
recommendations of the housing study.
Mr. Palmeri asked if this plan was in the opportunity zone.
Ms. Nieforth replied that she believes it is, but she would have to confirm. She knows the RDA’s
properties on Jefferson are, but she’s not sure about the whole district. Broad might be the
boundary line.
Ms. Palmeri asked if staff had a recommendation on the neighborhood plan.
Mr. Lyons replied that they did things very differently in 2006. They do a much better job now
with neighborhood associations and tying plans to the associations. It has really grown organically
out of the community. They’ve been extremely successful and their whole neighborhood
development philosophy has changed since 2006.
Mr. Bermingham asked if staff is looking to do away with the way they used to do it.
Ms. Nieforth replied that they’re not saying that anything in the existing plan is bad because it’s
good information, but they have other avenues that account for a lot of the recommendations.
Ms. Palmeri stated that her suggestion is that the neighborhood plan be dissolved because it no
longer applies in many cases due to new plans that are in effect in the area.
Mr. Lyons replied that typically in these situations they just overwrite them with newer plans
because neighborhood plans are not a statutory requirement. The nice thing with neighborhood
plans is that they’re more discretionary, so staff no longer need to reference them as they do their
projects if they’re no longer appropriate.
Ms. Palmeri replied that sometimes projects will forum shop or plan shop depending on what the
project is and it can be confusing to have multiple and sometimes conflicting plans serving as a
guide.
Mr. Lyons replied that they could remove it from the website.
Ms. Palmeri replied that it served its purpose. It was a learning activity of what not to do that
informed how they moved forward.
Executive Director’s Report
Ms. Nieforth provided updates to the RDA.
Adjournment
16
There was no further discussion. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:54pm. (Panek,
Bermingham)
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelly Nieforth
Executive Director
A Place in OshkoshA Place in Oshkosh
A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
AND STRATEGY PLAN
December, 2021
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
3
Acknowledgments
Technical Group
Lynnsey Erickson, Winnebago County Health
Department
Justin R. Mitchell, Oshkosh/Winnebago County
Housing Authority
Margy Davey, Plan Commissioner
John Kiefer, Plan Commissioner
Todd Hutchison, Rental Housing Advisory Board
Chet Wesenberg, Local Architect/Developer
Tim Hess, Developer
Lu Scheer, ADVOCAP
Tom Simon, Habitat for Humanity Oshkosh
Bill Wyman, Oshkosh Area Community
Foundation
• A special thank you to Dylan Palmer, UW
Oshkosh Human Services Leadership Student,
for his valuable contributions obtaining survey
responses as an intern with the Housing
Authority.
City of Oshkosh
Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director
Allen Davis, Former Community Development
Director
Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager
Alexa Naudziunas, Associate Planner
Common Council
Mayor Lori Palmeri
Deputy Mayor Matt Mugerauer
Michael Ford
Lynnsey Erickson
Bill Miller
Courtney Hansen
Aaron Wojciechowski
Plan Commission
Mamadou Coulibaly
Margy Davey
Justin Mitchell
Derek Groth
John Hinz
John Kiefer
Thomas Perry
Kathleen Propp
Michael Ford
Meredith Scheuermann
Philip Marshall
RDG Planning & Design
Omaha, Des Moines, St. Louis
rdgusa.com
A Note on Pandemic Influences...
The housing study was done during uncertain
circumstances in 2021. The data in this study are accurate
as of the most recent data source. Many situations in
2021 are not reflected in these data sources, an year of
economic situations that were still fluid at the time of this
document. Indicators towards the end of 2020 had yet to
indicate severe impacts on the housing market. However,
rising housing construction costs partially attributed to
the pandemic were prevalent through 2021. The short-
versus long-term effects of this recession are still to be
determined. The recommendations represent the current
data, what people are saying, and the author’s expertise in
housing market indicators.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5
Table of Contents
1: Community Vision ..........................................
2: Demographic and Economic Atlas ........
3: Market Assessment .......................................
4: Opportunity Assessment ...........................
5: Housing Program ...........................................
6: Appendix ..........................................................
12
22
46
56
100
126
6
Chapter 1: Community
Vision
The public engagement process revealed
important themes that became the guide for the
development of the Oshkosh Housing Study. These
themes were distilled from input received from
the stakeholder listening sessions, committee
discussions, and the community and landlord
surveys. In summary, overall qualitative themes fell
into:
Lack of existing inventory on the market
• A point the market data in the next chapter
validates.
Rental gaps at less expensive ends of
the scale
• Not surprising as these are units that cannot
be produced by the private market alone, also
validated in the next chapter.
Influence of 2020-2021 material costs on
affordability
• A point made more in the qualitative listening
sessions and concern about the uncertainty
these price increases bring for future housing
production.
Major need for new development in the
$200-300K range
• With other factors raising the cost of
construction, people see the need and feel new
housing in the middle price ranges becoming
hard to produce.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Generational issues in the building
community
• Expressed in the listening sessions as a main
factor for housing supply lagging behind
housing demand.
Maintenance provided
communities/”condos” are in demand
• There is value and opportunities in Oshkosh
for a variety of ownership options beyond
traditional single-family homes.
Interest in alternative housing types –
owner-occupied duplexes as an example
• People are open to moving into “different”
housing models to achieve the price points they
want a lifestyle they seek - either by necessity
or choice.
NIMBY issues complicate development –
but most are aware of the need for more
affordability
• People know the amount of “house” they can
afford is getting less.
Executive housing happening more in
rural surroundings
• Many express a desire to have more land and
live in rural areas, and thus the feeling of higher-
end options only being available outside of the
city.
Employers understand the need and may
be willing to engage in housing market
development
• However, none appear to be devoting resources
to help solve housing challenges quite yet.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
7
Chapter 2: Demographic
and Economic Atlas
TAKEAWAYS:
1. Steady Growth, Lagging the Region
Oshkosh continues to add population. However,
when compared to growth in Winnebago County,
the percent of people living in Oshkosh is trending
downward. Its regional peers are also growing
faster.
2. Dropping Vacancies
The total vacancy rate of rental and owner-
occupied housing is falling in Oshkosh, generally
a good thing for a community. The current rate
is healthy at between 5%-6%. This likely reflects
lower new construction and inventory since
the 2008 recession as people fix up homes or
dilapidated homes get demolished.
3. Affordability Burden on Renters
Renters continue to be more cost burdened
than owners, a situation in many communities.
However, in Oshkosh more renters are cost
burdened than in peer cities. This is partially
related to the student population that is
living in rentals but have low incomes (rent is
supplemented by parents, student loans, or both).
However, the higher renter cost burden is also an
indication of low supply of rentals affordable to
more income groups.
4. Competition for Same Housing
Products and Price Points
A shortage of homes exists for the lowest income
households in Oshkosh and households making
more than $75,000, likely indicating that these
upper income households are out-competing
middle income households for the same housing
products. Middle income households are then
faced with more affordability challenges while
upper income households may prefer to live in
housing that better matches their income and
amenity preferences, if available.
5. Lower Home Values versus Median
Incomes
Housing values in Oshkosh are generally self-
sustaining to support new development.
Housing in other cities is valued higher, but
median incomes are also higher. For example,
the value of homes over $200,000 as a
percent the populations in Neenah and the rest
of the MSA are higher than Oshkosh which may
mean higher income households are choosing
to live outside of Oshkosh. This could be
because of community preferences or simply
lack of options in Oshkosh.
6. Low Inventory of Homes for Sale
The supply of available homes for sale is at
historic lows, a trend not unique to Oshkosh.
The effects in Oshkosh may mean more
demand for home rehabilitation or living in
substandard units.
7. Underproduction of Single-Family
Units
Oshkosh’s overall single-family unit production
remains low for a community over 65,000
people. Between 2010 and 2020, the market
produced some 263 new single-family units at
an average rate of about 24 new units per year.
This is similar to Neenah, which is about a third
the size of Oshkosh.
8
Chapter 3: Market
Assessment
TAKEAWAYS FOR SUCCESS:
1. Consider Oshkosh’s potential to satisfy
regional needs
The Fox Valley is growing rapidly, and even though
Oshkosh is growing at a more moderate pace, the
city provides valuable employment, educational,
civic, and housing opportunities to the region. As
such, the region offers these and other amenities
to Oshkosh. Satisfying demand for housing takes a
holistic approach.
The forecast in this study show Oshkosh to grow
by over 3,200 permanent residents by 2030. To
accommodate this population, Oshkosh will need
to produce almost 1,700 new housing units. This
demand equates to about 160 units annually.
2. Production must be balanced
across price points to prevent further
affordability issues
However, housing construction must be balanced
across price points to ensure that Oshkosh
does not continue its shift toward becoming
unaffordable. To achieve a healthy balance of
housing opportunities, the most significant number
of owner-occupied units should target the middle-
income price-points, with owner units being sixty
percent of all new units.
3. Production must be balanced across
ownership and rental types
Permit data shows that Oshkosh is under-
producing single-family housing units compared to
peer cities in the region. This means more options
for homeowners in other cities looking to move
to or within the region. Therefore, the program in
this chapter targets sixty percent of new homes as
owner-occupied, and 40% as renter-occupied. This
ratio will favor owner units in the market over what
exists today as a 55%/45% owner/renter split.
Additionally, an emphasis should be placed on
generating various owner and renter housing
types such as small, medium, and large single-
family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and
condominiums in addition to apartments and
independent senior living options.
4. The availability and affordability of
the housing market will continue to limit
the growth of the city
The economy is limited by the ability to recruit
and retain employees for jobs at all economic
levels. It may be necessary to provide incentives to
encourage the development of the workforce and
entry-level housing.
The housing market is limited by the shortage of
housing units which drive-up the cost of housing
without driving an increase in the quality of
existing housing. The addition of new units - both
ownership and renter options - would increase
housing quality.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
9
Chapter 5: Housing
Program
QUESTIONS FOR SUCCESS:
• How do we build the capacity to develop
“affordable, attainable” housing and a healthy
housing market?
• How do we encourage housing products and
options that retain our households?
• How do we conserve our neighborhoods and
preserve their housing fabric?
• How do we address the needs of people who
are unhoused or inadequately housed?
Policy Directions Based on Affordability
• Overall Policy Direction: Public policy should
focus on encouraging development of
affordable moderate and medium-cost housing,
where financing gaps and challenges are more
likely to keep the market from satisfying the
need.
Policy Directions Based on Location and
Retention
• Overall Policy Direction: Policy should
encourage development that 1) provides options
for people now moving outside Oshkosh to find
their place in the city and 2) that uses infill sites
or contiguous greenfield sites effectively to
provide these options.
Policy Directions Based on Innovation
and New to Market Products
• Overall Policy Direction: Policy should
encourage and moderate the risks of non-
conventional or emerging forms of residential
development that accommodate emerging
markets but are unfamiliar to many conventional
developers and builders.
Policy Directions Based on Reinvestment
• Overall Policy Direction: Policy should provide
strong, positive incentives for housing and
mixed use investment in targeted reinvestment
areas.
Chapter 4: Opportunity
Assessment
HOUSING ASSETS AT A GLANCE
• Emerging developer interest in new
housing types
• Consumer interest in alternative
forms of housing
• Employers understanding the need to
engage in workforce housing
• General community support
• Neighborhoods and urban housing
quality
• Opportunities to develop
• Water
• Downtown and community character
• Demand for older adult communities
HOUSING CHALLENGES AT A GLANCE
• Lack of existing inventory on the
market
• The cost of construction
• Infrastructure development
• Township and urban service areas
• Infill opportunities
• Housing conditions
• Program diversity and funding
• Nonprofit development capability
• Unseen homelessness
• Shortage of builders and workers
10
Definitions for Housing
Terms Used in this Study
There are many terms used to discuss housing
needs and describe actions. Below is common
terminology used throughout the study to describe
certain situations, conditions, or intended actions.
Appraisal. Assesses the current market value of a
property and is usually a key requirement when a
property is bought, sold, insured, or mortgaged.
Comps (comparables) are needed; these are
properties located in the same area, have similar
characteristics, and have an established value
(recent sales).
Assisted Housing. In the context of this study,
assisted housing is defined and refers to housing
that caters to households that want or need
additional services. This could include provided
meals, cleaning service, shared maintenance, and
other similar accommodations. This definition
includes “assisted living units.” Often those
in assisted housing are older adults that live
independently well after retirement.
Attainable/Affordable Housing. Any housing that
is not financially burdensome to a household in
a specific income range. Financially burdensome
could be housing expenses that exceed 30% of
household income. However, it could also include
situations where a household has high day care
costs, student debt, or other expenses that limit
income to spend on housing. Housing in terms of
housing subsidized by Federal programs can be
included in this definition.
Contract Rent. For renter-occupied units, the
contract rent is the monthly rent agreed upon
regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or services
that may be included. Data for contract rent
excludes units for which no cash rent is paid.
(Census.gov)
Empty-Nester. A single or couple without children
living at home. Empty-nesters can include any age
range but most often refers to older adults whose
children have moved out and no longer live at
home.
Filter Effect. Occurs when higher income
households are “filtered” out of housing units
that are well below the price points that they
can afford. Often it involves “move-up” housing
that frees up existing, more affordable housing.
Today the moves can be lateral in square footage
but also upgrades in locations or amenities with
smaller home square footages.
Gap Financing. Refers to a short-term loan for
the purpose of meeting an immediate financial
obligation until sufficient funds to finance the
longer-term financial need can be secured.
Gross Rent. Gross rent is the contract rent plus
the estimated average monthly cost of utilities
(electricity, gas, and water and sewer) and fuels
(oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc) if these are paid by
the renter (or paid for the renter by someone else).
(Census.gov)
Leverage. It can describe engaged partner
organizations (financial, organizational, and human
capital) to enable a more significant outcome,
provide funding, or gain access to additional funds
such as grants by pledging local resources.
Market Rate. The price that the broad number
of homebuyers or renters are willing to pay for
housing. Market rate housing does not have any
restrictions on price. Generally, when the demand
goes up, the market rate price will also go up.
Conversely, when supply goes down, the market
rate price tends to go up. Note, the market rate
price may also be a price buyers must pay because
there are no other options for their situation,
putting them housing cost burdened.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
11
Median Household Income. This includes the
income of the householder and all other individuals
15 years old and over in the household, whether
they are related to the householder or not. The
median divides the income distribution into two
equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the
median income and one-half above the median.
For households and families, the median income
is based on the distribution of the total number of
households and families, including those with no
income. (Census.gov)
Mixed-Use. Mixed-use districts are areas with two
or more different uses such as residential, office,
retail, and civic in a compact urban form. Typical
residential uses in a mixed-use district range from
medium density to very high density uses.
Move-up Housing. The natural cycle of how
people move in the housing market, referring to
the process of moving from renting to mid-sized
owner-occupancy to larger single-family homes.
The “move-up” generally occurs with income
increases, assuming adequate housing supply
and variety is available, opening more affordable
housing options for others. Recent trends
indicate that “move-up” housing may not mean
square footage but may mean better finishes and
amenities.
Universal Design. The process of creating
products that are accessible to people with a
wide range of abilities, disabilities, and other
characteristics. Ideally, the concept extends to
neighborhoods. Universal Design goes beyond
the regulations and codes of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), which are required by
federal law in commercial projects. ADA is focused
mostly on people with disabilities where Universal
Design thinks about accessibility for everyone.
ENTRY HOUSING DOWN-SIZE HOUSING
FAMILY / MOVE-UP
MOVE-UP HOUSING EXAMPLE
Community Vision
1
PROCESS
The Oshkosh Housing Study builds on a series of
past research and planning about housing in the
community. Building on these past recent efforts,
the Oshkosh Housing Study engaged more than
700 residents and stakeholders on issues relating
to the housing market. This chapter explores the
experience and attitudes of the housing market
including challenges, opportunities, and aspirations
for the future.
• Project Timeline: 8 months.
• Perception Survey: 508 respondents.
• Landlord Survey: 255 respondents.
• Steering Committee: 6 meetings.
• Listening Sessions: 7 meetings.
CHAPTER 1: AT A GLANCE
COMMON COMMUNITY PERCEPTION THEMES
www.OshkoshHousing2021.com
Technical Committee
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
15
THEMES
The public engagement process revealed
important themes that became the guide for the
development of the Oshkosh Housing Study. These
themes were distilled from input received from
the stakeholder listening sessions, committee
discussions, and the community and landlord
surveys. In summary, overall qualitative themes fell
into:
Lack of existing inventory on the market
• A point the market data in the next chapter
validates.
Rental gaps at less expensive ends of
the scale
• Not surprising as these are units that cannot
be produced by the private market alone, also
validated in the next chapter.
Influence of 2020-2021 material costs on
affordability
• A point made more in the qualitative listening
sessions and concern about the uncertainty
these price increases bring for future housing
production.
Major need for new development in the
$200-300K range
• With other factors raising the cost of
construction, people see the need and feel new
housing in the middle price ranges becoming
hard to produce.
Generational issues in the building
community
• Expressed in the listening sessions as a main
factor for housing supply lagging behind
housing demand.
Maintenance provided
communities/”condos” are in demand
• There is value and opportunities in Oshkosh
for a variety of ownership options beyond
traditional single-family homes.
Interest in alternative housing types –
owner-occupied duplexes as an example
• People are open to moving into “different”
housing models to achieve the price points they
want a lifestyle they seek - either by necessity
or choice.
NIMBY issues complicate development –
but most are aware of the need for more
affordability
• People know the amount of “house” they can
afford is getting less.
Executive housing happening more in
rural surroundings
• Many express a desire to have more land and
live in rural areas, and thus the feeling of higher-
end options only being available outside of the
city.
Employers understand the need and may
be willing to engage in housing market
development
• However, none appear to be devoting resources
to help solve housing challenges quite yet.
16
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Survey respondents are slightly older than the
population of Oshkosh reported by the 2019
American Community Survey (ACS).
OWNER AND RENTER OCCUPANCY
65% of respondents are home owners versus 59%
reported by the 2019 ACS.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Survey respondents have higher household
incomes than reported by the 2019 ACS.
COMMUNITY INPUT
A significant component of understanding
the housing situation in Oshkosh came from a
community perception survey. The City distributed
a community survey via social media, e-mail lists,
POLCO, and through partner organizations. The
survey reached more than 500 respondents and
is used to supplement and support the anecdotal
information from listening sessions held with
community stakeholders.
Community Survey
Respondents
Home and Work Location
Most survey respondents live in Oshkosh, but
respondents work throughout the region, including
Jackson, Milwaukee, De Pere, Green Bay, Appleton,
Fond du Lac, Neenah, and others shown in Figure
1.1.
Survey Demographics
Figure 1.1: Work Location of Survey Respondents by Zip Code
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
17
Survey Housing Preferences
Respondents were given several types of housing
options and asked if they felt any of these housing
types would be successful in Oshkosh today
(Figure 1.2). The most popular housing types, as
chosen by more than 75% of respondents were:
• Mid-size, three bedroom homes.
• Small, two-to-three bedroom homes.
• Independent – Senior Living.
• Townhouse or Rowhome (rental or owner).
Mixed-use and downtown residential also ranked
high. The positive response should be taken as
support for continued enhancement in downtown
and commercial corridors.
Figure 1.2: What new housing types do you think would be successful in the City of Oshkosh today?
The housing types that the majority did not think
would be successful were:
• Larger homes with four or more bedrooms.
• Large lot, estate residential.
It is likely that two factors contribute to the low
rankings for these housing types:
• People understand the limited land areas for
these types of homes.
• These units are not typically affordable to lower
and middle income households.
18
Thoughts About Moving
About 67% of survey respondents indicated they
would consider looking for a new place to live
in the next three years. Of those respondents,
the highest reason for looking to move was to a
different community or to the county for quality
of life reasons (Figure 1.3). This means strategies
also need to focus on jobs, amenities, and other
community features beyond adequate housing
options.
Additionally, many survey respondents did in fact
look for a new place to live in the past three years -
about 52%. Of those looking for housing:
• About 63% looked to purchase a home.
• About 37% looked for a rental unit.
• 61% of all those that looked for housing (owner
or rental) did not find what they were looking
for (Figure 1.4).
38.7%
61.3%
338.7
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
To move into an assisted living facility
To move to a smaller rental unit
To move to a smaller owner-occupied home
To a unit that allows me to age in place
To move to a larger rental unit
To move out of rental to purchase a home
To move to a die rent city foremployment
Other (please specify)
Tomo ve to a larger owner-occupied home
To move to a die rent city or in the county forquality of life reasons
None - I am happy with my current living arrangement
Yes No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
College students
Elderly singles or couples - those needing
any type of assistance at home
"Empty-nesters" - retirees or couples with
no children living at home
Single professionals
Young singles and couples without children
"Multi-generational families" - households
with more than one generation of adults
Families with children
Workers making below $15.00 an hour
Q 17
38.7%61.3%
Figure 1.3: Is there any reason you’d look for a new place to live in the next three years? (Choose all
that apply)
Figure 1.4: If you looked for a new place to live in
the past three years, did you find what you were
looking for?
38.7%
61.3%
338.7
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
To move into an assisted living facility
To move to a smaller rental unit
To move to a smaller owner-occupied home
To a unit that allows me to age in placeTo move to a larger rental unitTo move out of rental to purchase a homeTo move to a die rent city foremploymentOther (please specify)Tomove to a larger owner-occupied homeTo move to a die rent city or in the county forquality of life reasonsNone - I am happy with my current living arrangement
Yes No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
College students
Elderly singles or couples - those needing
any type of assistance at home
"Empty-nesters" - retirees or couples with
no children living at home
Single professionals
Young singles and couples without children
"Multi-generational families" - households
with more than one generation of adults
Families with children
Workers making below $15.00 an hour
Q 17
38.7%61.3%
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
19
Mixed-Use - Residential and Commercial Uses
Accessory Dwelling Units
Independent - Senior Living
Downtown upper-story residential (rental or owner condors)
Apartment, Multi-Family
Townhouse or Rowhome (rental or owner condos)
Large Lot Estate Residential Housing
Mid-size, three-bedroom house
Small two-or-three bedroom house
Large home with four or more bedrooms
Yes No
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Other
An assisted living unit
An independent apartment
A residence that is attatched or adjacent to the home of a family member
A small independent owner-occupied home
An apartment with additional services available (for example: one meal a day, housekeeping, etc.)
An owner-occupied home with shared maintenance
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
2000 2010 2019
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Emerging Ages 18-24 Establish(ed/ing) Ages 25-54 Senior Ages 55+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Under$100,000 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000-$299,999 $300,000-$399,999 Over$400,000
Shortage Balance between supply and demand Surplus Don’t know
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Under $500 $500-$999 $1,000 - $1,499 $1,500 - $1,999 Over $2,000
Shortage Balance between supply and demand Surplus Don’t know
<5 Years 5-9Years 10-14Years 15-19Years 20-24Years 25-34 Years 35-44 Years 45-44 Years 55-59Years 60-64
Years
65-74
Years
75-84Years 85+
Years
2000 2010 2019
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Under
$100,000
$100,000-
$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000-$299,999
$300,000-
$399,999
Over
$400,000
Shortage Balance between supply and demand Surplus Don’t know
Figure 1.5: If you have looked to purchase a home
in the past three years, how would you rate the
availability of housing in the City of Oshkosh for
each of the following price categories?
Perceptions About the Market
Many people do not know much about housing or local markets besides their
personal experiences. The following sentiments were expressed during the
housing study process.
• Those that looked for housing options generally saw a shortage of what
would be considered “affordable” options for them (Figure 1.5 and 1.6).
• Most survey respondents also felt the market is not supporting options for
workers making below $15.00 an hour (Figure 1.7).
• Regarding housing for older households, respondents felt that owner
occupied homes with shared maintenance was preferable, followed
closely by a unit with shared maintenance (Figure 1.8). This matched the
conversations with stakeholders throughout the process.
Figure 1.6: If you have looked for rental housing
in the past three years, how would you rate
the availability of rental housing in the City of
Oshkosh for the following rental ranges?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Under $500 $500-$999 $1,000 - $1,499 $1,500 - $1,999 Over $2,000
Shortage Balance between supply and demand Surplus Don’t know
38.7%
61.3%
338.7
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
To move into an assisted living facility
To move to a smaller rental unit
To move to a smaller owner-occupied home
To a unit that allows me to age in place
To move to a larger rental unit
To move out of rental to purchase a home
To move to a die rent city foremployment
Other (please specify)
Tomove to a larger owner-occupied home
To move to a die rent city or in the county forquality of life reasons
None - I am happy with my current living arrangement
Yes No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
College students
Elderly singles or couples - those needing
any type of assistance at home
"Empty-nesters" - retirees or couples with
no children living at home
Single professionals
Young singles and couples without children
"Multi-generational families" - households
with more than one generation of adults
Families with children
Workers making below $15.00 an hour
Q 17
38.7%61.3%
Figure 1.7: Do you believe that the current
housing market adequately meets the needs of
the following households in the City of Oshkosh?
(Percent saying “no”)
Figure 1.8: What type of housing do you
believe households with adults over age 65 are
most interested in?
20
Support for Housing Policy
Survey respondents and stakeholder discussions
showed good support for policy directed at the
existing housing stock. Most notably:
• Respondents were most supportive of using
public funds for home repair and rehabilitation
assistance (Figure 1.9).
›This could indicate support for increasing the
funds available for similar existing programs in
Oshkosh.
• Very similar support is expressed for programs
for homelessness and removal of dilapidated
housing (Figures 1.10 and 1.11).
Yes No Undecided
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Does Oshkosh need and would you support the use of public funding for home repair and rehabilitation
assistance?
For example, the city creating a …
Responses
Figure 1.9: Does Oshkosh need and would you
support the use of public funding for home repair
and rehabilitation assistance?
For example, the City creating a program funded by taxpayer dollars
that allows property owners in designated areas of most need to apply
for grants or forgivable loans to pay for major home repairs. Applicants would typically have to be low-income or elderly households, among
other restrictions to ensure proper use of funds.
Figure 1.10: Does Oshkosh need and would you
support programs and services to people without
permanent homes?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Poor Fair Average Good Excellent
Image of the City Image of the Downtown Housing Supply
Housing Quality Housing A ordability Satisfaction with your Neighborhood
Satisfaction with your Dwelling Availability of Senior Housing Residential Property Maintenance
Yes No Undecided
73.8%14.7%
11.6%
For example, tiny home villages, shelters, transitional housing, vouchers,
food support.
For example, the City acquiring homes that are beyond repair and a
hazard to the community and using taxpayer dollars to demolish.
Figure 1.11: Does Oshkosh need and would you support the use of public funding to remove
dilapidated housing?
Yes No Undecided
Yes No Undecided
Q 29
Q30
Yes No Undecided
Q31
50.8%
18.3
30.8
73.4%
12.1%
14.5%
74.8
14.0%
11.1%
Figure 1.12: Does Oshkosh need and would
you support greater enforcement of property
maintenance codes?
For example, using taxpayer dollars to hire additional city staff to
proactively notify, levy fines, and take action on property owners that do
not follow existing building, zoning, or other safety codes.
Yes No Undecided
Yes No Undecided
Q 29
Q30
Yes No Undecided
Q31
50.8%
18.3
30.8
73.4%
12.1%
14.5%
74.8
14.0%
11.1%
• However, survey respondents were not as
supportive for greater property maintenance
enforcement (Figure 1.12) – an effort that would
reduce the number of dilapidated and homes in
need of repair.
›This may indicate the need to educate more
during property enforcement about funding
programs to comply with codes.
• Those answering undecided had many reasons
and criteria that would lend them to support
such programs. Those comments are in the
Appendix.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
21
Figure 1.13: On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the City of
Oshkosh on the following topic areas?
Image of the City Image of theDowntown Housing Supply Housing Quality Housing Affordability Satisfaction withyour Neighborhood Satisfaction withyour Dwelling Availability of SeniorHousing Residential PropertyMaintenance
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the City of Oshkosh on the following topic areas?
1 (Poor)
2 (Fair)
3 (Average)
4 (Good)
5 (Excellent)
Community Assets
As will be shown throughout this study, one question from the community
survey generally summarizes the priority assets and challenges, shown in
Figure 1.13.
• People like and have pride in their neighborhoods and their homes.
• Housing affordability and supply are primary challenges. The details which
are illustrated further in the next chapter.
• There are perceived and real improvements that can be made in existing
housing conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
The importance of personal accounts provided as part of the public
engagement process of this study cannot be overstated. These stakeholders
voiced their experiences, opinions, and ideas through the surveys and
listening sessions. These accounts provide a strong foundation on which
the remainder of this plan is built including several big ideas that resonate
across all input and discussions.
Image of the CityImage of the
Downtown
Housing SupplyHousing QualityHousing AffordabilitySatisfaction with
your Neighborhood
Satisfaction with
your Dwelling
Availability of Senior
Housing
Residential Property
Maintenance
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the City of
Oshkosh on the following topic areas?
1 (Poor)
2 (Fair)
3 (Average)
4 (Good)
5 (Excellent)
Image of the CityImage of the
Downtown
Housing SupplyHousing QualityHousing AffordabilitySatisfaction with
your Neighborhood
Satisfaction with
your Dwelling
Availability of Senior
Housing
Residential Property
Maintenance
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the City of
Oshkosh on the following topic areas?
1 (Poor)
2 (Fair)
3 (Average)
4 (Good)
5 (Excellent)
Image of the CityImage of the
Downtown
Housing SupplyHousing QualityHousing AffordabilitySatisfaction with
your Neighborhood
Satisfaction with
your Dwelling
Availability of Senior
Housing
Residential Property
Maintenance
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the City of
Oshkosh on the following topic areas?
1 (Poor)
2 (Fair)
3 (Average)
4 (Good)
5 (Excellent)
Image of the CityImage of the
Downtown
Housing SupplyHousing QualityHousing AffordabilitySatisfaction with
your Neighborhood
Satisfaction with
your Dwelling
Availability of Senior
Housing
Residential Property
Maintenance
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the City of
Oshkosh on the following topic areas?
1 (Poor)
2 (Fair)
3 (Average)
4 (Good)
5 (Excellent)
Image of the CityImage of the
Downtown
Housing SupplyHousing QualityHousing Affordability Satisfaction with
your Neighborhood
Satisfaction with
your Dwelling
Availability of Senior
Housing
Residential Property
Maintenance
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the City of
Oshkosh on the following topic areas?
1 (Poor)
2 (Fair)
3 (Average)
4 (Good)
5 (Excellent)
Demographic &
Economic Atlas
2
24
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
25
5. Lower Home Values versus Median
Incomes
Housing values in Oshkosh are generally self-
sustaining to support new development. Housing
in other cities is valued higher, but median incomes
are also higher. For example, the value of homes
over $200,000 as a percent the populations
in Neenah and the rest of the MSA are higher
than Oshkosh which may mean higher income
households are choosing to live outside of
Oshkosh. This could be because of community
preferences or simply lack of options in Oshkosh.
6. Low Inventory of Homes for Sale
The supply of available homes for sale is at historic
lows, a trend not unique to Oshkosh. The effects
in Oshkosh may mean more demand for home
rehabilitation or living in substandard units.
7. Underproduction of Single-Family
Units
Oshkosh’s overall single-family unit production
remains low for a community over 65,000 people.
Between 2010 and 2020, the market produced
some 263 new single-family units at an average
rate of about 24 new units per year. This is similar
to Neenah, which is about a third the size of
Oshkosh.
CHAPTER 2: AT A GLANCE
TAKEAWAYS
TAKEAWAYS:
1. Steady Growth, Lagging the Region
Oshkosh continues to add population. However,
when compared to growth in Winnebago County,
the percent of people living in Oshkosh is trending
downward. Its regional peers are also growing
faster.
2. Dropping Vacancies
The total vacancy rate of rental and owner-
occupied housing is falling in Oshkosh, generally
a good thing for a community. The current rate
is healthy at between 5%-6%. This likely reflects
lower new construction and inventory since
the 2008 recession as people fix up homes or
dilapidated homes get demolished.
3. Affordability Burden on Renters
Renters continue to be more cost burdened than
owners, a situation in nearly all communities.
However, in Oshkosh more renters are cost
burdened than peer cities. This is partially related
to the student population, but also an indication of
low supply.
4. Competition for Same Housing
Products and Price Points
A shortage of homes exists for the lowest income
households in Oshkosh and households making
more than $75,000, likely indicating that these
upper income households are out-competing
middle income households for the same housing
products. Middle income households are then
faced with more affordability challenges while
upper income households may prefer to live in
housing that better matches their income and
amenity preferences, if available.
26
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC ATLAS
PROCESS
The Demographic and Economic Atlas chapter begins with a review of existing conditions to forecast the
changes that will occur over the next five to ten years.
The objective will be to assemble and analyze basic data related to population trends and the economic
health of Oshkosh. The exploration identifies trends in the market today that, with guidance, can be
realized as opportunities or mitigated as challenges in the future.
Green Bay:
• Population - 107,395 (2020).
• Median Household Income - $49,251.
• Median Home Value- $135,900.
• Median Contract Rent - $628.
• Owner%/Renter% - 55.6%/44.4%.
• Other features - Located on Lake Michigan.
Home to University of Wisconsin - Green Bay.
Neenah:
• Population - 27,319 (2020).
• Median Household Income - $59,820.
• Median Home Value - $141,100.
• Median Contract Rent - $616.
• Owner%/Renter% - 65.9%/34.1%.
• Other features - Located on Lake Winnebago.
La Crosse:
• Population - 52,680 (2020).
• Median Household Income - $45,233.
• Median Home Value - $142,500.
• Median Contract Rent - $688.
• Owner%/Renter% - 46.1%/53.9%.
• Other features - Home to University of
Wisconsin - La Crosse and Western Technical
College.
Peer Communities
There are many market conditions being faced
by cities across Wisconsin and the Midwest. The
demographic and economic data points for this
study include comparison to several cities of
similar characteristics. This comparison helps
understand whether conditions may be unique
to Oshkosh or being experienced in the larger
macroeconomic market.
Oshkosh:
• Population - 66,816 (2020).
• Median Household Income - $50,892.
• Median Home Value - $125,000.
• Median Contract Rent - $641.
• Owner%/Renter% - 55%/ 45%.
Appleton:
• Population - 75,644 (2020).
• Median Household Income - $58,112.
• Median Home Value - $147,800.
• Median Contract Rent - $651.
• Owner%/Renter% - 65.6%/ 34.4%.
• Other features - Located near Lake Winnebago.
Fond du Lac:
• Population - 44,678 (2020).
• Median Household Income - $52,724.
• Median Home Value - $126,200.
• Median Contract Rent - $632.
• Owner%/Renter% - 58.1%/41.9%.
• Other features - Located on Lake Winnebago.
Home to University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh at
Fond du Lac.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
27
Data Considerations for
Oshkosh
Market Area
Housing markets are often not restrained to jurisdictional
boundaries. Most people can choose whether to live
in the same community they work. The data this study
presents will use both City of Oshkosh and the Oshkosh-
Neenah Metropolitan Statistical Area boundary. These
data differences are noted in each table or graph where
appropriate.
Student Population
The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh influences the
housing market, especially in neighborhoods abutting
the University. The student enrollment in 2020-2021 was
10,473, with 9,198 enrolled at the Oshkosh campus. Some
of these students live in College/University housing. This
means the balance of enrollment lives in Oshkosh or
surrounding cities, minus the percentage only enrolled in
online courses.
Correctional Facilities
A portion of the Census reported population of Oshkosh is
in correctional facilities within city limits. These populations
do not add to long-term housing demand and are excluded
from forecasts where necessary. In 2010, the Census
reports 2,888 people in correctional facilities. That number
rose slightly to 3,045 in 2020. However, there are still
short-term needs for this population to transition from
correctional faciltiies to stable housing. These supportive
transitional housing options are still needed in the future.
Data Sources
The study uses a variety of data sources. Those most used
include:
• Limited 2020 Census Redistricting data released at the
time of this study.
• 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
• 2010 Census.
• Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• City of Oshkosh.
• Winnebago County Government.
• Multiple Listings Service (MLS).
MACROMARKET
Interest Rates Federal
Standards
Raw MaterialCosts
Funding
Sources
CDBG, FHA
Global Forces
REGIONALMARKET
Population
Growth/
Decline
Supply of
Contractors
Wage Level Job Growth/Openings
LOCALMARKET
Land & Lot
Supply
ZoningRegulations
Permit Fees
Fluctuating
Valuations
Amenities
like Education,
Services
Potential forces on housing development and investment
28
Demographic and Market
Data
This section reviews Oshkosh’s demographic
trends looking at population growth, age
distribution, and household economic
characteristics alongside housing market data
such as housing ownership, housing values, and
vacancies. The Jackson Street Corridor Study
completed in 2020 provides an initial housing
snapshot. This study expands and updates those
data points.
When the analysis examines historic trends, the
study will use the Decennial Census because it is
the most complete source of demographic data.
Alongside the 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census
when available, the American Community Survey is
used to estimate the most recent trends.
Population
GROWTH
Historic population change provides context for
changes in the city and a trajectory for future
growth and development.
• The City of Oshkosh steadily grew each
decade since 1960. The highest period of
growth occurred between 1990-2000 at a
14.4% population gain in those ten years. Most
recently, the city saw an 1.1% gain from 2010 to
the 2020 population of 66,816 (Figure 2.1).
• When compared to growth in Winnebago
County, the percent of people living in
Oshkosh is trending downward. This means the
population outside of Oshkosh in the county is
growing faster than in the city.
• Oshkosh grew slower than its peer cities
between 2010-2020. Neenah saw the highest
growth rate in this time span (Figure 2.2).
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Oshkosh Winnebago
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Oshkosh Fond du Lac Neenah Appleton Green Bay
$680$700$720$740$760$780$800$820 Oshkosh Fond du Lac Neenah Appleton Green Bay 1.10%1.15%1.20%1.25%1.30%1.35%1.40%1.45%1.50%Oshkosh Fond du Lac Neenah Appleton Green Bay
Figure 2.2: Population Percent Change, 2010-
2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 2.1: Historic Population, 1960-2020
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
Oshkosh Fond du Lac Neenah Appleton Green Bay La Crosse
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
29
POPULATION LOCATION
Population change can
provide greater depth
when mapped where
people live in Oshkosh
and the surrounding
area. Figure 2.3 shows
the population change
around Oshkosh from
2010-2019 by Census
Block Groups.
• There were larger
percentage increases
in several core
neighborhoods
than other areas.
These could be the
result of apartment
developments.
• Downtown saw
increases in
population, but
immediately
surrounding
neighborhoods saw
decreases.
• There appear to
be fewer students
living on-campus
at the University of
Wisconsin - Oshkosh.
Figure 2.3: Population Change by Census Block Group, 2010-2019
Source: U.S. Census; 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
More than a decline of 10%
Decline up to 10%
Growth up to 19.9%
Growth 20% to 39.9%
Growth above 40%
30
AGE COMPOSITION
Figure 2.4 shows the
median age in various
areas of Oshkosh in
2019. Not surprisingly,
younger people live
around the University
of Wisconsin - Oshkosh
and downtown.
Figure 2.5 illustrates
how Oshkosh’s age
composition has
changed over time. The
five-year age cohorts
are combined into
three distinct phase of
life that relate directly
to the housing market.
• From 2000 to 2019,
the greatest growth
occurred people 55
and older.
• From 2010 to
2019, age 65 to 74
increased the most
at a 70% increase,
representing 9.6% of
the total population.
• Outside of the
student aged
population (20-24),
from 2010 to 2019
the slowest growth
occurred in the 45
to 54 years of age at
a decline of 18%.
Mixed-Use - Residential and Commercial Uses
Accessory Dwelling Units
Independent - Senior Living
Downtown upper-story residential (rental or owner condors)
Apartment, Multi-Family
Townhouse or Rowhome (rental or owner condos)
Large Lot Estate Residential Housing
Mid-size, three-bedroom house
Small two-or-three bedroom house
Large home with four or more bedrooms
Yes No
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Other
An assisted living unit
An independent apartment
A residence that is attatched or adjacent to the home of a family member
A small independent owner-occupied home
An apartment with additional services available
(for example: one meal a day, housekeeping, etc.)
An owner-occupied home with shared maintenance
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
2000 2010 2019
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Emerging Ages 18-24 Establish(ed/ing) Ages 25-54 Senior Ages 55+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Under$100,000 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000-$299,999
$300,000-
$399,999
Over
$400,000
Shortage Balance between supply and demand Surplus Don’t know
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Under $500 $500-$999 $1,000 - $1,499 $1,500 - $1,999 Over $2,000
Shortage Balance between supply and demand Surplus Don’t know
<5 Years 5-9Years 10-14Years 15-19Years 20-24Years 25-34 Years 35-44 Years 45-44 Years 55-59Years 60-64Years 65-74Years 75-84Years 85+Years
2000 2010 2019
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
Figure 2.5: Oshkosh Age Cohort Change, 00’-19’
Figure 2.4: Median Age by Census Block Group, 2019
Under 21
21-24
25-34
35-44
Over 44
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
31
STUDENT POPULATION
In any community with a significant institutional
population, it is important to understand
population change and the influence that the
institutional population has on the overall growth
of the community. In the case of Oshkosh,
the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh has an
estimated 2019-20 enrollment at the Oshkosh
campus of 9,761 students who contribute
significant benefits to the economy but also
require services including housing. Many leave
Oshkosh upon graduation to establish jobs,
housing, and families in other cities throughout the
nation. This is natural but must be factored into
population estimates and growth projections.
For the purpose of establishing the baseline
population that will be used to build a population
forecast in Oshkosh, Figure 2.6 employs two
methodologies which seek to adjust for the
student population in distinct ways. Note, that
total population in Oshkosh from 2010-2020
grew by 1.1%, an annual rate of 0.11%. Both
methods illustrate a higher city growth rate when
accounting for changes in the student population.
Figure 2.6: Population Change Adjusted for Student Population
METHODOLOGY 1: EXCLUDING FULL-TIME ENROLLMENT (FTE) 2010 2020 CHANGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE
Total Population 66,083 66,816 733
Student Population 12,286 9,761 -2,525
Remaining Population 53,797 57,055 3,258 0.59%
METHODOLOGY 2: EXCLUDING DORM POPULATION
Total Population 66,083 66,816 733
Student Population 3,195 2,767 -428
Remaining Population 62,888 64,049 1,161 0.18%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh https://uwosh.edu/oir/dashboards/enrollment-dashboard/
Methodology 1: Excluding Full-Time Enrollment
By excluding all full-time enrollment from the total
population, the remaining traditional population
in 2020 is 57,055. This population has grown at an
average annual growth rate of 0.59% in the last
ten years. This model removes the entire student
body from the growth rate that would be expected
from permanent residents. However, because this
model also removes non-traditional and those
students who may have local connections, it likely
underestimates Oshkosh’s ability to retain a share
of this population and contribute to growth.
Methodology 2: Excluding Dorm Population
By excluding the entire dorm/on-campus
population as reported by the Census from
the total population, the remaining traditional
population in 2020 is 64,049. This population
grew at an average annual growth rate of 0.18%.
This model seeks to remove students who attend
University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh from outside
the region and will be less likely to establish
themselves in Oshkosh upon graduation.
32
Figure 2.8: Oshkosh Occupancy Trends
2000 2010 2019 2020*2010-2019 CHANGE
Total Units 25,420 28,179 28,676 29,222
Occupied 24,082 26,138 26,634 27,509
Owner-Occupied 57.5%56.2%55.0%-1.2%
Renter-Occupied 42.5%43.8%45.0%+1.2%
Total Vacant 1,338 2,041 2,042 1,713
Vacancy rate 5.3%7.2%7.1%5.9%-0.1%
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 2.5%1.5%
Rental Vacancy Rate 8.2%5.6%
Source: U.S. Census; 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; *Full 2020 Census results were
not released at the time of this study. The 2020 numbers represent data that had been released early in
Redistricting Data files.
Housing
OCCUPANCY
In 2020, Oshkosh had a total
of 29,222 housing units.
The total vacancy rate in
2020 was 5.9% according to
the 2020 Census. The 2019
American Community Survey
estimated a vacancy rate of
7.1% with rental vacancies
making up 5.6% of the
total vacancies. However,
the sample from the local
landlord survey described
in the Appendix show a
vacancy rate in July 2021 of
about 3.3%, aligning more
with the actual 2020 Census
data.
Figure 2.7 shows that many
rental units cluster around
the University of Wisconsin -
Oshkosh and downtown area.
Figure 2.8 shows that rental
occupancy has been slightly
increasing since 2000, a
trend common in cities over
60,000 in the Midwest.
The decrease in vacancies
is a promising trend for
neighborhoods. A 5%-6%
vacancy rate is considered
healthy for a community to
provide options in the market
if these units are in good
condition.
Figure 2.7: Renter-Occupied Housing % by Census Block Group, 2019
Under 20%
20% - 39.9%
40% - 59.9%
60% - 79.9%
Over 79.9%
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
33
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION:
New housing construction in Oshkosh tends to vary by year and unit type. Figure 2.9 shows the number
of new units by year since 2010.
• Single-family unit construction steadily increased since 2010, seeing an uptick since 2017. However,
in 2020, permits are lower than the total in the county, Neenah, and Appleton on a per capita basis
(Figure 2.10).
• Multi-family units vary by year, often attributed to a single large project.
• On average, about 134 units were provided per year since 2010. If using a household size of 2.1 people,
this equates to a population growth of about 3,102 people.
Figure 2.9: New Residential Units, 2010-2020
Source: City of Oshkosh
Figure 2.10: Peer City New Residential Units, 2019-2020
2019 2020
SINGLE
FAMILY 2-UNITS MULTI-
FAMILY TOTAL SINGLE
FAMILY 2-UNITS MULTI-
FAMILY TOTAL
Oshkosh 32 6 0 38 49 14 120 183
Winnebago County 246 16 72 334 252 34 268 554
Oshkosh Share of County 13.0%37.5%0.0%11.4%19.4%41.2%44.8%33.0%
Fond du Lac 24 14 112 150 26 0 0 26
Neenah 30 6 76 112 36 2 138 176
Appleton 54 2 57 113 80 6 35 121
Green Bay 63 0 0 63 71 0 252 323
La Crosse 35 6 78 119 21 6 0 27
Source: Local jurisdictions, SOCDS Building Permits Database, HUD
›The higher level of
construction activity
versus the 2010-2020
Census reported
population change of
733 people could imply:
»Many of the new
multi-family units are
occupied by single
person households,
»Several new
construction projects
were redevelopment
projects that
demolished existing
units from the market,
»There were other units
in Oshkosh that were
demolished or taken
off the market, and/or
»The 2020 Census
under counted the
population.
98
181
6
64
136
154
61
325
8
120
22 12 18 23 13 17 15 31 30 32 49
146810106242
34
HOUSING SALES
Like many cities across the U.S. during 2020-2021,
Oshkosh is experiencing a tight housing inventory
of for sale homes that has gotten worse in recent
years. This further drives up prices and prevents
movement in the housing market, especially for
older households. Figure 2.11 shows Multiple Listing
Service (MLS) data for 2018-2020.
Single-Family
• Median asking price grew by 12%, but median
sold price grew by 13.6%. People tended to pay
over asking price for homes.
• The average days on market (DOM) decreased
to 24 days in 2020. DOM is the time from listing
to going under contract. From the author’s
experience, this is significantly lower than seen
in the Midwest before 2019. Typical days on
Figure 2.11: Sales and Inventory Trends, 2018-2020
Source: Multiple Listings Service
DAYS ON MARKET
SINGLE FAMILY
MEDIAN SALES PRICE
SINGLE-FAMILY $125,000 $129,000 $142,000 2018
2019
2020
48
36
24
2018
2019
2020
714 sold 723 sold 708 sold
market might be “normal” around 60-90 days.
The national average for all units in 2020 was 25
days (Zillow).
Duplex
• Median asking price increased by 14.4% and
median sold price increased by 17.5%.
Multi-Family
• Sold prices varied and fell in 2020 versus 2019.
• Eight units were sold in 2020, eight in 2019, and
six in 2018.
• Multi-family units are much more specific and
dependent on each individual property. Thus,
the sold price tended to be lower than the
asking price. Nonetheless, this does hint that
the market was not as in demand as the single-
family and duplex markets.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
35
HOUSING VALUE
Housing value as tracked by
the Census differs from the
market rate sales price of
home. Value typically trails
median sale prices because it
includes all owner-occupied
units in the area of study,
including older units that may
not have been on the market
for many years. Figure 2.12
shows median home values in
Oshkosh.
• Oshkosh’s median home
value in 2019 ($125,000)
is lower than peer cities
presented later in Figure
2.16.
• Median home values
within the city tracks
with the older developed
neighborhoods, also
indicated in Figure 2.13.
• As Figure 2.13 and 2.14
shows, much of Oshkosh’s
housing stock was built
before 1940.
Figure 2.12: Median Home Value by Census Block Group, 2019
Source: 2019 American Community Survey
5-year estimates
Figure 2.13: Home Value vs Median Home Age of Owner-occupied Households, 2019 Figure 2.14: Gross Rent vs Median Home Age of Owner-occupied Households, 2019
Under $100,000
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000-$199,999
$200,000-$224,999
Over $224,999
36
Housing Affordability
There are several metrics to understand the
affordability of a community. These include not
only the strict cost of housing, but also local
incomes and other costs like transportation and
utilities. This section explores those metrics.
Note that students are included in household
income figures if they live off campus. According
to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is
composed of one or more persons who occupy a
housing unit. This does not include group quarters
populations like dormitories and correctional
facilities.Figure 2.15: Median Household Income by Census
Block Group, 2019
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
INCOMES
Figure 2.15 illustrates median household income
throughout Oshkosh. As expected, the areas
with the lowest median incomes have the highest
percentage of rental occupancy. At the same
time the highest incomes generally correlate
to the highest home values, although there are
neighborhoods north of downtown with higher
incomes versus home values.
Using median family income would
be one method to eliminate students
from calculations. However, this
would also eliminate any single-
occupant households (single adults).
For reference, in 2019 there were
26,634 households in Oshkosh with
a median income of $50,892 versus
13,694 families with a median income
of 69,113 in the same year.
To illustrate the housing market in
a holistic manner, the study will use
Median Household Income for the
following reasons:
• The off-campus student
population will continue to
occupy private rental properties
in Oshkosh which will, in turn,
influence supply, demand, and
affordability.
• The University of Wisconsin -
Oshkosh will continue housing
its students throughout the
community and, therefore,
students will remain a major
stakeholder group in the market
into the foreseeable future.
• The median household income
reflects the total housing
characteristics for the entire
population of the city.
Median Income
Under $35,000
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
Over $100,000
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
37
The definition of ‘affordable housing’ is determined by a household’s
income. What is affordable to one income bracket is not necessarily
affordable to another.
AFFORDABILITY BALANCE
Figure 2.16 breaks down the number of households
by income and the number of owner and renter
units available based on affordable ranges
requiring households to pay no more than 30% of
income towards housing.
• A large deficit of units is for households making
less than $25,000. These needs cannot be met
through new construction.
›This price point is not usually supplied by the
market and requires additional subsidies to
construct.
›It is important to note households making less
than $25,000 includes some retirees living on
fixed incomes with no mortgages remaining
and students receiving assistance with
housing from family, loans, or grants.
• There are many units affordable to households
making between $25,000 and $49,999. This
correlates to the older housing stock in the city.
›Some of these rental units are designed and
marketed to students. Young professionals
might have difficulty finding units affordable
that met their specific needs.
• Gaps exist for households making more than
$75,000, especially the $75,000-$150,000
range. These households are living in homes less
expensive than their income would suggest. This
completely understandable desire to minimize
housing burden and stay in their homes, helps
explain the deficit of owner-occupied housing
in lower price points. Expanding the supply of
higher priced housing might encourage some
of these households to “move up.” However,
some may not be able to move up due to other
expenses such as school loans or other personal
debt. However, greater product variety that
meets their evolving lifestyle needs may have an
impact.
Figure 2.16: Housing Affordability & Availability Analysis, 2019
INCOME
RANGE
% OF
HHS
# HHS
IN EACH
RANGE
AFFORDABLE
RANGE FOR
OWNER UNITS
# OF
OWNER
UNITS
AFFORDABLE
RANGE FOR
RENTER UNITS
# OF
RENTER
UNITS
TOTAL
AFFORDABLE
UNITS
BALANCE
$0-$25,000 22.4%5,968 >$60,000 902 $0-$499 2,642 3,544 -2,424
$25k-$49,999 26.7%7,116 $60k-$124,999 6,429 $500-$999 8,296 14,725 7,609
$50k-$74,999 20.3%5,396 $125k-$199,999 5,250 $1,000-$1,499 778 6,028 632
$75k-$99,999 13.5%3,595 $200k-$249,999 1,110 $1,500-$1,999 214 1,324 -2,271
$100k-$150,000 13.1%3,479 $250k-$399,999 727 $2,000-$2,999 43 770 -2,709
$150k-$199,999 2.8%753 $400k-$600,000 116 $3,000-$3,499 8 124 -629
$200,000+1.2%327 $600,000+119 $3,500+0 119 -208
Median $125,000 $641
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; RDG Planning & Design
38
Figure 2.17: Households Paying >30% Income on Mortgage, 2019COST BURDENED OWNERS
AND RENTERS
A cost burdened household
is defined by HUD as one that
spends more than 30% of
their adjusted gross income
on housing (including utilities,
taxes, insurance), either for a
mortgage or rent.
Figures 2.17 and 2.18 shows
the percent of households
paying more than 30% of
their incomes to housing in
Oshkosh.
• For homeowners, the
neighborhoods northeast
of the University of
Wisconsin - Oshkosh
and near I-41 near West
High School have the
highest percentage of cost
burdened residents (<31%).
• Citywide, about 21%
of households with a
mortgage pay more than
30% of their income for
housing.
• Comparing to 2010 in
Figure 2.18, there appears
to fewer cost burdened
homeowners citywide.
The decrease in the
number of owner-occupied
households that are cost
burdened likely reflects:
›The change in lending
practices following the
2008 housing crash.
›The recovery from the
2008 recession.
›Low mortgage interest
rates from 2010-2019. (as
low as a 3.65% average
in 2016 for a 30-year
fixed rate).
Figure 2.18: Households Paying >30% Income on Mortgage, 2010-2019
2010 2019
Housing units with a mortgage 10,128 9,146
Pay less than 20% of income 36.9%55.3%
20% to 24.9% of income 20.1%14.2%
25% to 29.9% of income 15.8%9.5%
30% to 34.9% of income 7.2%6.3%
35% or more of income 20.0%14.7%
Total paying >30%27.2%21%
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
Under 10%10% - 15%
15.1% - 20%20.1% - 25%Over 25%
% Owners Paying Over 30%
of Income on Mortgage
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
39
Figure 2.19: Households Paying >30% Income on Gross Rent, 2019• For renters, the higher
share of cost burdened
households varies between
areas around the University
and downtown (Figure
2.19). Generally, these
Census tracts align with
where students are living.
Other areas seem large on
the map but have a less
dense population.
• Citywide, about 42% of
renter households pay
more than 30% of their
income on gross rent.
• Like homeowners, there
appears to be fewer cost
burdened renters than in
2010 (Figure 2.20).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Oshkosh Appleton Fond du Lac Green Bay Neenah La Crosse
Chart Title
Renter 2010 Renter 2019 Owner with mortgage 2010 Owner with mortgage 2019
Figure 2.20: Households Paying
>30% Income on Gross Rent, 2010-
2019
2010 2019
Occupied units paying rent 9,972 11,575
Pay less than 15% of income 11.6%16.5%
15% to 19.% of income 17.3%16.4%
20% to 24.9% of income 12.4%14.4%
25% to 29.9% of income 13.1%10.7%
30% to 34.9% of income 7.6%8.0%
35% or more of income 37.9%33.9%
Total paying >30%45.5%41.9%
Source: 2019 American Community Survey
5-year estimates
Figure 2.21: Households Paying >30% Income on Housing, Peer Cities
% Renters Paying Over
30% of Income on Rent
Under 20%
20.1% - 40%
40.1% - 60%
60.1% - 80%Over 80%
As Figure 2.21
shows, Oshkosh
generally has
more cost
burdened renter
and owners
compared to peer
cities except for
Green Bay and La
Crosse.
40
VALUE TO INCOME
A traditional metric to evaluate whether a home is
affordable to a home-buyer is by comparing their
household income to the value of the home. This
metric can be adapted to evaluate the affordability
of housing markets in different cities. Generally,
ratios above 3.0 start to indicate significant
affordability issues. Figure 2.22 illustrates these
ratios.
• Even with the lower incomes of off-campus
students, Oshkosh has a median house value to
median income ratio of 2.46, which is lower than
often seen for cities with a sizable university.
• All peer cities have similar value to income
ratios, except for La Crosse, and are considered
healthy markets to support new construction of
owner-occupied homes.
Figure 2.22: Value to Income Ratios, 2019
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimatesHome ValueV/I Ratio• Figure 2.23 shows the ratio spatially in Oshkosh.
Understandably, the ratio is higher around the
University because of the low incomes driven by
the high number of University students. Other
neighborhoods have stable ratios
Note, the value to income ratio indicates that
the housing market is not significantly out of
sync with the population but may still present
affordability and availability issues in certain
segments of the population, explored in the
following sections.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
41
RENTS AND ASSOCIATED
COSTS
As Figure 2.24 shows,
median contract rents
are comparable to peer
cities outside of La Crosse,
but Oshkosh has a higher
percent of median rent to
median household income.
Contract rent is the base rent
and does not include other
cost a landlord may charge
in gross rent like utilities or
trash service.
• The landlord survey in
August of 2021 showed
most one bedroom
apartments renting
between $401-$600 a
month and a 2 bedroom
$601-$800 a month.
›These rents are about
$200 high if the unit is
a house (i.e. duplex or
rental home).
›About half of landlords
responding to the
survey said they rent
mostly single-family
homes.
• Most landlord include
trash and water/sewer in
the rent price.
Full results of the landlord
survey are in the Appendix.
Figure 2.23: Value to Income Ratio by Census Block Group, 2019
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
Figure 2.24: Affordability Comparison, 2019
MEDIAN
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
MEDIAN HOUSE
VALUE
VALUE / INCOME
RATIO
MEDIAN CONTRACT
RENT
MEDIAN RENT AS
PCT OF MEDIAN
INCOME
Oshkosh $50,892 $125,000 2.46 $641 15.1%
Winnebago County $58,543 $152,500 2.60 $645 13.2%
Fond du Lac $52,724 $126,200 2.39 $632 14.4%
Neenah $59,820 $141,100 2.36 $616 12.4%
Appleton $58,112 $147,800 2.54 $651 13.4%
Green Bay $49,251 $135,900 2.76 $628 15.3%
La Crosse $45,233 $142,500 3.15 $688 18.3%
42
Figure 2.25: Tenure by Income Group in Oshkosh-Neenah MSA
INCOME GROUP TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDS IN
OWNERSHIP UNITS
% OF HOUSEHOLDS
IN OWNERSHIP
UNITS
HOUSEHOLDS IN
RENTAL UNITS
% OF
HOUSEHOLDS
IN RENTAL UNITS
Under $25,000 12,485 4,280 34.3%8,205 65.7%
$25,000-$49,999 17,169 8,910 51.9%8,259 48.1%
$50,000-$74,999 14,248 9,681 67.9%4,567 32.1%
$75,000-$99,999 10,259 8,199 79.9%2,060 20.1%
$100,000-$149,999 10,429 9,297 89.1%1,132 10.9%
$150,000 and over 6,004 5,672 94.5%332 5.5%
Over $75,000 26,692 23,168 86.8%3,524 13.2%
Over $100,000 16,433 14,969 91.1%1,464 8.9%
Total 70,594 46,039 65.2%24,555 34.8%
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA
Oshkosh is part of a larger economic and
housing market region being close to growing
cities like Neenah. The peer city comparisons
made throughout this chapter illustrate regional
differences, Oshkosh has an important role to
play in regional housing supply. Data for the local
Neenah/Oshkosh Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) provides further information to inform
where opportunity exists for Oshkosh to help fill
housing needs.
Figure 2.25 shows the snapshot of income levels
for owners and renters in the MSA in 2019.
• Incomes are significantly higher in the MSA
outside of the two cities – not surprising,
partially because of Oshkosh’s younger
population, substantial student base, and more
workforce character. However, this still provides
some reinforcement for city staff’s perception
that higher-income households tend to gravitate
toward Neenah.
• Among higher income groups in the MSA,
owner-occupancy is ubiquitous.
›About 87% of households earning over
$75,000 are owner-occupied, for households
over $100,000, that percent- age grows
to about 91%. While owner occupancy is
generally high for upper-income groups, this
percentage is especially high and strongly
suggests a lack of alternatives.
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
43
Figure 2.26 shows the age of owners and renters
in the MSA. People at different stages of life have
different housing needs. Younger households
settling into their communities and occupations
are more likely to be renters. As households grow
and become established with greater resources
and investment in their places of residence, they
become more likely to buy homes, which up to
this point have most frequently been single-family
detached structures. This has certainly been the
pattern in the Oshkosh market area, as displayed in
Figure 2.26.
• The highest number of homeowners are 45-
54 years old. However, the age cohort with the
highest percentage of owners are 65-74 year
olds at about 77% owning their home.
›The 65-74 age cohort of owner are potential
people to transition to rentals in the next ten
years.
• Understandably, most renters are between
25-34 years old, and the number of renters
gradually decreases the older the cohort.
• The number of renters begins to increase again
after age 65. Unusually, owner occupancy is
highest for households over age 65. This may
be a function of preference, lack of availability
of housing for households who would like to
downside, or some combination thereof.
Figure 2.26: Tenure by Age Cohort in Oshkosh-Neenah MSA, Households 25 Years and Older
AGE COHORT TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS
COHORT
HOUSEHOLDS IN
OWNERSHIP UNITS
% OF COHORT
HOUSEHOLDS IN
OWNERSHIP UNITS
COHORT
HOUSEHOLDS IN
RENTAL UNITS
% OF COHORT
HOUSEHOLDS IN
RENTAL UNITS
25-34 11,087 4,189 37.8%6,898 62.2%
35-44 11,403 7,570 66.4%3,833 33.6%
45-54 13,130 9,378 71.4%3,752 28.6%
55-59 6,241 4,478 71.8%1,763 28.3%
60-64 6,860 4,806 70.1%2,054 29.9%
65-74 9,907 7,666 77.4%2,241 22.6%
75+8,488 6,244 73.6%2,244 26.4%
Total 67,116 44,331 66.1%22,785 34%
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
44
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
Figure 2.27: 2019 Oshkosh-Neenah MSA Distribution of Gross Rents
MSA OSHKOSH NEENAH BALANCE OF MSA
GROSS RENT NUMBER % OF UNITS NUMBER % OF
POPULATION
NUMBER % OF
POPULATION
NUMBER % OF
POPULATION
Under $500 2,688 11.0%1,421 11.9%478 12.8%789 8.9%
$500-$1,000 16,477 67.1%7,814 65.2%2,498 66.8%6,165 69.8%
$1,000-$1,500 3,920 16.0%2,059 17.2%577 15.4%1,284 14.5%
$1,500-$2,000 595 2.4%367 3.1%58 1.6%170 1.9%
$2,000-$2,500 163 0.7%57 0.5%10 0.3%96 1.1%
$2,500-$3,000 70 0.3%10 0.1%28 0.8%32 0.4%
$3,000+45 0.2%8 0.1%13 0.4%24 0.3%
No rent 597 2.4%245 2.0%76 2.0%276 3.1%
Median $766 $752 $750 $792
Figures 2.27 shows the distribution of units based
on the rent versus the percent of population that
can afford these units. In general:
• While median gross rents are similar between
Oshkosh and Neenah, areas outside the cities
have higher gross rent.
• The supply of rental units in the $500 to $1,000
range dwarfs other ranges and the supply of
higher end units is extremely small as a percent
of total rental inventory in 2019. This suggests
that groups looking for higher amenity housing
in the immediate area are not likely to find this
product in Oshkosh.
›According to the 2019 estimates, though, the
$1,500 to $2,000 rental range is substantially
more abundant in Oshkosh than Neenah, but
the supply of units with rents about $2,000,
while small, is greater in Neenah.
›Fewer higher end rental options in Oshkosh
as a percent of the population could mean
these higher income households just moving
to the area or preferring to rent must live in
surrounding areas.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
45
Figure 2.28 shows the distribution of units
based on the home value versus the percent
of population that can afford these units. It is
important to note that ACS value ranges do not
necessarily reflect the real price of homes in
today’s market. In general:
• Median home value is lower in Oshkosh than
Neenah and the rest of the MSA.
• Higher priced ownership housing is
disproportionately located in areas outside of
Oshkosh and Neenah.
• The value of homes over $200,000 as a percent
the populations in Neenah and the rest of the
MSA are higher than Oshkosh which may mean
higher income households are choosing to live
outside of Oshkosh. This could be because
of community preferences or simply lack of
options in Oshkosh.
›The difference is even more pronounced
for homes valued over $300,000, which is
generally the price of new construction.
Figure 2.28: 2019 Oshkosh-Neenah MSA Distribution of Home Values
MSA OSHKOSH NEENAH BALANCE OF MSA
HOME VALUE
RANGES
NUMBER % OF
UNITS
NUMBER % OF
POPULATION
NUMBER % OF
POPULATION
NUMBER % OF
POPULATION
Less than $50k 1,739 3.8%665 4.5%163 2.3%911 3.8%
$50k-$99,999 7,714 16.8%4,012 27.4%1,290 17.9%2,412 10.0%
$100k-$149,999 12,995 28.2%5,037 34.4%2,675 37.1%5,283 21.9%
$150k-$200,000 9,277 20.2%2,867 19.6%1,355 18.8%5,055 20.9%
$200k-$300,000 8,398 18.2%1,503 10.3%999 13.8%5,896 24.4%
$300k-$500,000 4,395 9.6%450 3.1%562 7.8%3,383 14.0%
$500k and over 1,521 3.3%119 0.8%173 2.4%1,229 5.1%
Median $152,500 $125,000 $141,000 $171,650
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
Market Assessment
3
48
INTRODUCTION
This chapter uses qualitative and quantitative data from the survey, listening sessions, and demographic
atlases to forecast population and housing demand. The forecast includes a program of housing demand
by housing type and price point to match what households can reasonably afford in Oshkosh.
CHAPTER 3: AT A GLANCE
TAKEAWAYS FOR SUCCESS
SUMMARY
Ideally, the housing supply will generally meet the
demand and adjusts naturally over time to reach a
balance. Higher demand often triggers the market
to supply more housing as builders and developers
recognize profits to be made. However, this is not
the case in Oshkosh and much of the country.
Challenges, barriers, and inefficiencies in the local
market lead to an unbalanced market. The next
chapter summarizes these challenges and areas
that can stimulate development which lays the
groundwork for strategic actions.
TAKEAWAYS FOR SUCCESS:
1. Consider Oshkosh’s potential to satisfy
regional needs
The Fox Valley is growing rapidly, and even though
Oshkosh is growing at a more moderate pace, the
city provides valuable employment, educational,
civic, and housing opportunities to the region. As
such, the region offers these and other amenities
to Oshkosh. Satisfying demand for housing takes a
holistic approach.
The forecast in this study show Oshkosh to grow
by over 3,200 permanent residents by 2030. To
accommodate this population, Oshkosh will need
to produce almost 1,700 new housing units. This
demand equates to about 160 units annually.
2. Production must be balanced
across price points to prevent further
affordability issues
However, housing construction must be balanced
across price points to ensure that Oshkosh
does not continue its shift toward becoming
unaffordable. To achieve a healthy balance of
housing opportunities, the most significant
number of owner-occupied units should target
the middle-income price-points, with owner units
being sixty percent of all new units.
3. Production must be balanced across
ownership and rental types
Permit data shows that Oshkosh is under-
producing single-family housing units compared
to peer cities in the region. This means more
options for homeowners in other cities looking
to move to or within the region. Therefore, the
program in this chapter targets sixty percent
of new homes as owner-occupied, and 40% as
renter-occupied. This ratio will favor owner units in
the market over what exists today as a 55%/45%
owner/renter split.
Additionally, an emphasis should be placed on
generating various owner and renter housing
types such as small, medium, and large single-
family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and
condominiums in addition to apartments and
independent senior living options.
4. The availability and affordability of
the housing market will continue to limit
the growth of the city
The economy is limited by the ability to recruit
and retain employees for jobs at all economic
levels. It may be necessary to provide incentives to
encourage the development of the workforce and
entry-level housing.
The housing market is limited by the shortage of
housing units which drive-up the cost of housing
without driving an increase in the quality of
existing housing. The addition of new units, both
ownership and renter options, would increase
housing quality.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
49
2000-2020 Construction Rate
2000-2020 Growth Rate
1990-2020 Growth Rate
Average
71,291
69,601
68,856
ANALYZING HOUSING PRODUCTION NEEDS
The following principles and assumptions are
applied to translate the market analysis and
community input received through the process of
this study into housing demand:
• Production should be guided to generate a
gradual shift that gradually overcomes the
needs of the current market while seeking to
meet the needs of Oshkosh in the next ten
years.
• The lowest income market often requires
intervention from the public and not-for-profit
sectors. Production of more middle-income
housing may require support or leadership
through ongoing demonstration projects.
• Production should create availability and
movement in the housing market to enable
residents to enter Oshkosh’s housing market,
move-up to appropriate options through their
life cycle, and then down-size when desired.
Note that down-size may mean lower square
footage but not necessarily a low price.
• The housing market understands the benefit
of the student population and the impact of
this population on overall housing supply and
affordability, even if mostly secluded to areas
around the University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh.
Population Forecast
Considering past trends and factors that influence
future population growth, this study forecasts a
population growth rate of 0.50% through 2030,
similar to the North Jackson Street Corridor Study.
Indicators of this growth rate include:
• Oshkosh has seen modest but steady rates
of growth since 1980. From 2000-2020 the
average annual growth rate was 0.30%.
• Over the next ten years, if the student
population held steady and the city’s permanent
population grew by 0.5% annually, the city
would reach a population over 70,200 by 2030,
a change of about 3,400 residents.
• This rate is forecast considering efforts to
provide greater housing diversity that supports
households at different stages of life.
Source RDG Planning & Design
Figure 3.1: Annual Growth Rate Scenarios*
PERIOD RATE 2025
POPULATION
2030
POPULATION
2020-2030
CHANGE
Annual Growth At 1990-2020 Rate 0.65%69,017 71,291 4,475
Annual Growth At 2000-2010 Rate 0.49%68,477 70,179 3,363
Annual Growth At 2000-2020 Rate 0.30%67,828 68,856 2,040
Annual Growth At 2010-2020 Construction Rate 0.41%68,194 69,601 2,785
Natural Growth 69,034 69,598 2,782
Study Forecast Rate 0.50%68,503 70,233 3,417
Source: U.S. Census, City of Oshkosh, RDG Planning & Design. *Scenarios projected from the 2020 Census population of 66,816
50
Retiree and Senior
Population
Nationally, the number of individuals moving into
their retirement years over the next ten years will
be at the highest rates in history. This population
shift will have a significant impact on the housing
market.
Figure 3.2 outlines a forecast population change
for the 55 and older age groups by 2030. The
population is forecast using natural change
with a migration factor equivalent to what was
experienced in 2010. Of the three age groups, the
most significant growth will occur in the cohort
75 years and older (nearly 65%). The growth is
primarily the result of the Boomer generation
aging into their later years. At the same time, a
decline will occur in 55 to 74-year-olds as this
generation is smaller than the Boomers. The
impact this may have on the housing market
includes:
• Some seniors may choose to age in place,
increasing the demand for additional in-home
services and the need to renovate existing
homes to accommodate changes in mobility.
• A portion of this population will look to move to
housing that offers reduced maintenance and
greater connectivity to their community and
peers.
• National market trends indicate aging Boomers
are more likely to use in-home services,
reducing the need for assisted living and skilled
nursing units. For this reason, the demand for
these units is not expected to substantially
increase in many markets.
Figure 3.2: Forecast Population Change 55 and Over
2019*2030 CHANGE % CHANGE
55-64 7,547 6,405 -1,142 -15.1%
65-74 6,435 6,378 -57 -0.9%
75 and Over 5,165 8,512 3,347 64.8%
Total 55 and Over 19,147 21,296 2,149 11.2%
Total 65 and Over 11,600 14,890 3,290 28.4%
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, RDG Planning & Design; *2020 age cohort data not available at the time of this study.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
51
Housing Demand Forecast
The market will need to add almost 1,700 housing
units through 2030 to support these 3,400+ future
residents, (including past production in 2020 and
2021). This equates to about 170 new units annually
including both renter and owner units. Figure 3.3
shows the factors determining the forecast:
The housing demand summary is based on:
• An assumed 0.50% annual growth rate and a
stable student population.
• 2.30 people per household (a slight decrease of
current conditions).
• A slightly increasing vacancy rate as more units
are added to the market to provide housing
choice.
• Replacement need is the number of housing
units demolished or converted to other uses.
Homes in poor condition or obsolete should be
gradually replaced in a city’s housing supply.
The number of units lost annually is based on
probable demolition rate, anticipating that new
programs and policies might reduce the number
of needed demolitions in future years.
• Cumulative need shows the number of total
units needed at the end of each five years (2025
and 2030) and cumulative need.
These assumptions generate an average annual
construction demand of 170 units. This is above
the gross number of permitted units between
2010 and 2020 of 134 which does include lost
units to demolition and includes the production
of several large multi-family developments. The
average single-family construction in the past
decade was about 24 units. Nationally, the number
of individuals between the ages of 10 and 18 is
declining (the population entering colleges and
universities in the next ten years). Therefore, the
number of student-oriented rental units will likely
be leveling off, but demand for rentals may still be
high.
Based on further 2020 Census data to be released,
the city’s vacancy rate for owner units is likely to
be low (total vacancy rate in 2020 was 5.86%).
According to ACS estimates:
• Census reported vacancy for owner-occupied
units is significantly low at 2.5% in 2010 and 1.5%
in 2019.
Other short-term housing options are not included
in Figure 3.3 and need to be supported in the
future. These housing types include transitional
housing, housing with physical/mental support
services, nursing homes, and similar special needs
providers.
Figure 3.3: Housing Demand Potential, 0.50% Annual Population Growth
2020*2020-2025 2026-2030 TOTAL
Population at End of Period 66,816 68,503 70,233
Household Population at End of Period 59,213 60,708 62,241
Average People Per Household 2.30 2.30 2.30
Household Demand at End of Period 25,745 26,395 27,061
Projected Vacancy Rate 5.9%6.2%6.5%
Unit Needs at End of Period 27,347 28,135 28,946
Replacement Need (total lost units)50 50 100
Cumulative Need During Period 838 861 1,698
Average Annual Unit Need 168 172 170
Source: RDG Planning & Design. *Actual 2020 Census population
52
Housing Development
Program
To translate overall demand into a practical
program for what types of housing are needed,
the housing development program delves into
price points and the proportion of units that will
be owner-occupied and renter-occupied. The
following assumptions are made to create the
program:
• The demand for future housing in the city
(Figure 3.3) differs if considering Oshkosh’s
existing household incomes versus household
incomes in the broader Metropolitan Statistical
Area. Two programs show a distribution based
on the current estimated income distribution
in Oshkosh and the MSA (by percent of
households). The demand for lower price points
could be smaller if incomes rise.
• Over the next several years, greater production
of ownership options should focus on pent-up
demand and the need to offer more affordable
housing options. Therefore, the Housing
Development program has a greater portion of
the city’s future demand for owner-occupied
options.
• The lowest-priced units will not be produced by
the private market.
• Most low-income residents will be
accommodated in rental units.
Market Definitions
• Affordable-Low Ownership Demand.
Often the best source of affordable
housing is the existing housing stock in
older neighborhoods. Many higher-income
households compete for the same housing
stock as lower-income households. The
low-income ownership market demand can
be met, in part, by providing opportunities
for moderate-income households to move-
up in the market.
• Affordable-Low Rental Demand.
Production of rental units under $700 will
likely need assistance programs like low-
income housing tax credits and project-
based Section 8, but some may result from
market adjustments due to new higher-
quality rental units creating competition
in the market. It will also be essential to
preserve the units existing in this price
range today.
• Affordable Moderate Ownership Demand.
It will be challenging for the private market
to produce housing in this price range in
Oshkosh. Most will need to come from the
existing market and individuals moving up
or to other product times freeing up homes
in this price range or produced through
assistance programs like Habitat for
Humanity or through a filter effect created
by the production of move-up housing.
• Market and High Market. The private
market has been successful in producing
market-rate housing, although not at the
level needed. The development community
should be encouraged to continue its work
in market-rate housing development. These
developments should be encouraged to
employ innovative practices to create high-
quality neighborhoods and new housing
products.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
53
Considering Oshkosh’s existing income
distribution (Figure 3.4):
• Over 400 new owner-occupied units are
needed priced between $150,000-$225,000
(in 2019 dollars).
• Over 400 rental units will need to be produced
with rents below $1,000 per month. Many
households in these income thresholds are
students receiving assistance from family or
loan programs to cover housing costs. However,
with the rising costs of higher education and the
need by low-income households for adequate
and safe housing, demand will remain high.
Considering the income distribution in
the larger Metropolitan Statistical Area
(Figure 3.5):
• Assumes that Oshkosh can help serve more
housing needs in the larger market but still
needs middle and low price point options.
• There is more potential demand in the city at
high market ranges – an indication that Oshkosh
can successfully support these types of housing
products.
It is important to note that these are not
production goals. For example, more homes
constructed at $250,000 or rents at $800 a month
may allow those living in more affordable units to
change housing. Thus, indirectly producing more
housing at lower price points.
Figure 3.4: Housing Development Program - Oshkosh Income Scenario
2025 2030 2020-2030
Total Need (60% 0wn/40% Rent)838 861 1,698
Total Owner Occupied 503 516 1,019
Affordable Low: <$150,000 Accommodate in existing stock
Affordable Moderate: $150-$225K 200 206 406
Moderate Market: $225-$300K 133 137 270
Market: $300-$400K 129 133 262
High Market: Over $400K 40 41 81
Total Renter Occupied 335 344 679
Low: Less than $650 91 93 184
Affordable: $650-$1,000 108 111 219
Market: $1,000-$1,500 82 84 166
High Market: $1,500+55 56 111
Source: RDG Planning & Design
Figure 3.5: Housing Development Program - MSA Income Scenario*
2025 2030 2020-2030
Total Need (60% 0wn/40% Rent)838 861 1,698
Total Owner Occupied 503 516 1,019
Affordable Low: <$150,000 Accommodate in existing stock
Affordable Moderate: $150-$225K 175 180 355
Moderate Market: $225-$3K 126 129 255
Market: $300-$400K 128 132 260
High Market: Over $400K 74 76 149
Total Renter Occupied 335 344 679
Low: Less than $650 77 79 157
Affordable: $650-$1,000 106 109 215
Market: $1,000-$1,500 88 91 179
High Market: $1,500+63 65 129
Source: RDG Planning & Design
*The MSA Income Scenario assumes the
same annual population growth rate of
0.5% but rather the ability to attract
higher end housing, and thus a share of
higher income households locating in
the MSA. However, it should be noted
that if Oshkosh does attract a larger
share of high end options within the
MSA but still maintains its lower income
demand, the annual population growth
rate potentially increases beyond 0.5%.
54
Types of Housing in the Program
Figure 3.6 displays a model that distributes the
forecast unit demand by types of buildings and
density ranges under the MSA development
program. It will be helpful for more detailed land
use planning and may guide area developers.
Figure 3.6: What Does New Housing Look Like in the MSA?
TOTAL
DEMAND (MSA
SCENARIO)
CONVENTIONAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
SMALL LOT
SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED &
ATTACHED
SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED &
LOW-DENSITY
TOWNHOMES
HIGH DENSITY
TOWNHOMES &
MULTIFAMILY
Typical Density <4 du/A 8 du/A 12 du/A >16 du/A
Ownership
Affordable Moderate: $150-$225K 355 0%40%40%20%
Moderate Market: $225-$3K 255 20%40%30%10%
Market: $300-$400K 260 60%15%15%10%
High Market: Over $400K 149 70%10%10%10%
Rental
Low: Less than $650 157 N/A 20%30%50%
Affordable: $650-$1,000 215 N/A 20%30%50%
Market: $1,000-$1,500 179 N/A 30%35%35%
High Market: $1,500+129 N/A 35%35%30%
Senior Housing
Housing appropriate and desirable for seniors is
a need in the city, mentioned in discussions and
evidenced in the population forecast in Figure 3.7.
“Senior housing” does not stand alone as nursing
homes and assisted living facilities. Senior housing
simply means housing that matches the needs of
an aging population. These units would be low
maintenance and designed with accessibility in mind,
often referred to as universal design, allowing seniors
to remain in their home communities for longer. By
providing independent living options a quality entry
level or family-sized home is often also brought to
the market as seniors, retirees, or empty-nesters
move out of traditional single-family dwellings.
Figure 3.7: Independent Older Household Potential in Oshkosh
2030 POPULATION WITH
MIGRATION
PEOPLE PER
HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
DEMAND CAPTURE RATE UNIT DEMAND
55-64 6,405 2.00 3,203 2.0%64
65-74 6,378 1.75 3,645 2.0%73
75 and Over 8,512 1.25 6,810 1.0%68
Total 55 and Over 21,296 13,657 205
Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, RDG Planning & Design
• A population in 2030 of 21,296 people over the
age of 55 roughly equals 13,657 households
when assuming household sizes range between
1.25 and 2 - older households tend to be smaller.
• If rather conservatively 1% to 2% of the
forecasted senior households demand
alternative independent housing options
(not assisted living, nursing homes, or family
living arrangements), then 205 units would be
needed through 2030. The unit demand is not
a projection of future need, but an indication of
total housing need whether currently available
or not.
Note that higher-density housing can produce
lower unit costs, but these settings do not
necessarily make lower prices. Frequently,
townhome or villa developments with very high-
level materials and finishes and other luxury
features produce housing products that can be
relatively expensive, and maintenance services
provided in these luxury projects also increase the
monthly cost of housing.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
55
Product Definitions
Conventional Single-Family
Detached
Conventional single-family detached
housing, with gross density at or below
four units per acre, corresponding to a
typical lot size of at least 8,000.
Small Lot Single-Family Detached/
Attached
A gross density of about 6-8 units per
acre. For single-family homes, this
suggests a lot size range of between
4,000 to 6,000 square feet. This
category may also include single-family
homes with accessory dwelling units,
duplexes, and twin homes
Single-Family Attached, Low-
Density Townhomes, and
Multiplexes
Various configurations, including
row houses, townhomes, and small
multiplexes with a gross density of
between 8 to 12 units per acre.
High Density Townhomes and
Multi-Family
Typically with a gross density of 16 units
per acre and above. These would be
most traditional apartments and mixed-
use buildings in downtown or other
compact settings.
Opportunity
Assessment
4
58
POLICY CONTEXT
In thinking about appropriate public policy, it is
important to remember that housing production in
Oshkosh and throughout the country is primarily
driven by the private market. But public policy can
have a significant impact. It can provide incentives
(or disincentives) that steer development in certain
directions and help fill gaps that discourage the
private market from meeting specific demands.
And it can expand the market for specific products
by increasing the resources that a resident can
bring to the table. But constructing appropriate
policy starts by understanding the perspectives
of the participants – both the “producers” and the
“consumers.”
The pure private market leaves many demands
and needs unsatisfied. This is the result of many
factors, including the cost of production, the
expectations of both the provider and consumer
sectors, the cost and availability of financing,
and the economic resources and capabilities of
customers.
The Producer’s Perspective
From a business perspective, housing producers
(developers, subdividers, homebuilders) are driven
by two fundamental and highly rational objectives:
maximizing return and minimizing risk. Clearly,
people in the industry are motivated by other
factors as well – the desire to help build their city,
contribute to society, continue family businesses
and traditions, and gain personal satisfaction by
doing good work. But regardless of secondary
motives, their business viability depends on two
basic objectives: maximizing return and minimizing
risk.
This tends to make housing different from
many traditional capital markets, where higher
speculative risk comes with the expectation of
higher return. Building a high cost custom house
for a known buyer ensures minimum risk and a
high margin (unless of course things go badly). On
the other hand, building low or moderately-priced
homes speculatively produces a low profit margin
but relatively high risk. In Oshkosh, the amount of
housing for sale being built is substantially lower
than potential demand. That is largely because
most homebuilders are building for a relatively
narrow slice of the total market.
The Consumer’s
Perspective
Housing consumers, both owners and renters,
also have expectations. Their most essential
expectation is for an affordable home that
provides a safe, secure, and comfortable place to
establish a household, raise a family, or live out
various periods of their respective lives. But the
meaning of that expectation varies for people in
different situations. For example, the 800 square
foot home that embodied the American dream
for GIs returning from World War II would be
unacceptable in terms of space and features for
many contemporary buyers – our standards for
what we need in terms of space, finishes, and
amenities have changed over the last 75 years.
Homebuyers also tend to see themselves as
investors as well as consumers. For most people,
their home is their single largest capital asset,
especially as their equity increases. At worst,
people do not want to see this asset shrink in
value, which happens when the actual cost of
the house exceeds its market value. At best, they
hope that it will increase in value and provide
them with a return when they sell. The relative
value of a house is determined by a variety of
factors: changing market tastes, the condition
and character of the structure itself, the state
of the neighborhood and surrounding property,
marketplace competition, and the availability of
financing, among other things.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
59
Special Issues
These perspectives, along with the analysis of
the first three chapters, help explain several
other challenges in the Oshkosh market. These in
turn frame housing policy priorities, explored in
concept here and in detail in Chapter Five.
Housing Types
For logical reasons, builders tend to build types
of houses and at price ranges that they are
familiar with. Thus, single-family homebuilders
generally continue to build single-family houses;
and apartment builders who are used to building
a specific type of building continue doing just
that. These are tested products for them that
work physically and economically. But other
housing types that meet specific needs (including
affordability) for markets such as young families,
small households, or active older adults, such as
small-lot single family units, semi-attached and
attached single-family, duplexes, townhouses,
rowhouses, and innovative multi-family designs,
are less frequently built. As a result, the so-called
“missing middle” continues to be largely missing
from the housing inventory.
Infill development
Oshkosh has had an active City Lot program
that markets lots for development acquired
through tax foreclosures and demolitions. But
infill construction on these sites and other
neighborhood sites also faces economic
challenges. Oshkosh’s urban neighborhoods are
a distinct community asset, but prevailing home
prices have generally been moderate, mostly in a
range from $140,000 to $180,000. At the $210/
square foot construction price cited by builders
during this planning process, a modestly-sized
1,400 square foot, three-bedroom home will cost
nearly $300,000, well above the typical price
of surrounding properties. This clearly creates
concerns for both the builder and buyer.
Construction Risk Exposure
With the exception of individual builder
efficiency, the one technique proven to reduce
unit construction cost is economy of scale. Mass
builders in high absorption markets like large
metropolitan areas who can build large numbers
of homes at one time cut initial mobilization
costs, use crews very efficiently, have a more
competitive labor force, establish uniform designs
and components, and order materials in large
quantities, all of which help reduce construction
cost per square foot.
Oshkosh in the Fox Valley region is theoretically
part of a large enough region to attract mass
builders but this population is spread out over six
cities and three metropolitan area. That, combined
with the size of Oshkosh’s local population and
typical annual output probably precludes very
large speculative development. But construction
of even five to ten homes at a time achieves
some economy. However, this brings the issue
of risk into focus – building this number of units
simultaneously entails a speculative inventory
that might expose a small builder or a nonprofit
developer to considerable financial exposure.
60
Rental Development
The issues of value and construction cost affect
rental economics as well as ownership markets,
particularly for new rental supply. A major
area rental developer and RDG’s independent
calculation both placed a typical requirement
for monthly rents of about $1.80/square foot for
feasible new construction. New rental development
in Oshkosh and Appleton are supporting rents
in that range, but a household would require an
adjusted gross annual income (AGI) of $72,000
to find that unit affordable based on the 30% of
AGI standard. This is well above the city’s median
household income.
Neighborhood Conservation
Oshkosh’s neighborhoods are a major asset.
The city has a high quality housing inventory in
its established neighborhoods east of I-41 and
an unusually successful array of neighborhood
associations, with significant programmatic
support from the City, Habitat for Humanity,
and Oshkosh Healthy Neighborhoods. While the
moderate prices of houses in these neighborhoods
create some economic barriers to new infill
development, they also are within the reach
of moderate and middle-income households.
Conserving this irreplaceable asset is an important
and generally recognized priority.
Market Retention
While the community survey summarized in
Chapter One was a voluntary rather than random
sample, its relatively large number of participants
produced important findings. One of the most
important from a policy point is view was the
relatively large number of people 1) considering
moving to a different residence within the next few
years and 2) considering moving out of the city.
Listening sessions conducted during the planning
process provide dimension to these responses and
focused on several specific areas:
• Older adults seeking independent living in villa
or townhouse settings or communities with
maintenance provided.
• Younger households starting families and
seeking single-family environments that also
take advantage of the city’s amenities.
• Mature households and families looking for
larger houses and lots.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
61
Emerging developer
interest in new housing
types
As the decade-long rebound from the 2008
Recession continues, Oshkosh has started to see
development interest in more housing types. To
date, this has included adaptive reuse projects,
townhouse development and rehabilitation, and
riverfront multifamily. But developer interest is
growing in maintenance-provided communities
near the river/lakefront. While several potential
sites are still in the planning stages, it is a
promising interest to fill a need for new residents
and existing residents to move up in the market.
Consumer interest in
alternative forms of
housing
Some alternative forms of housing are gaining
interest locally, primarily to achieve greater
affordability. A couple of examples that now
seem attractive include accessory dwelling units
on deep single-family lots and owner-occupied
duplexes. These housing forms allow the property
owner to supplement mortgage payments with
rental income.
Employers understanding
the need to engage in
workforce housing
Oshkosh remains an important employment center
in the Fox Valley region. One factor leading to this
study is the need to provide attainable housing
new employees. Oshkosh itself may be losing
management-level employees as residents to
other areas in the Fox Valley, including the more
rural parts of Winnebago County and other cities.
Additionally, production workers face issues of
both availability and affordability. In a tight labor
market, employers increasingly understand that
housing development is an important dimension of
economic development but have not yet engaged
in housing as a recruitment strategy.
HOUSING ASSETS AT A GLANCE
62
HOUSING ASSETS AT A GLANCE
General community
support
Housing policy is clearly important to the Oshkosh
community and the array of programs and
organizations involved in housing are testimony to
this awareness. Residents are experiencing rising
prices and a lack of options. While neighborhood
concerns can complicate larger developments,
it does not appear to be pervasive. Many of
Oshkosh residents live in mixed use, mixed density
urban neighborhoods and their value has been
demonstrated.
Neighborhoods and urban
housing quality
As mentioned above, Oshkosh’s neighborhoods
are a distinct asset, with well-kept houses
and properties, an attractive city streetscape,
interesting building types, and institutional
strengths. Older neighborhoods have areas
of structural distress, but these tend to be
somewhat isolated and can be addressed.
Engaged neighborhood associations the Healthy
Neighborhoods Initiative, Habitat for Humanity,
cost-effective programs like Rock the Block,
and supportive City policy support stable
neighborhoods.
Opportunities to develop
While Oshkosh is generally built up and
contiguous, it has significant growth
opportunities. Especially notable are the East Main
redevelopment area, Pioneer Island, River East
south of Ceape Avenue, the riverfront north of
West 6th Avenue, and the North Jackson corridor.
The city does have significant room to grow on
westside sites contiguous to urban development
which require annexation. Coordination with
the township to establish logical jurisdictional
boundaries will be important.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
63
Water
Oshkosh is very much a water city, and the
importance (and affordability) of its extensive
shorelines should not be underestimated. While the
lakefront properties like Northshore, Miller’s Bay,
Menominee North and South, and Stevens Park
are solidly and beautifully developed, many of the
city’s most valuable development opportunities
are river related. Access to the water is especially
appealing to people seeking alternatives to large
cities but still having an urban quality. Anecdotal
information from stakeholder groups about people
moving to the area from Chicago and Milwaukee
seems to bear this attraction out.
Downtown and community
character
Downtown Oshkosh is an extraordinary district
for a medium-sized city – unique retailing,
excellent places to eat and drink, a quality hotel
and conference center, downtown park and
performance venue, and excellent architecture
with a waterfront boardwalk, to name some of its
assets. This district and other civic investments
like Menominee Park and Zoo and South Park,
all create a strong image for potential new
residents and major anchors that encourage new
development and strengthen their surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
Demand for older adult
communities
Oshkosh has a relatively large population of older
adults, with about 29% of its residents over age
55. Based on the reception to a limited number of
projects and stakeholder experience, a significant
number of these people want to remain in the
city. This generates a demand for single level units
with common space, community facilities, and
provided maintenance. Addressing this market
both provides a setting that meets the needs of a
substantial population and opens existing homes
that are suitable for younger households.
HOUSING ASSETS AT A GLANCE
64
Lack of existing inventory
on the market
In 2021, Oshkosh, like most American cities, is
experiencing very high demand for existing
housing. There are a number of reasons for this,
some of which might be specific to this period.
They include supply chain problems and high
material costs that have slowed new construction
and the COVID pandemic that has tended to keep
many residents (including older households) in
their homes. The seller’s market also tends to
drive prices up, at least on a temporary basis. But
the high cost of new construction will continue to
ensure that movement in the existing market is
vital to maintaining access to affordable housing.
The cost of construction
Again, this is not a problem unique to Oshkosh,
but construction cost, combined with buyer
expectations, produce new development
prices that are out of the affordable range for
the average citizen of Oshkosh. Single-family
construction costs are placed in a typical
range of $210 to $230 per square foot, virtually
guaranteeing a base cost of $300,000 for a
typical detached home. Rental development for
quality construction requires a projected rent
of about $1.80/square foot per month. This is
achievable at the top of the market but about
$.60 above typical rent levels. It is interesting
to note that current low interest rates are
taken for granted, but have in fact created an
unprecedented subsidy for homebuyers compared
with earlier periods.
Infrastructure development
Infrastructure is a significant cost in both
greenfield development and redevelopment
of urban sites. According to Wisconsin law,
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) can be used to
finance infrastructure and public improvements
for projects that are located in blighted areas;
propose rehabilitation, conservation, or mixed
HOUSING CHALLENGES AT A GLANCE
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
65
HOUSING CHALLENGES AT A GLANCE
use developments; or involve environmental
remediation. However, in new developments
outside of tax incremental districts (TID’s)
infrastructure is privately financed. This creates
significant front-end exposure for developers,
who must service debt while lots are being
absorbed. These costs either affect margins or
are loaded into the eventual price of the lot. Some
stakeholders also perceive that Oshkosh does not
allow phasing of subdivisions, although this is not
the case.
Township and urban service
areas
A significant amount of Oshkosh’s available open
land is contiguous to the city but outside the
municipal limits, located in Algoma and Oshkosh
townships. In addition, much of the city’s lower
density suburban growth is in Algoma Township
north of Witzel Road and south of Lake Butte
des Morts. Much of this large lot development
is outside of urban service areas and does not
operate under the same subdivision standards as
development in the city. While urban infrastructure
is more maintenance free and less expensive in
the long run, its higher cost creates a competitive
disadvantage in the short run. Annexation of
development areas is highly problematic, but new
development that can economically be provided
with city services should be located within the City
of Oshkosh.
Infill opportunities
Several parcels across the city are candidate infill
sites that could be feasibly served by already
existing public infrastructure or incremental
extensions. These include vacant lots, often
following demolition of a deteriorated structure;
underused commercial sites; or sites that
development has skipped over. Some of these
sites are in the City Lots program for reuse. The
previous discussion addressed the economic issues
raised by the disparity between construction cost
and comparable market value in neighborhoods.
66
A solution to the market versus replacement value
gap is developing a critical mass of housing that
creates its own internal value and reduces the
risk of buyers. For example, a 30 lot subdivision
in an undervalued neighborhood will offer more
buyer security than a single house on a single lot
surrounded by lower value structures. But this
approach requires both availability of land and a
for-profit or nonprofit developer with adequate
financial backing and an ability and appetite to
reinvest.
Housing conditions
In general, older neighborhoods in Oshkosh are
impressive for their city quality, architectural
variety, and high community maintenance
standards. But specific problems exist, including
one or two deteriorated houses on a block
that have an outsized effect on neighborhood
value; and some concentrations of housing
that, while occupied, are in poor condition. This
presents a significant policy question – in these
situations, is the best long-term course of action a
rehabilitation or redevelopment strategy? Despite
a recent step-up in demolition of structures that
were seen as being beyond feasible rehabilitation,
some participants in the planning process believe
that the City’s current programs may be overly
weighted toward rehabilitation.
Program diversity and
funding
Oshkosh has a wide variety of well-conceived
rehabilitation and incentive programs that
cover both owner and renter occupied
housing, ownership incentives, property and
site improvements, curb appeal, and historic
preservation. The appendix summarizes these
program offerings. Several of these programs are
partnerships with Habitat for Humanity and the
Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative. The diversity
of programs is creative and appropriate to a city
working to conserve an older housing stock. But
the breadth of these programs can also lead to a
lack of clarity for potential users.
HOUSING CHALLENGES AT A GLANCE
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
67
Also, in a city with a relatively small Community
Development Block Grant entitlement, the City
may be spreading resources over many programs.
As a result, the maximum assistance levels for
specific programs may be too small to accomplish
the desired results. On the other hand, some
small grant programs that address external
appearance (Curb Appeal, Rock the Block) may
have significant and very cost-effective benefits,
although their impact on the overall condition of
the structure and its basic systems may be limited.
When addressing additional assistance levels to
rehab programs, it will be important to understand
the effects of property improvements on
affordability, especially for renters. The City should
want to have rental properties upgraded, but also
not displace people who cannot afford an increase
in rent. This could mean supplementing with rent
assistance or tax abatements for landlords who do
not increase rent.
Nonprofit development
capability
Nonprofit developers with community-based
financial support can be significant developers
of housing that the private sector considers too
risky or insufficiently profitable. Often, nonprofits
form partnerships with private builders. For
example, community housing development
organizations (CHDO’s) receive preferential
treatment for low income housing tax credit
(LIHTC) rental development. In Oshkosh, Greater
Oshkosh Healthy Neighborhood Inc. (GO-HNI)
is a nonprofit with a broadly-based board and a
development-oriented mission. Most of its recent
work has focused on neighborhood support,
events, and small projects, but its mission and
structure could expand into larger development
projects. Oshkosh Habitat for Humanity has built
39 homes through its volunteer-based program
and its Rock the Block focuses on site and exterior
envelope maintenance. But both organizations
are dependent on volunteers, contributions, and
grants and do not have the long-term, private
sector capital necessary for large projects.
Unseen homelessness
Housing prices have had a significant effect
on many households in the region. The cost
of rent and other essential needs prices some
households out of reliable options. The City’s
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for its Community
Development Block Grant program estimated
at the time of writing a population of about 250
people experiencing homelessness on a given
night. The impact of COVID and increasing rents
and housing costs have probably increased that
number significantly. The City is a member of
Winnebagoland Housing Coalition, a body that
“coordinates the efforts of a variety of agencies
serving youth, families, and veterans experiencing
homelessness.” From a physical point of view,
housing is largely provided through temporary
shelters; two transitional housing projects
operated by ADVOCAP, the community action
agency for the area; a permanent supportive
housing project also operated by ADVOCAP, and
four Rapid Re-Housing projects. Together, these
projects accommodated 176 people in shelters and
32 households and 13 individuals in longer-term
facilities. This does suggest a continuing facility
need, particularly for family households that need
longer-term transitional settings.
Shortage of builders and
workers
Homebuilders in the Oshkosh market (again in
common with most parts of the country) report
a full workload. But their ability to ramp up
production is limited sometimes by preference,
but more often by shortages of workers and
skilled craftspeople. Programs at local high
schools, colleges, and organizations like Habitat
for Humanity add some capability, but not enough
to meet demand. Also, contractors are tending to
age, further reducing capacity. A much longer-
term, sustainable solution needs to attract more
younger people to the building trades or invest
in new technologies that reduce the number of
workers required.
HOUSING CHALLENGES AT A GLANCE
68
How do we build the resource
capacity to develop “affordable,
attainable” housing and mobility?
How do we encourage housing
products and options that retain
our households?
A HOUSING POLICY AGENDA
1. Share risks with the private market when appropriate
Specific areas of risk-sharing to consider are:
• Front-end financing of infrastructure and
public improvements where the City or other
organization helps share the cost of initial
project set-up instead of the entire financial
burden being placed on the developer.
• Unusual or relatively new to the market project
types.
• Gap financing of neighborhood and infill
reinvestment and redevelopment.
• Construction period financing to help create
inventory and critical mass.
• Increased capacity of nonprofit development
partners.
POSITIVE SHIFTS WOULD INCLUDE:
• A focus on neighborhood infill development.
• More new and affordable housing options for
owner-occupants and renters.
• Greater housing production across the spectrum
of price points, including higher-end options.
TO ENCOURAGE THE PRIVATE MARKET AND ASSIST
NON-PROFITS IN CREATING THESE SHIFTS, IT MAY
BE NECESSARY TO:
• Assist with the development of a demonstration
product (a particular housing product,
development configuration, or price-point).
• Create a housing partnership designed with the
express purpose of supporting housing projects
– including funding pools, organizational
resource sharing, public/private/nonprofit
development partnerships.
• Provide a front-end cost sharing mechanism for
infrastructure development linked to achieving
major housing objectives.
• Review of development regulations and removal
of obstacles where they occur.
• Renegotiate city/township boundary based on
extent of urban services area to permit logical
growth and annexation for Oshkosh.
• Maximize use of waterfront resources through
redevelopment incentives and possible site
assembly.
2. Increase the variety of product types,
especially in higher-end ranges and for
older adults.
Issues of affordability and availability are tied
directly to the limited mobility within the housing
market: a shortage of dwellings for new entrants
to the market and a shortage of units for existing
residents to move-up or downsize. This creates
a stalemate. Current development is highly
focused on apartments and conventional high-
cost, single-family detached homes. A variety of
housing products at various price points would
drive additional mobility that would help free
up more affordable, existing housing. Recent
interest in high-end condo development is one
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
69
How do we conserve our
neighborhoods and preserve their
housing fabric?
feasible direction to generate mobility, as well as
development in corridors like Jackson Street or on
redevelopment sites.
POSITIVE SHIFTS WOULD INCLUDE:
• Greater housing variety including maintenance
provided options for older adults seeking
alternatives to single-family homes.
• A more fluid and effective housing market with
greater inventory of existing homes on the
market.
• Increased share of Winnebago County
development occurring within Oshkosh’s
municipal limits.
TO CREATE THESE SHIFTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY
TO:
• Recognize that a focus on affordable housing
does not mean disregarding higher-end
markets.
• Similarly understanding that, to at least
some degree, new housing products that are
attractive to high-resource households can
indirectly open housing opportunities for
younger households of more moderate means.
• Provide carefully focused and strategic front-
end assistance on key infrastructure elements.
• Renegotiate city/township boundary based on
extent of urban services area to permit logical
growth and annexation for Oshkosh.
• Incorporate a mix of incomes and products
within new redevelopment areas, including
waterfront sites.
• Incorporate Universal Design standards into
redevelopment and rehabilitation projects when
possible. Universal Design is the process of
creating products that are accessible to people
with a wide range of abilities, disabilities, and
other characteristics. Single-level homes,
accessible living communities, or universal
design rehabilitations are an opportunity to
offer a needed product in Oshkosh.
3. Preserve and rehabilitate existing
affordable housing in strategic
neighborhood areas
Neighborhoods at their best are where people
build community and personal networks. Oshkosh’s
neighborhoods are strong and cohesive - efforts
like Rock the Block and Good Neighbors add to
that cohesion, as do neighborhood businesses
and parks. Although some show their age more
than others, reinvestment is evident from property
maintenance and home improvement activity.
Existing homes help define the city’s character and
will always be the most affordable housing options
in Oshkosh. While existing programs are available
for their preservation, better targeting and higher
investments are needed.
In addition to the development initiatives described
previously, specific areas to consider include:
• Examining the structure and use of existing
housing and community development programs
to increase clarity and ease of use.
• Expanding the development and investment
capabilities of GO-HNI or other organizations
with this capability.
• Developing reasonable design guidelines to
provide architectural compatibility between
existing housing and infill development.
• Revisiting and retooling current and previous
rental registration and code enforcement
programs to create a consensus driven
approach to rental property maintenance and
code compliance.
• Working with the University of Wisconsin-
Oshkosh on student housing standards and
referrals.
70
• Investing in neighborhood parks, street
rehabilitation, greenways, and other projects
that sustain neighborhood value.
• Maintaining existing proven programs like Rock
the Block that involve citizens and volunteers in
small acts that do big things.
• Support and enhance small scale commercial
establishments in traditional neighborhoods.
POSITIVE SHIFTS WOULD INCLUDE:
• Increased use and focus of community
development programs. Introduction of
new programs that enhance equity building,
homeownership, and preservation of homes
capable of rehabilitation.
• Infill development consistent with neighborhood
context and less likely to be branded as a
product of a specific program.
• Agreement of all parties on strategic rental
property standards and means of enforcement,
with involvement of the University in this
process.
• Firmer, more predictable funding for key
neighborhood support programs.
• Strategic amenity and infrastructure projects to
support housing conservation and development
efforts.
TO CREATE THESE SHIFTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY
TO:
• Provide small commercial rehab loans and
neighborhood commercial zoning to support
local small business in neighborhoods. Ensure
that standards insulate surrounding homes from
negative operating characteristics.
• Ensure programs are fully accessible to
households that need them most – simple
applications, targeted advertising/notice.
• Ensure developers and builders know the
resources available when creating their
development proformas.
• Connect resources across all organizations and
entities; combine resources (funding) into one
program for higher incentives when multiple
programs target the same issue.
• Educate about maintaining the housing stock.
An education program for rentals should have
two focuses:
›How to be a good tenant and what it means
to be a good neighbor.
›What are your rights as a tenant, what are the
leasing laws in Wisconsin, and what are your
responsibilities as a tenant?
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
71
How do we address the needs
of people who are unhoused or
inadequately housed?
Temporary shelters make up the majority of
physical facilities for unhoused people. The policies
that helped increase the number of people “on
the street” are a considerable topic for debate,
but are well beyond the scope of this document.
We do know there has always been a demand for
temporary accommodations and that demand will
continue into the future. A sound strategy that
many cities have implemented is a grouping of
necessary services with both overnight facilities,
common areas, and open space - a human services
campus.
But a real focus should be on transitioning
individuals and households into permanent,
decent housing whenever possible. A promising
solution to temporary homelessness are tiny house
communities, This compelling model, now being
exported to other cities, was pioneered by Food
and Shelter, Inc. in Norman, Oklahoma. This faith-
based organization combines social support,
food service, a day shelter, and other support to
people on the street. But it also provides dignified
temporary accommodations and transitional
support to families with children and individuals in
tiny houses.
POSITIVE SHIFTS WOULD INCLUDE:
• An ongoing system of communication and
coordination to identify and address gaps in
services among agencies providing services to
unhoused individuals and households.
• Improved and consolidated services to the
chronically unhoused population, designed to
preserve human dignity while limiting real or
perceived externalities to surrounding areas.
• Providing a community setting with support
services for people and families who are
unhoused but capable of transition to good
permanent housing and independence.
• A single, conveniently located human services
campus where people with specific needs can
obtain necessary support services, including
services that prevent people at risk from losing
their current homes.
TO CREATE THESE SHIFTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY
TO:
• Establish a council of agencies that meets
on a regular basis to coordinate programs,
avoid duplication, and maximize efficiency
in providing both services and interim
accommodations to unhoused individuals and
families and people at risk. The first agenda
item of such a coordinating council would be
a detailed study of current needs and services
to identify gaps in a housing continuum that
includes emergency shelter, transitional settings,
and permanent supportive housing.
• Apply the Food and Shelter model, pioneered
by that organization in Norman, Oklahoma, and
adapt it to the Oshkosh community. This model
for transitional shelter and support services
provides individual “tiny homes” in place of
mass shelters, along with on-site food and
support services. The Oshkosh Kids Foundation
is in the process of developing such a project on
this service model.
• Create a community-wide organization with
philanthropic support capable of implementing
this transitional housing model.
• Identify and properly develop a human services
campus that at appropriate site with access to
public transportation and convenient to other
community facilities. The campus might also
include supportive housing.
Tiny houses for individuals (top) and families at Food and Shelter
in Norman, Oklahoma
72
NEIGHBORHOOD OPPORTUNITIES
While Oshkosh has development corridors like
North Jackson Street, redevelopment areas,
and some opportunities for continued westward
development, it is fundamentally a city of
neighborhoods. And, as we have said before,
the city’s main source of affordable housing is in
these neighborhoods, despite keen interest in new
development.
Existing neighborhoods in Oshkosh each
have individual character and needs. A viable
neighborhood strategy builds on existing assets-
framework elements like parks, greenways, natural
features, community places, and proximity to
other major civic features. These features provide
an anchor and identity for the surrounding
neighborhoods that in turn support property
values, reinvestment, and property maintenance.
City policy has clearly recognized the importance
of neighborhoods through its robust support
programs. An indispensable component of
this policy is encouragement and support of
neighborhood associations. These associations
and the neighborhoods that they operate within
form the foundation of protecting the integrity and
life of existing housing and adding strategic new
resources where possible. In recognition of this
role, this section of the Strategy Plan reviews each
of the neighborhoods covered by associations.
It includes a location map, vital statistics for the
area and its immediate surroundings, photographs
illustrating their character, and policy directions
to guide future development. All sources are the
Census and American Community Survey unless
otherwise specified.
General note on Vital Statistics tables: Because neighborhood
boundaries and census enumeration block groups do not
coincide, counts displayed on tables in the following discussions
of neighborhoods include all block groups that contain the
individual neighborhood. Thus, these counts are higher than
the neighborhood boundaries, but do reflect the character of
that area and its immediate surroundings. Additionally, Brent
Woods is a new neighborhood in 2021 and vital statistics are not
included in this chapter.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
73
Lake
Winnebago
MillersBay
Bay
Asylum
South
North
Bay
Asylum
F o x
Butte
Lake
des
Morts
Sa
C
rrekeeyw
RoePoint
BraysPoint
DoemelPoint
LibbyPoint
SunsetPoint
Shangri-LaPoint
R i v e r
Marina
District
North
Park
Sawyer-Paine
Sacred
Heart
River East
Stevens
Park
Woodland
Park
Northshore
Congress
Field
Millers Bay
Fox Chase
Menominee
North
Menominee
South
Ferry Crossing
Midtown
Middle Village
Historic
Fourth Ward
Lumber River
Historic
Jackson
Bent
Woods
City of Oshkosh Neighborhood Associations
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
Established Neighborhood Associations in Oshkosh
Source: City of Oshkosh
74
Stevens Park Vital Statistics
2019 Population 3,140
2010 Population 3,062
2010-2019 Change +78
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 5,184
Median Household Income $64,198
Median Sales Value $117,000
Value/Income Ratio 1.8
Total Occupied Units 1,469
% Owner 61%
% Renter 39%
Stevens Park
Washington
BowenCharacteristics
• Solid primarily single-family neighborhood.
• Stevens Park as a neighborhood focus.
• Historic architecture.
• Extensive water views and access.
• Typical value range of $300,000-$500,000
along lakefront, $140,000-$200,000 inland.
• Spot/minor deterioration issues.
• Mixed use along Bowen Street.
• Some 2-unit structures.
Policy Directions
• Spot rehabilitation of scattered problem
structures.
• House values support acquisition/rehab/resale
concept.
• Rental rehabilitation.
• Commercial rehabilitation and support for
mixed uses on Bowen Corridor.
• Shared equity and rent to own programs would
reinforce stable ownership pattern.
• Strong neighborhood character supports an
effective neighborhood marketing program.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
75
Stevens Park
76
Menominee South Vital Statistics
2019 Population 2,006
2010 Population 1,829
2010-2019 Change +177
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 6,045
Median Household Income $46,186
Median Sales Value $119,000
Value/Income Ratio 2.5
Total Occupied Units 1,027
% Owner 43%
% Renter 57%
Menominee South
Characteristics
• Menominee Park is defining asset.
• Large single-family houses near park, smaller
homes to the east.
• $250,000-$500,000 value range south of park
to lakefront.
• $200,000-$350,000 value along park frontage
and Washington Street Historic District.
• $150-200,000 typical value range in interior,
$100-150,000 along railroad corridor
• Major housing developments for older adults,
including adaptive reuse and new construction.
• Significant housing authority presence. This
together with senior housing accounts for high
percentage of rental occupancy.
• Generally very good housing inventory.
Policy Directions
• Maintenance and conservation policies, good
market for existing rehabilitation programs.
• Energy conservation initiatives for larger
houses.
• Auxiliary dwelling units on large lots could
help maintain large houses in owner-occupied
tenure.
• Railroad corridor could be developed as a
greenway.
• Rehabilitation of affordable smaller houses
including acquisition/rehab/resale and rent to
own options.
• Design standards for infill sites.
• Neighborhood marketing, capitalizing on
adjacency to the park and lake. Excellent public
lake access.
Irving
WashingtonBroad
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
77
Menominee South
78
Menominee North Vital Statistics
2019 Population 2,960
2010 Population 2,659
2010-2019 Change +301
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 7,189
Median Household Income $63,834
Median Sales Value $106,367
Value/Income Ratio 1.7
Total Occupied Units 1,061
% Owner 66%
% Renter 34%
Menominee North
Characteristics
• Menominee Park is defining asset.
• Predominant single-family with scattered
multifamily buildings.
• Mostly pre-World War II with “mid-century” to
the north.
• Moderately sized structures
• $200,000-$300,000 value range along park
and on New York Avenue blocks.
• $150,000-$250,000 value range elsewhere.
• Generally good housing inventory.
Policy Directions
• Maintenance and conservation policies, good
market for existing rehabilitation programs.
• Energy conservation initiatives for larger
houses.
• Condition monitoring and spot assistance.
Existing rehab programs are applicable.
• Rehabilitation of affordable smaller houses can
modernize units at relatively low cost.
• Rental rehab incentives apply to mid-20th
century multifamily buildings.
• Railroad corridor could be developed as a
greenway.
• Neighborhood marketing, capitalizing on
adjacency to the park and lake. Excellent public
lake and recreation field access.
New York
BroadIrving
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
79
Menominee North
80
River East Vital Statistics
2019 Population 2,437
2010 Population 2,612
2010-2019 Change -125
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 5,439
Median Household Income $40,781
Median Sales Value $75,400
Value/Income Ratio 1.8
Total Occupied Units 1,333
% Owner 23%
% Renter 77%
River East
Characteristics
• Mixed occupancy neighborhood adjacent to city
center.
• Older apartments and senior high rise, helping
to account for high rental occupancy rate.
• Significant deterioration along south edge,
particularly south of Ceape Avenue.
• $100,000-$150,000 typical value on south
and north peripheries of the district, $150,000-
$200,000 through the center.
• Industrial edge along lakefront.
• Significant number of city-owned lots available
for infill development.
• Active Rock the Block and other neighborhood
revitalization programming, probably
representing the largest concentration in the
city.
Policy Directions
• Redevelopment potential along riverfront and
south of Ceape Avenue, with site assembly likely
to be required. Rehabilitation should be focused
in areas with more stable housing.
• Energy conservation programs might be
appropriate in central parts of neighborhood.
• Acquisition/rehab/resale feasible with lower
cost housing.
• City lots could be packaged into a single
offering with a development entity
development.
• Neighborhood commercial creates a marketable
image for Bowen Street as a special corridor,
terminating with a boardwalk pier.
• Continued marketing as a near downtown
neighborhood.
Washington
MainBowen
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
81
River East
82
Historic 4th Ward
Irving
MerrittJefferson BroadRiver East Vital Statistics
2019 Population 2,576
2010 Population 2,492
2010-2019 Change +84
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 6,858
Median Household Income $71,625
Median Sales Value $107,900
Value/Income Ratio 1.5
Total Occupied Units 1,267
% Owner 31%
% Renter 69%
Policy Directions
• Major rental rehabilitation for buildings
developed as multifamily.
• Energy conservation programs appropriate for
larger houses.
• Ownership transition, with incentive programs
to encourage de-conversion back to single-
family or two-family ownership. Limit future
multifamily conversions.
• Develop railroad corridor as a greenway and
linear park.
• Focus on infill development of City-owned lots,
potentially packaged with River East lots into an
overall development.
• Neighborhood marketing as a residential
extension of downtown.
Characteristics
• Predominantly built as a single-family
neighborhood adjacent to downtown with some
multifamily buildings.
• Older houses of various sizes and conditions,
many of which have been converted to
multifamily because of high student housing
demand.
• $100,000-$180,000 value range typical.
• Variable housing conditions, with substantial
rehabilitation needs.
• Downtown adjacency is a major asset, along
with proximity to the classic library and other
civic spaces.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
83
Historic 4th Ward
84
Middle Village
Irving
ChurchJackson MainMiddle Village Vital Statistics
2019 Population 2,458
2010 Population 2,706
2010-2019 Change -248
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 5,392
Median Household Income $42,677
Median Sales Value $88,100
Value/Income Ratio 2.1
Total Occupied Units 1,288
% Owner 20%
% Renter 80%
Policy Directions
• Rental rehabilitation appropriate because of
high rental occupancy.
• Energy conservation programs appropriate for
larger structures.
• Similar dynamic to Historic 4th. Ownership
transition, with incentive programs to encourage
de-conversion back to single-family or two-
family ownership. Limit future multifamily
conversions, especially along Jackson Street
edge.
• Maintenance of historic district standards.
• Quiet street/traffic calming to enhance street
appearance.
• Neighborhood marketing as a residential
extension of downtown.
Characteristics
• Generally well-maintained mixed density
neighborhood adjacent to Downtown
neighborhood.
• Large houses with substantial contemporary
medium-density townhome development on
Central Avenue blocks.
• High rental rate, displaying spot deterioration
on some blocks.
• Includes part of the Irving-Church National
Register District.
• Typical home value range in $120,000-
$180,000.
• University influence on western edge
contributing to high rental occupancy.
• Population decline may be the result of
population aging.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
85
Middle Village
86
Midtown
Irving
New York
MainCNRRMidtown Vital Statistics
2019 Population 1,965
2010 Population 1,591
2010-2019 Change +374
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 7,772
Median Household Income $67,584
Median Sales Value $104,700
Value/Income Ratio 1.6
Total Occupied Units 736
% Owner 65%
% Renter 35%
Policy Directions
• Homeownership support through identifying
opportunities for possible reconversion,
focusing existing homeowner incentives, and
providing energy conservation incentives.
• Spot rehabilitation with focus on scattered
properties that have an effect on an entire
block.
• Continued enhancement of the railroad edge
and exploration of a possible greenway.
• Quiet street/traffic calming to enhance street
appearance and reduce traffic speeds.
• Architectural standards and guidance for
development on potential infill sites.
• Neighborhood marketing as a residential
extension of downtown.
Characteristics
• Variety of housing types and ages, with a high
level of owner occupancy.
• Excellent adaptive reuse and infill development
opportunity adjacent to the immediate
neighborhood on Harrison Street corridor.
• Sound housing supply, some spot rehabilitation
needs.
• Railroad corridor impact is extremely well
managed by adjacent property owners and has
little impact on residential integrity or condition.
• Substantial recent population growth in
the neighborhood and surrounding areas,
suggesting a successful generational cycling of
the neighborhood.
• Typical values range between $120,000-
$180,000, with some slightly higher.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
87
Midtown
88
Congress Field
Congress Field Vital Statistics
2019 Population 972
2010 Population 1,048
2010-2019 Change -76
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 6,323
Median Household Income $58,393
Median Sales Value $107,600
Value/Income Ratio 1.8
Total Occupied Units 412
% Owner 86%
% Renter 14%
Policy Directions
• Energy conservation and other minor rehab
incentives appropriate for maintaining status as
an affordable homeownership option.
• Traffic calming on Congress, including a
protected pedestrian crossing at Congress
Field. Quiet street enhancements on north-
south streets.
• Solidify status and continued availability of
Congress Field. While an intriguing potential
infill site, it’s status as a neighborhood resource
is more important.
• Spot rehabilitation or reinvestment in homes
showing some incipient issues.
• Neighborhood marketing as an affordable
family neighborhood.
Characteristics
• Solid, primarily owner-occupied small and
moderate sized homes.
• University-owned Congress Field is a
community focus, heavily used for soccer and
informal recreation.
• Significant traffic impact from Congress, with
substantial afternoon traffic related to both
traffic patterns and field use.
• Fairly tight home value distribution, with market
values ranging from $140,000-$200,000. Major
resource for affordable owner occupancy.
Congress
E
lmwood
New York
MainHistoric Jackson boundary
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
89
Congress Field
90
Ferry Crossing
Ferry Crossing Vital Statistics
2019 Population 1,910
2010 Population 1,817
2010-2019 Change +93
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 2,077
Median Household Income $78,023
Median Sales Value $131,200
Value/Income Ratio 1.7
Total Occupied Units 794
% Owner 73%
% Renter 27%
Policy Directions
• Conservation and marketing of smaller mid-
century homes. Technical assistance and
marketing for improvements of this style.
• Specific plan concepting for potential
development areas along Packer Avenue and to
the north.
• Infrastructure and potential cost sharing
to direct future residential growth into this
corridor.
• Coordinate street pattern and greenway/trail
connectivity with conceptual plans for the North
Jackson growth area.
• Improved park access from streets to
Teichmiller Park. This would include path
connection from Crane and possibly with an
easement Kaitlynn Court.
Characteristics
• Early 20th homes immediately north of
Congress south of the neighborhood,
transitioning within Ferry Crossing to small mid-
century and conventional “suburban” SF north
of Linwood.
• Primarily single-family with one attached “villa”
development.
• Adjacent to North High School with future
linkage to North Jackson growth area.
• $150-200,000 value range to south and west,
$200-300K typical in newer areas to north and
along Parkside.
• Mitchell Street townhomes in $200K range.
• Major potential residential development areas to
north.
• Teichmiller Park is a central but relatively
appearing private neighborhood open space
with limited street exposure.
Linwood
Packer
SheridanVinland
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
91
Ferry Crossing
92
Marina District
Marina District Vital Statistics
2019 Population 4,627
2010 Population 4,781
2010-2019 Change -154
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 3,142
Median Household Income $51,526
Median Sales Value $119,500
Value/Income Ratio 2.4
Total Occupied Units 718
% Owner 29%
% Renter 71%
Policy Directions
• Scattered strategic rehabilitation in the eastern
part of the neighborhood. Some opportunities
for infill development and more intensive future
use of the waterfront with greater public access.
• Improved pedestrian and bicycle routes along
river, currently marked as a bike route, across
Sawyer, and to recreational resources like the
Water Park.
• Possible “great street” corridor treatment on
Sawyer to build neighborhood identity and
value.
• Neighborhood identification and marketing
program, emphasizing access to community
attractions.
Characteristics
• Large houses and installations with river views
and access.
• Smaller houses to the west, ranging from pre-
World War II construction to mid-century.
• Excellent access to major recreational and
educational facilities –Pollock Water Park,
Sports Complex, and West and Lourdes High
Schools.
• Waterfront properties range from $250,000-
$600,000 in value.
• “Neighborhood homes” generally within
$130,000-$200,000 range.
• Significant multifamily development although
high rental occupancy shows in the Vital
Statistics table is probably an artifact of the
block group.
• Sawyer is a major community boulevard.
Linwood
Packer
SheridanVinlandWitzel
Oshkosh
Sawyer
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
93
Marina District
94
Sacred Heart
Sacred Heart Vital Statistics
2019 Population 1,169
2010 Population 1,216
2010-2019 Change -47
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 3,318
Median Household Income $55,000
Median Sales Value $101,900
Value/Income Ratio 1.9
Total Occupied Units 533
% Owner 71%
% Renter 29%
Policy Directions
• Monitoring any emerging issues with property
maintenance through neighborhood association.
• Platting and deep lots provide some Accessory
Dwelling Unit opportunities.
• 9th Avenue’s mix of commercial and residential
use and high visibility as a direct route from
I-41 into the city may require a specialized
commercial/residential revitalization program
to address properties, improve the urban
streetscape, and manage traffic impact.
• Smaller scale city rehabilitation programs
are appropriate to encourage incremental
reinvestment in homes.
Characteristics
• Stable, traditional and primarily single-family
neighborhood anchored by Sacred Heart
Church and parish life.
• Variety of one and two-story single-family
homes on urban lots.
• Retains a high owner-occupancy rate and
relatively stable population.
• Mix of neighborhood-based commercial uses
along Knapp Street with close connection to
downtown and University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
along the Ohio Street corridor.
• Walking distance to South Park.
• Home values are within the $100,000-
$200,000 range but tend to cluster between
$130,000 and $180,000.
Linwood
Packer
SheridanVinlandOshkosh
Sawyer4th Ave
9th AveKnapp Dakota
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
95
Sacred Heart
96
Characteristics
• Most buildings built as single-family urban
houses, but rental pressures and campus
housing demand have changed tenure
dramatically over the years.
• Owner-occupancy increases to north
toward Murdock, but renters currently
dominate the south part of the corridor.
• US Highway designation of Jackson Street
has tended to compromise the housing
environment. The recent Historic Jackson
study recommends a lane reduction from
four to three lanes with modification of the
street channel.
• Market values range from $150,000-
$220,000 in the more owner occupied
north, falling to $120,000-$180,000 on
the south part of the corridor.
• East Hall Park and the Merrill Middle
School practice field are significant
influences on the corridor.
• Community commercial center and
facilities are located north of north of
Murdock, focused between Murdock and
Smith.
Policy Directions
• Energy conservation and rehab incentives.
• Execute recommendations of Jackson
Street study, including lane reduction,
better pedestrian environment, buffering
from moving traffic.
• Zoning regulation to manage student
housing and conversions, possibly related
occupancy to ability to provide off-street
parking.
• Market the corridor to potential new
homebuyers, and couple existing incentive
programs to that effort.
• Improve East Hall Park and the Merrill
playfield to enhance neighborhood image
and value.
Historic Jackson
BowenCh
u
r
c
h
Murdock
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
97
Woodland Park
Woodland Park Vital Statistics
2019 Population 2,002
2010 Population 2,158
2010-2019 Change -156
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 4,552
Median Household Income $60,278
Median Sales Value $213,600
Value/Income Ratio 3.54
Total Occupied Units 828
% Owner 54%
% Renter 46%
Market Value Range $250,000-$350,000
Murdock
Greenwood Ct
HazelBowen
98
Millers Bay North Shore
Murdock
HazelMenomonee DrMillers Bay Area Vital Statistics
2019 Population 1,275
2010 Population 1,081
2010-2019 Change +194
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 4,070
Median Household Income $70,558
Median Sales Value $142,700
Value/Income Ratio 2,0
Total Occupied Units 534
% Owner 92%
% Renter 8%
Market Value Range West: $180-$250,000
East: $250-$400,00+
North Shore Area Vital Statistics
2019 Population 2,002
2010 Population 2,158
2010-2019 Change -156
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 4,562
Median Household Income $60,278
Median Sales Value $213,600
Value/Income Ratio 3.54
Total Occupied Units 828
% Owner 54%
% Renter 46%
Market Value Range West: $180-$250,000
East: $250-$400,00+
MurdockHazel
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
99
North Park Sawyer-Paine
North Park Area Vital Statistics
2019 Population 2,430
2010 Population 2,119
2010-2019 Change +311
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 608*
Median Household Income $56,826
Median Sales Value $226,400
Value/Income Ratio 3.98
Total Occupied Units 953
% Owner 52%
% Renter 48%
Market Value Range $250,000-$350,000
Sawyer-Payne Area Vital Statistics
2019 Population 3,090
2010 Population 3,092
2010-2019 Change -2
2019 Population Density/ sq. mi. 7,899
Median Household Income $43,993
Median Sales Value $114,633
Value/Income Ratio 3
Total Occupied Units 1,229
% Owner 45%
% Renter 55%
Market Value Range West: $350-$500,000
East: $120-$200,000+
SnellJacksonFarmstead Ln
VineElmw
ood
Housing Program
5
102
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a path forward that
addresses the issues and opportunities identified
in the last chapter. It includes implementation
strategies, policies, and partnership concepts,
illustrated by case studies that have succeeded in
other parts of the country. It is designed to help
Oshkosh answer the four main questions posed at
the beginning of Chapter 4:
• How do we build the capacity to develop
“affordable, attainable” housing and a healthy
housing market?
• How do we encourage housing products and
options that retain our households?
• How do we conserve our neighborhoods and
preserve their housing fabric?
• How do we address the needs of people who
are unhoused or inadequately housed?
That chapter outlined solutions to these questions
in general terms. This chapter will provide more
detail to help the community take specific action. It
is organized around two large topics:
1. An organizational and policy framework for
housing development; and
2. Program approaches that the participants
in the process can use to fulfill needs and
capitalize on opportunities.
A HOUSING PROGRAM FOR OSHKOSH
A Development Policy
Framework
Developing a policy framework to meet Oshkosh’s
housing needs for new development requires us to
understand the expected profits and risks entailed
by serving different markets, discussed at the
beginning of Chapter 4, and community priorities
articulated by the community engagement process
and analysis described in previous chapters.
These market preferences can be placed in four
categories: affordability, location, new products,
and reinvestment. Specifically:
Affordability: Public policy related to risk reduction
and financing should focus on encouraging
development of affordable moderate and medium-
cost housing, where financing gaps and challenges
are more likely to keep the market from satisfying
the need. For new development, this speaks to
question 1.
Location and Retention. Policy should move
toward two strategic objectives:
1. Retaining in Oshkosh a greater share of upper
income and older households, now appearing
to move out of the city into surrounding
townships; and
2. Encouraging development into specific
opportunity areas envisioned as priorities in the
comprehensive plan and other documents.
Innovation and New Products. Policy should
encourage and moderate the risks of non-
conventional or emerging forms of residential
development that accommodate emerging
markets but are unfamiliar to many conventional
developers and builders.
Reinvestment. Policy should provide strong,
positive incentives for housing and mixed use
investment in targeted redevelopment areas such
as the South Main corridor.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
103
Policy Directions Based on Affordability
Overall Policy Direction: Public policy
should focus on encouraging development
of affordable moderate and medium-cost
housing, where financing gaps and challenges
are more likely to keep the market from
satisfying the need.
High cost (>$400,000 or rentals over $1.50/
square foot). This type of development represents
about 8% of the 10-year demand for owner-
occupancy and 16% for rental occupancy.
Ownership units are typically (but not exclusively)
located in conventional or large-lot subdivisions. In
the Oshkosh area, sites with excellent water access,
both in and outside the city, This price point may
also appear in upper-end urban condominiums,
service-provided communities, and townhome/
villas. Front-end infrastructure in subdivisions may
be relatively expensive on a per lot basis. While
these costs may be relatively insignificant to high-
end buyers, they do present front-end exposure
to developers. This can lead to development in
townships outside the city, with rural, less capital-
intensive subdivision regulations.
Public policy for this development type may
encourage the building of high cost, single-family
housing within Oshkosh’s city limits rather than in
unannexed areas, a desirable outcome, but public
financing is not strictly necessary to serve this
market.
POLICY DIRECTION:
Use special assessments as necessary to avoid
larger lot development out side the city limits and
to provide options for move-up housing.
Market ($300,000-$400,000) or market rate
rentals ($1.20-$1.50/square foot). This type of
development represents about 25% of the ten-year
demand each for both ownership and rental units.
New subdivisions for this market have typically
been developed west of I-41, although land within
the existing city limits is increasingly scarce in that
direction. North Park homes in the North Jackson
corridor also now support this range. Builders
can deliver housing within this price range, but
infrastructure costs and exposure can be a factor.
In addition, absorption rates of subdivision lots
are slow enough that carrying costs can become
burdensome. Public financing of infrastructure
begins to be a significant need as site related costs
(land plus infrastructure) exceed 20% of the cost of
a new unit.
From a rental perspective, households in this
range can afford monthly rents needed to make
the projects economically feasible. However,
as discussed earlier, rents required for new
development without assistance approach $1.50 to
$1.80/square foot. This gap presents a challenge,
but in many cases, new consumers and small
households will pay a higher percentage of income
for housing.
POLICY DIRECTION:
Use infrastructure assistance through a form
of front-end public financing to encourage
development of market-rate rental products
and medium cost owner-occupied housing. Use
development financing tools, discussed later,
to maintain delivery of new rental units within
affordable market ranges.
104
Moderate-cost ($200-300,000) or low market
rate rentals($0.80-$1.20/square foot). This
type of development represents about 30% of
the ten-year demand for both types of tenure.
Development at the upper end of this scale
typically occurs in subdivisions, or increasingly in
higher-density small lot or attached developments
that are still rare in Oshkosh. The lower part of
this range addresses workforce housing needs
but construction costs alone, projected at $210
to $230/square foot make it difficult for builders
to deliver a marketable product. This price
category has difficulty supporting the cost of new
infrastructure in conventional development. Infill
development on sites or lots that use existing
infrastructure and higher-density housing forms
that reduce the unit cost of public improvements
are viable approaches, but infill faces the various
obstacles discussed above. Most development
in this range can be accomplished privately with
public incentives, but some project types may
require participation of a community partnership,
the second point in the strategic approach.
POLICY DIRECTION:
Base policies on the recognition that this cost
range can largely be satisfied by the private sector,
with incentives as required to create economic
feasibility.
• Use public incentives such as the examples
in the following section to support private
development in this range and community
partnerships for more untested housing types.
Incentives may include:
• Adjustments to zoning regulations to encourage
moderately priced housing forms in new
developments and on infill lots. These forms
include small lot single-family development,
duplexes or two-unit structures that may
include an owner-occupant, auxiliary dwelling
units on appropriately sized lots, and smaller
townhome or rowhouse structures.
• Tax-based incentives like tax increment
financing and tax abatements, coupled with
agreements in rental project to manage rent
increases and tie them specifically to increases
in maintenance and operations cost.
• Front-end public participation in infrastructure
and public improvements, with level and terms
of participation linked to the percentage of
units provided within moderate price ranges
or rents. Infrastructure might be recovered at
future sale or other ownership transition.
Later in this chapter presents more detailed
consideration of several of these policies.
Low-cost (under $200,000) or below market
rate rentals ($0.80/square foot). This type
of development represents 37% of the ten-
year demand for ownership and 30% for rental
occupancy. It is virtually impossible for new
construction to serve this significant market
category without deep assistance that includes
land assembly, infrastructure, development
financing, and in some cases mortgage
assistance. Program approaches that preserve
and rehabilitate existing housing stock or build
alternatives for demographic groups like seniors
can be effective in addressing this price category.
These techniques may be necessary to encourage
rental housing, in conjunction with existing tax
policy incentives like Low Income Housing Tax
Credits and New Market Tax Credits. Delivery will
require a public/private partnership, discussed
later, that includes an effective community
development corporation, financial institutions,
builders, Realtors, and city government.
POLICY DIRECTIONS:
• Base policies on the understanding that
delivery of new units in this category requires
substantial public or community-based
assistance to achieve economic feasibility.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
105
• Create a delivery infrastructure that can develop
new units or execute rehabilitation programs
that includes both development capacity and a
financing consortium.
• Use a variety of public sector tools, including
tax increment financing, low-income housing
tax credits (LIHTC) for appropriate projects, and
land assembly and conveyance.
• Create incentives for including lower cost units
in market rate housing developments. These
may include some form of public financing
or subsidy for these specific units. Require
inclusion of lower-cost units in projects
benefiting from other public financing incentives
such as TIF.
• Introduce programs like acquisition/rehab/
resale of existing homes in reinvestment areas or
rent to own development to increase affordable
ownership and equity-building opportunities.
This chapter presents greater detail on policies and
programs that address this cost category.
Policy Directions Based on Location and
Retention
Overall Policy Direction: Policy should
encourage development that 1) provides
options for people now moving outside
Oshkosh to find their place in the city and 2)
that uses infill sites or contiguous greenfield
sites effectively to provide these options.
Oshkosh under-performs in ownership housing
production in Winnebago County and even
lags behind other Fox Valley cities in per capita
single-family development. Encouraging new
development within the city limits and areas
contiguous to existing urban growth with direct
and feasible infrastructure is strongly in Oshkosh’s
public policy interest. Beyond the efficiencies of
contiguous growth in using public services and
infrastructure most effectively, retaining people in
Oshkosh who are contemplating moving outside
is a very important civic and economic imperative.
In many of these areas, infrastructure and public
improvements are critical to private development.
Policies related to location and retention have
their base in the comprehensive plan, and may be
placed in the following categories:
• Areas that are identified for growth and are
contiguous to the city but require significant
infrastructure development; or are in the
potential urban services area of Oshkosh (areas
that can feasibly be provided with municipal
wastewater and water service). For these areas,
agreements between the City and townships to
define the future urban service area and reserve
those areas for urban development and eventual
annexation by Oshkosh will be important.
• Non-contiguous greenfield development in
these areas may be premature, but long-term
community growth will require them.
• Contiguous greenfield development that
require incremental utility extensions or in some
cases, “pioneer” facilities that open the area
to development. Areas that appear to fit this
category include:
›The North Jackson development area,
identified with potential development
concepts in the previous North Jackson
Development Plan. This includes an extension
of Fernau Avenue corridor to Vinland Street.
›The area west of Vinland and south of the
Canadian National’s east-west industrial spur,
extending the Ferry Crossing neighborhood
north.
›Contiguous areas west of the existing limit of
development toward Clairville Road.
106
Again, some of these areas will require
jurisdictional negotiations with the townships.
Public front-end financing can encourage the
desirable goal of residential development with the
city, even for higher end housing that would not
normally need incentives.
POLICY DIRECTION:
Public financing, including special assessments can
be used to meet the demand for new construction
of higher end homes, necessary to support higher
end job growth and to open lower price point
housing.
Infill development. While development within
the built-up city typically uses pre-existing
infrastructure, some sites within reinvestment
areas may lack urban services entirely, or may
have existing utilities that require reconstruction
or relocation. In most cases, these necessary
changes should be publicly funded, utilizing TIF,
CDBG, municipal bonds, or other direct public/
private financing. Projects may also require other
forms of development or financing assistance,
but investments that create buildable sites are
the first priority. In Oshkosh, these sites include
the waterfront, South Main, and future brownfield
redevelopment sites like the quarry after industrial
operations end.
POLICY DIRECTION:
Use necessary public financing tools and
partnerships to create buildable sites.
Policy Directions Based on Innovation
and New to Market Products
Overall Policy Direction: Policy should
encourage and moderate the risks of
non-conventional or emerging forms of
residential development that accommodate
emerging markets but are unfamiliar to many
conventional developers and builders.
Significant emerging markets are not being
accommodated by current development products
in most American cities. New products, like higher-
density urban family development, appeal to
households with young children who need outdoor
space and single-family character, but value the
walkability and urban benefits that a city like
Oshkosh offers in unusual quantity. At the other
end of the scale, independent and active older
adults seek settings that provide these same urban
features, but without the problems of climbing
stairs and maintaining yards. The development
and housing financing structure should encourage
introduction of housing forms or project designs
that incorporate:
• Higher-density products like small-lot single-
family detached or attached configurations,
townhomes, and street-oriented, small footprint
multi-family development.
• Mixed housing environments that integrate
different types and price points into coherent
developments.
• Mixed use projects that integrate housing,
services, retail, and/or employment.
• Living environments for independent older
adults that offer urban amenities and provide
maintenance.
Policy Directions Based on Reinvestment
Overall Policy Direction: Policy should
provide strong, positive incentives for
housing and mixed use investment in
targeted reinvestment areas.
Reinvestment in existing areas is important
to a community on many levels. Protection of
the existing tax base, protecting community
image and livability, and ensuring a variety of
housing styles and price points are just a few of
the reasons. Most of Oshkosh’s neighborhoods
have successfully retained their fabric and
integrity, areas with large areas of vacant lots and
deteriorated properties do not exist. However,
opportunities at the neighborhood level are
present in some areas, and projects can develop
that strengthen the quality and value of their
surroundings. Special programs and partnerships
will be required to execute these projects, which
include:
• Specific neighborhood studies, and corridor
and project plans. Examples of these include
corridors like 9th Avenue, South Oregon, South
Ohio, and North Jackson.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
107
Figure 5.1. Development Policy Sample
Market Drivers
Price Range Price Point Alone Location and Retention Innovation and New Products Reinvestment
High
($400,000+ and rents
above $1.50/SF)
Private
• Partial special assessment
if contiguous (50% of
development cost)
Full special assessment
if mixed with other
housing price points
and/or uses
Full development
incentive package in
reinvestment areas
Market
($300,000-$400,000 &
rents $1.20-$1.50/SF)
Private • Full special assessment if
contiguous or on infill sites
Full special assessment
if mixed with other
housing price points
and/or uses
Full development
incentive package in
reinvestment areas
Moderate
($200,000-$300,000
rents $0.80-$1.20)
Full special assessment
Consideration of public
infrastructure financing
depending on context
• Full special assessment• with direct public infrastructure financing• Development incentives (TIF)• Direct development assistance
No additional
requirement
Full development
incentive package in
reinvestment areas
Low
(Under $200,000 and
below $0.80/SF)
Full special assessment
Consideration of public
infrastructure financing
depending on context
• Full special assessment
• Direct public infrastructure
financing
• Development incentives
(TIF)
• Direct development
assistance
No requirement
Full development
incentive package in
reinvestment areas
Notes:
Special assessment: Public front-end financing through a revenue bond issue, with debt repaid by an assessment on properties, paid as
part of annual property taxes.
Direct infrastructure financing. Financing of all or part of costs through the city through a bond issue or special infrastructure fund.
Financing could include a payback provision. An example would be an “infrastructure bank” where the percentage of total house cost
accounted for by infrastructure investment is repaid at sale of the property.
TIF: Tax Increment Financing, available in designated Tax Incremental Districts for mixed use projects, projects in blighted areas, or
involving environmental remediation.
Direct development assistance: Publicly funded grant or loan from local, state, or federal source as a project subsidy.
• Site acquisition, assembly, and conveyance to
potential developers.
• Continuation, some redesign, and additions
to rehabilitation and housing conservation
programs, with ideas addressed later in this
plan.
• Continued investment in effective neighborhood
engagement programs involving partnerships
of the City, Habitat for Humanity, and GO-HNI,
including expansions of their development
roles as discussed below. Continued support
for and development of new neighborhood
associations, with a probable focus on south
side neighborhoods.
• Commercial revitalization, including along
continuous commercial corridors and a
commercial corner or iconic business offers
a distinctive activity center to an otherwise
residential area like Bowen Street.
• Public infrastructure construction and
rehabilitation.
• Housing condition code enforcement.
Figure 5.1 summarizes financing and incentive
approaches for each of these policy contexts, but
uses fundamental housing affordability, as the
starting point. It is intended to provide the basic
structure for more detailed recommendations
that follow in this section.
108
Housing Development
Partnership
An effective public/private partnership with
adequate financial and human resources will be
central to Oshkosh’s ability to deliver affordable
housing through new development, adaptive reuse,
or major rehabilitation.
Chapter 3 quantified the continuing need for
additional housing priced below what appears
to be the current market floor – $300,000 for
ownership units and $1.20-$1.50/SF for rental
development. In the past some of the affordable
rental demand has been met though low income
housing tax credits (LIHTC) but these credits are
competitive, often not sufficient to meet demand,
or have income constraints that are too low for
much of the workforce. Ultimately, the private
homebuilder and development sector alone cannot
carry out initiatives to meet the City’s goals of
meeting affordable housing needs and providing
some of the products most needed or desired
by housing consumers. These primary objectives
include:
• Delivering new, moderately priced products that
are affordable to the preponderance of Oshkosh
residents and families.
• Creating new products that appeal to the needs
of urban families and older adults
• Building enough units at one time to realize
efficiencies of scale.
• Creating developments in potential revitalization
areas with adequate critical mass to affect the
image of the neighborhood and offer a higher
degree of financial security to prospective
residents.
• Developing market-rate rental housing
affordable for moderate to middle-income
households.
• Preserving existing residential buildings for a
new generation of residents.
DES MOINES REINVESTMENT STRUCTURE
Des Moines, Iowa has a tradition of strong private/
public partnership in neighborhood reinvestment. While
nonprofit faith-based initiatives have been very effective
housing developers, the City’s two primary reinvestment
organizations provide valuable precedents for Salina.
The Neighborhood Development Corporation (NDC) is
a nonprofit developer that does residential, commercial,
and mixed use development in revitalization areas. It
was established in 1999 and has been especially active in
multi-cultural areas like the 6th Avenue and East Grand
corridors, which have similarities to 9th Street in Salina.
NDC has three staff members and a twelve member board
that includes city and county government staff, real estate
developers, and business interests. Financing for projects
comes from a variety of public and private sources. (www.
ndcdsm.org)
The Neighborhood Finance Corporation (NFC) is a
mortgage bank. Since beginning operations in 1990,
it has originated $290 million in loans, affecting about
5,300 units. It provides loans for both home purchase
and rehabilitation. It is capitalized by loan repayments,
investments by city businesses and lenders, the housing
trust fund, and $800,000 to $1 million in GO bond
proceeds from the City of Des Moines and Polk County.
Current investments in NFC total $253 million, primarily
from regional banks. NFC has a 12 member professional
staff and a 15 member board representing six banks,
city and county government, neighborhoods, and
the city’s Neighborhood Revitalization Board. (www.
neighborhoodfinance.org)
All five of these approaches involve a relatively low
expectation of short-term return and a relatively
high level of uncertainty. Yet, the private sector
has an indispensable role to play in a partnership
to develop housing with greater cost and physical
diversity. As we have seen, these partnerships
require a high level of public and private sector
effort: incentives and investment on the public
side, patience, risk capital, and persistence on the
private side. But gradually, in a successful program,
the need for exceptional effort is reduced as the
private market begins to work.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
109
During the planning process, we found significant
private interest in participating in such a
partnership. Financial institutions appeared
generally open to the idea of a community
financing tool that involved shared participation
and risk. Homebuilders and developers also
recognized the need for housing products that
they could not afford to build alone.
There are a number of precedents for effective
partnerships around the country and the sidebar
on this page explores the approach of Des Moines.
Any of these approaches started with small steps
but have been very successful over the long term.
But most successful housing and revitalization
partnerships have common ingredients:
I HOLY NAME HOUSING CORPORATION
CROWN (Rent to Own) PROGRAM
CROWN is a home ownership incubator project. HNHC
(Holy Name Housing Corporation) is committed to renting
the single family houses to families whose income does
not exceed 60% of the area median income. Residents
are offered homeownership/financial educational
assistance that help them overcome obstacles to buying
their own home. Ideally, tenants will move from renting
to homeownership within 3-5 years of beginning the
program. This then frees up the rental home for another
family to rent the home and our mission continues.
- From program description of Holy Name Housing
Corporation, Omaha, Nebraska
Community Development Corporation
(CDC)
A Community Development Corporation is
a nonprofit developer governed by a Board
of Directors and operating in the same
entrepreneurial way as a conventional developer.
CDC’s often grow out of established organizations
that have identified housing as vital to their work,
or of other community organizations (such as
churches, human services groups, or community
action agencies) that identify housing as a critical
need. In Oshkosh, the real estate development
mission of Oshkosh Healthy Neighborhoods, Inc.
(GO-HNI) is consistent with that of a CDC, but
the organization has not carried out a large-scale
development project to date. Habitat for Humanity
has built about 40 houses during its experience
in Oshkosh, but these volunteer driven efforts
are also not that of a full-fledged development
entity. In some places, though, Habitat for
Humanity programs have moved beyond their
original mission of volunteer-built single homes
for low-income owners to become larger scale
developers of affordable housing. Oshkosh Habitat
for Humanity or GO-NHI could easily evolve
into a CDC or spin off a separate development
organization that complements the existing
neighborhood support programs of both groups.
In some cities, CDCs started as faith-based
neighborhood revitalization efforts. Examples
with decades of success are Omaha’s Holy Name
Housing Corporation (HNHC) and the Omaha
Economic Development Corporation (OEDC) In
others, CDC’s Chamber of Commerce, or City
initiatives. When successful, they operate as
private developers and need the same permanent
expertise and adequate capitalization as a private
enterprise.
A community development corporation may be
either a for-profit or nonprofit organization. On the
nonprofit side, a corporation may be organized as
a “community development housing organization,”
or CDHO. CDHOs require majority community
board representation, in return, they enjoy a
special allocation of tax credits for affordable
rental housing financing through the state housing
finance agency.
110
While the original mission of a CDC in Oshkosh
will be housing development, it should also
maintain the right to do commercial projects as
well. Many contemporary projects involve some
level of use mixing, with both retail and residential
components and the use of TID’s in Wisconsin for
housing appear to require mixed uses. Des Moines’
Neighborhood Development Corporation (NDC),
for example, has been an efficient commercial
and mixed use developer in revitalization settings,
and this work has helped to support housing
developments.
While much of the focus here has been on new
development, a CDC also can have a significant
role in preserving existing housing. CDCs are ideal
vehicles for two very effective program types –
acquisition/rehab/resale and rent-to-own/shared
equity development.
ACQUISITION/REHAB/RESALE
In the former, a CDC buys an existing house,
completes major rehabilitation, and sells the
home to new owners. This activity has worked
successfully in many places and is especially useful
because its lower sales prices make quality homes
more affordable with smaller appraisal gaps than
new construction.
RENT-TO-OWN/SHARED EQUITY DEVELOPMENT
In the rent-to-own scenario, a CDC builds homes
for rent and administers an escrow that builds up
a downpayment fund. This enables the resident to
buy that unit or another unit, providing a transition
from rental to owner occupancy in neighborhoods.
Rent-to-own units can be paired with the LIHTC
program, allowing one unit to serve as a transition
to ownership for multiple households over the
course of the tax credit obligation.
Small lot single-family. Top, a subdivision by Habitat for Humanity
in Bloomington, Indiana. Middle, small lot development in Fayetteville, Arkansas; Above: Towns at Little Italy, a high-density
attached ownership development in Omaha, Nebraska.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
111
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND - GRAND RAPIDS, MI
The City of Grand Rapids set an aggressive
policy target for a citywide inventory of 30%
affordable housing units. One tool created
to help with the effort is an Affordable
Housing Fund leveraged by dedicated city
revenues, private contributions, and interest
earnings. Additionally, a board provides
recommendations for policy changes and
managing allocations. Funds come from:
• City appropriations from tax growth.
• Private contributions, State funds, County,
other grants.
• Excess revenues from General Operating
Fund.
Eligible applicants include non-profits and
for-profit affordable housing developers,
and public housing authorities. Individuals
are eligible for homeownership financial
assistance. Fund allocation is used only for
situations that meet city needs like mixed-
use development, projects with other funding
sources, and small scale development.
https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Government/
Programs-and-Initiatives/Housing-NOW
›Lawrence, KS has a similar fund where
the public approved a sales tax increase
for a new housing fund. The fund
supports the acquisition, rehabilitation,
and development of affordable housing.
Over the next 10 years the fund expects
to raise $10 million.
Financing and Access to Capital
A community development corporation (CDC)
must be capitalized to do its work. Such a
financing program should be designed for
maximum leverage (in the language of community
development, “leverage” is the ability of program
dollars to generate private investment in response
to a principal investment), shared risk, and quick
turnover rather than long-term financing. The
partnership should include a “lenders consortium,”
a cooperative venture among lending institutions
active in Oshkosh that spreads individual exposure.
These cooperative ventures can also attract the
support of other agencies such as the Wisconsin
Housing and Economic Development Authority
(WHEDA) and the Federal Home Loan Bank.
A community-based financing mechanism typically
has two overall roles to consider:
• Interim financing for projects of the community
development corporation or a participating
private builder. A primary function is providing
working capital for the CDC that shares risk
among a number of lenders so that no individual
institution is heavily exposed. This permits
construction of enough units to both achieve
some economy of scale and, in owner-occupied
projects, provide security to prospective
owners. A hypothetical example would be a
project by the CDC to develop a cluster of
twelve new homes in two phases. The CDC
master plans the project and receives interim
financing sufficient to build six units. When
the homes sell, the proceeds cycle back and
are used to complete the second phase. Some
CDCs have their own construction capability but
working with one or more homebuilders on a
turnkey basis is more common. The consortium
may also work directly with private builders who
will undertake a project in return for limited risk.
112
• Direct loans to low and moderate income
homebuyers for new homes or property owners
rehabilitating existing homes. Some community
lending consortiums also provide direct loans to
homebuyers for houses built as part of a CDC or
other community-based programs. In addition
to expanding the number of people who might
qualify for mortgages, this type of lending
often helps bridge the appraisal gap, either
by structuring the mortgage into repayable
and deferred or forgivable components or
by blending consortium loans with public
sources like HOME Investment Partnership or
Community Development Block Grant funds.
As an illustration, assume a sales price for a
new house on a city infill lot at $200,000.
Comparable appraisals in the neighborhood,
based on surrounding values are $130,000,
a common situation in River East and other
older Oshkosh neighborhoods. This value gap
seriously complicates conventional financing. In
this situation, the prospective homeowner is able
to invest 10% in a downpayment, still leaving a
$50,000 gap. The mortgage may be structured
as a $130,000 first mortgage, consistent with
comparables, with a $50,000 deferred or
forgivable second mortgage drawn from the
consortium or public financing, with repayment
obligations only from appreciation of value. This
technique has successfully overcome the short-
term financing gap in areas with depressed
property values. By reducing monthly payments,
it also makes a greater number of households
bankable. The Des Moines Neighborhood Finance
Corporation (NFC) and Omaha’s Omaha 100 use
these loan types in combination with other city
housing development efforts.
The City of Oshkosh
The third key partner is the City of Oshkosh, and
the City’s commitment to neighborhoods is both
well demonstrated and an enormous asset. As
a CDBG entitlement city, Oshkosh has extensive
experience in program design and redevelopment
at both large and small scale. Much of the previous
policy discussion in this chapter focused on
infrastructure finance, but this primarily addresses
new construction. The City has a variety of other
continuing roles to play in this partnership that
include:
• Reviewing of land development regulations
and guidelines to eliminate barriers to infill and
affordable housing development.
• Assisting with the acquisition and site
preparation of infill redevelopment sites. The
provision of development ready sites entitles
the City to request specific features within
the redevelopment, including development
standards that may encourage the development
of affordable homes. Development standards
that would promote affordable price points
include maximum lot size, maximum setback,
and narrow lot widths. This support can also
be delegated to the not-for-profit housing
development corporation.
• Continuing to provide financial assistance
through Community Development Block Grants,
tax increment financing, and other programs.
These funding programs can be applied in
concert with the efforts of the not-for-profit
housing developer.
• Providing technical assistance and expedited
land development processes for innovative
proposals. The City could help developers to
craft projects that incorporate certain practices
or housing practices. Through this collaboration,
it may be possible to expedite the plan review
process.
The greatest opportunity exists in layering multiple
programs in an organization that specifically
focuses on filling gaps in the market and in
creating demonstration projects. Through strategic
actions designed to fill a niche or demonstrate
the viability of a particular housing product or
price-point, a housing partnership can generate
additional action from the private market and
partner organizations.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
113
Other Partners
Other organizations offer important resources
to creating this housing partnership. Clearly
the two groups most active in the city and its
neighborhoods today – Habitat for Humanity and
Healthy Neighborhoods – will remain critical and
may provide the foundation for the development
entity discussed above. Other institutions with
important roles follow.
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - OSHKOSH
The University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh plays
a major economic role in all aspects of the
community, including housing development and
occupancy. Due to the significant impact on the
housing market, the University can play a valuable
role in housing development in several ways:
• Executive housing for visiting faculty. As a major
employer that frequently hosts visiting faculty,
including permanent faculty transitioning
into Oshkosh, the University may benefit
from providing housing opportunities in the
community to aid with this transition and further
integrate the University into the city.
• Data collection and analysis. As a major
educational institution, the University can assist
the housing partnership with data collection
and analysis, including: the design, distribution,
collection, and analysis of survey questionnaires;
the completion of a housing occupancy and
condition inventory; point-in-time inventory of
homelessness; and other academic research on
affordable housing production.
• Community clean-up and implementing
a “better block” concept with Habitat for
Humanity (volunteerism). The student body
could lead a “better block” initiative to
enhance and clean up a neighborhood near the
University through various activities.
HOUSING INCENTIVES AT
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
Saint Louis University has provided a housing
benefit to its employees through an Employer
Assisted Housing Program (EAHP). The EAHP
provides three benefits for the University
employees:
• Housing information and education on
home ownership.
• When available, preferred rates and
reduced closing costs on mortgage and
refinancing costs through partnering
institutions.
• When available, forgivable loans for
eligible employees, applicable towards
the purchase of a new home located in
designated areas.
This program applies to all current, full-time
faculty and staff members. Properties eligible
for the forgivable loan program must be
located with specific revitalization areas. In
the SLU program the percentage of the loan
that is forgiven increases with the number of
years of employment after origination of the
loan, up to 100% of the loan after five years of
employment.
114
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
There is a growing awareness that the housing
market condition impacts major employers’ ability
to recruit and retain employees. Each company
invests a significant amount of time, energy, and
money training their employees, and, therefore,
it is in their interest to support all aspects of
retention including housing. Employers can play
multiple roles in the housing partnership:
• Direct construction of new ownership or
rental units or support for the not-for-profit
housing developer for the construction of new
affordable housing products
• Rent subsidies and down payment assistance
for employees residing within Oshkosh. Certain
employers operate a housing plan, much like
a 401(K) plan where the employer provides a
matching contribution for a down payment on a
home within the community or a specific part of
the community.
• Market local housing opportunities, including
rental and ownership options, rehabilitation, or
first-time home-buyer programs.
The 2008 recession and the COVID-19 induced
economic downturn both demonstrate that every
economic downturn affects different business in
different ways. Therefore, individual conversations
with businesses are necessary.
REALTORS AND BUILDERS
Realtors, builders, and developers in the
partnership will be as the contractors, marketers,
and when appropriate as financial partners.
GREATER OSHKOSH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION & OSHKOSH CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
The Chamber and economic development
leaders seek to further the collective interests of
their partners while advancing the community
and region. Housing in Oshkosh represents a
significant economic factor both in the business
of actual housing construction and for its
impact on providing a place for business leaders
and employees to live. The role of economic
development in a housing partnership may include:
• Convening the partnership.
• Educating the public and its members on the
importance of housing to the overall economy
and inviting members to expand their role in the
partnership.
• Promoting housing incentive programs to
employers and their employees.
• Bringing funding partners together and
championing their partners’ involvement in
programs like the lending consortium.
OSHKOSH/WINNEBAGO COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY
Traditionally, housing authorities have focused
their mission and programs on housing for a
city’s lowest income households. The Oshkosh/
Winnebago Housing Authority is very involved
in a variety of housing programs. They will be an
important partner in the future, especially related
to their knowledge of programs and management.
Federal regulations and capacity may limit their
role at times but do not overlook their expertise
and perspective on the housing market.
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERS
Oshkosh and the region have several service
providers focused on helping low-income
residents. Many of these include housing assistance
in various forms. The level of involvement these
agencies have may vary based upon their mission,
but knowledge sharing will be an essential part of
their role. Some organizations may even be able
to expand services with adequate funding and at a
minimum, provide excellent knowledge for others
in the partnership.
Incentives are methods to stimulate action by
developers, landlords, or homeowners. Incentives
also need to consider that population growth is
tied to regional job stability, and vice versa. Thus,
employers should be involved in incentive policies.
In addition, these agencies will take a primary
role in the effort to develop improved settings for
the unhoused and wherever possible, transition
individuals and families into the normal housing
market.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
115
Community Development
Programs and Techniques
The previous discussion presented the policy
foundation for Oshkosh’s expanded housing
program. This section will look at both current
programs and possible directions for Oshkosh’s
contexts. A number of potential tools are available
to Oshkosh in addressing the issues of affordable
production, opening new markets and reducing
risk. These tools are generally available to both
for-profit and nonprofit developers and fall into
three broad categories: producer, operational, and
resident.
Producer Tools
Producer tools are focused on reducing obstacles
and risks to housing development. They fill gaps
in revenues or financing, addressing feasibility
problems illustrated in our previous hypothetical.
They may include direct monetary or tax
incentives geared to bringing about community
housing goals and priorities. Producer tools and
techniques further fall into several types:
TAX-BASED
These use tax policy to provide significant capital
assistance for projects. They include:
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF), allocating the
added taxes created by a redevelopment
project to retire debt for site preparation, public
improvements, infrastructure development.
Eligible TIF categories of TIF projects in
Wisconsin are mixed use developments,
environmental remediation, and projects in
blighted areas.
• Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),
providing federal income tax credits to investors
in rental housing developments that serve low-
income residents. A nonprofit CDC without
tax liabilities does not directly benefit from tax
credit programs. However, they can act as a
general partner that raises equity by assembling
limited partnerships of investors for whom the
credits are highly valuable. CDC’s that have
CHDO status have a specific set-aside of tax
credits, an advantage in the LIHTC competition.
• Historic Tax Credits, providing federal income
tax credits to qualified investors in projects
involving buildings listed on or eligible for listing
on the National register of Historic Places and
rehabilitated in compliance with the Secretary
of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation.
• Depreciation, allowing an income tax deduction
for theoretical diminishing of a building’s value
through aging.
• Neighborhood Housing Investment Act, an
intriguing but not yet adopted legislative
proposal in the Senate to provide tax credits to
investors filling a gap between market value and
actual cost of owner-occupied homes in target
neighborhoods. This has major benefits for infill
development in neighborhoods with relatively
low appraised values.
Some states have various types of tax abatement,
rebate, or deferral programs. However, these are
not permitted in Wisconsin.
DEVELOPMENT
Development tools include direct funding or
cost reduction for construction or creation
of development entities to execute projects.
Examples include:
• Reduction or waiver of permit fees.
• Direct production subsidies, including grants or
subordinated loans.
• Real estate acquisition and reductions of sales
price to a developer.
• Direct employer assistance or investment in
new housing.
• Rehabilitation loans and grants, especially for
non-resident owners of properties. Oshkosh’s
rental rehabilitation program is an example of
this technique.
116
INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure tools develop public improvements
to support new development projects. Public
infrastructure development might be designed to
open larger areas for development consistent with
the City’s comprehensive plan. Other examples
include:
• Special assessment districts, using special
assessments on property to retire revenue
bonds that provide front-end financing. This
reduces the front-end exposure of public
improvement costs, deferring them to the
eventual property owners. Special assessments
do not reduce the ongoing cost of housing to
residence, but they make it easier for developers
to develop subdivisions.
• Joint public/private financing, including a
possible mechanism that provides some level
of return to the city based on its percentage of
contribution to public infrastructure.
• Pioneer public financing, using bond funds
or other general fund sources to build
infrastructure to key areas in advance of
anticipated development.
INVEST DSM:
CONCENTRATED APPROACH
With programs spread across many
neighborhoods, Des Moines, Iowa has not
seen the reinvestment in core neighborhoods
necessary to compete with new development
in surrounding suburbs. After evaluating
their programs, a non-profit organization
called Invest DSM was formed through a
funding partnership between the City and
Polk County to uber-focus strategies in what
they call “Special Investment Districts.”
Invest DSM currently targets four SID Areas,
each with their own action plan. The idea
being that investment in these target at-risk
neighborhoods will create momentum in other
areas. While these SIDs are at risk, they were
chosen because of some market interest and
feasibility for locals to use programs.
There are five strategy programs for these
SIDs. Each is unique to a specific housing
market partner - homeowners, development,
contractors, business owners, and commercial
property owners:
• Block Challenge Grant Program
• Homeowner Renovation Program
• Single-Family Developer Program
• Commercial/Business Program
• Rental Rehab Program
Each of these programs could have a case
study on their own. The Block Challenge
Grant Program is discussed more later in this
chapter.
https://investdsm.org/programs/
Figure 5.2: Impact of Various Development Tools on Monthly Rent Levels in New Construction
PROGRAM
SAVINGS ON
MONTHLY RENT
PER SF/MONTH*
Tax Abatement or Increment $0.22
Interest Subsidy (4.5% to 2%)$0.23
Free Land $0.06
Higher Density (13 to 20 units)*$0.10
Deferred Cash Return On Investment $0.33
Maximum Moderate Income Housing Grant $0.05
Longer Loan Term (25 to 30 years)$0.09
Reduced Construction Cost ($150 to 125/SF)$0.13
Source: RDG Planning & Design
The above Figure illustrates an example scenario of possible
savings from different types of financing/incentive programs.
These programs were applied to a prototypical development with
assumptions made on land cost, developer financing, etc.
This scenario exercise shows higher savings for certain
programs, but should not be interpreted as the situation for all
developments. However, it does show how different financing
programs can stimulate interest in certain areas.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
117
Renter-Oriented Tools
• Rent Subsidies (Section 8), providing payments
that fill the gap between 30% of a renter’s
adjusted gross household income and fair
market rents established for the area. The
program is administered through the Oshkosh-
Winnebago County Housing Authority.
• Employer Assistance, providing direct
assistance though downpayment assistance or
other financial incentives to employees who buy
or rent units in the city.
• Indirect Assistance through tax credits.
• Shared Equity/CROWN. These programs put
aside a portion of rent or use some other
methods to enable renters to accumulate
equity. In rent to own developments, this equity
can then be used to buy the unit or another
parallel unit in the city. Many of the best shared
equity programs are executed by nonprofit
development corporations.
Owner-Oriented Tools
• Incentive Payments, often including a cash
incentive to qualified buyers purchasing a unit in
the city or in a specific project.
• Blended/Subordinated Loans, combining a
privately-originated mortgage with a zero- or
low-interest subordinated mortgage to reduce
overall mortgage cost to the buyer. Sources of
the subordinated mortgages are often CDBG or
HOME funds.
• Residential Rehabilitation. This is a significant
focus of Oshkosh’s neighborhood development
program and is discussed below.
• Lenders Consortium (Public Interest Lending),
pooling lenders’ resources to make mortgage
loans to higher risk buyers who have the income
to support a mortgage. The concept of a
lenders consortium in Oshkosh is fundamental
to the Housing Partnership concept.
• Loan Guarantees, the primary historical FHA
instrument used to expand the homeownership
market in the country.
• Employer assistance through some form of
cost reduction and technical assistance to
employees.
These tools may be assembled in different ways to
accomplish specific goals. The following discussion
looks at existing programs and at other possible
initiatives appropriate to Oshkosh.
LEGISLATIVE
Legislative tools provide statutory incentives or
requirements to reach desirable housing goals.
Examples include:
• Zoning incentives and bonuses. These address
entitlements and will typically involve higher
density or other modifications of development
regulations to encourage certain kinds of
development. In some places, these incentives
may include expedited process, code relief, or
other “accelerants.” However, this implies a level
of favoritism that could well be unacceptable, in
addition to implying that normal processes are
substandard.
• Zoning changes to permit higher density or
different forms of development like auxiliary
dwelling units and duplexes on residential
lots. The appendix includes an extensive code
review that analyzes the city’s current ordinance
and suggests changes that could help advance
housing affordability.
• Mandates or minimum requirements for
affordable housing. This would follow the
Minneapolis model of requiring a certain
percentage of units in a project to fall within
affordability guidelines.
Operational Tools
Operational tools focus on reducing the annual
operating cost of rental development, thereby
reducing the required income necessary to
support the project. Examples of these tools
include:
• Fee reductions and waivers.
• Financing incentives or participation that
reduces annual costs by reducing debt service.
• Utility cost reductions.
• Energy conservation grants and tax credits.
Resident Tools
Resident tools provide direct assistance to
residents of a development, home, or housing
unit to make that unit more affordable to them.
While these tools indirectly benefit developers by
broadening their markets, their primary benefits
flow to the owner or renter of an affordable unit.
118
City Programs and Near-
Term Initiatives
The City of Oshkosh maintains a variety of housing
development and rehabilitation program through
its Community Development Block Grant program.
These programs fall within three overall categories:
homeownership incentives, rehabilitation, and
property appearance.
The two homeownership incentives include a
$5,000 forgivable loan toward purchase of a home
over 50 years old. The second is paired with the
City Lots program, providing a $15,000 grant
toward new construction of a new owner-occupied
house on a lot owned by the Redevelopment
Authority.
The three rehabilitation loans rental and owner-
occupied rehabilitation, and historically-sensitive
rehabilitation of significant properties. Owner-
occupied rehabilitation loans are divided into
CDBG and non-CDBG categories. CDBG-
funded loans that are directed to Low and
Moderate Income (LMI) households in targeted
areas with debt forgiveness; and a non-CDBG
category with zero interest and a 15-year term.
Both have a maximum loan of $30,000. The
rental rehabilitation program similarly is a zero
interest, 15 year loan capped at $30,000. Historic
rehabilitation loans are forgivable and apply to
designated properties. All non-CDBG funded
loans are available citywide but eligible structures
must be built before 1970.
The three exterior appearance programs include
the Curb Appeal program with a maximum
$10,000 loan at zero interest for a ten year term.
This program is available citywide, but eligible
properties must be at built before 1970. Two
micro-grant programs are directed toward areas
with neighborhood associations (Good Neighbor
Grant through GO-HNI) or areas with other
revitalization is occurring (Rock the Block).
Source: https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/PlanningServices/Documents/Oshkosh_Home_Improvement_Matrix.pdf
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
119
IN EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE
PROGRAMS IT IS IMPORTANT TO:
• Establish performance metrics to measure
success toward the program’s intended goal.
• Allocate funding streams adequate for the
program to be able to influence the intended
goal.
• Restructure criteria, reallocate funds or use a
different approach if metrics do not align with
intended goals. Ideally, metrics are reviewed on
an annual basis with a detailed program review
every three years.
The structure of these existing programs has both
strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side:
• Small loans and grants directed toward exterior
appearance can have out sized benefits for
overall neighborhood quality and value.
Coordination with other neighborhood support
efforts is also very positive.
• Loans that are directed to key systems like
roofs, windows, heating and air conditioning,
foundations, and plumbing can preserve a
building for its current owner and a future
buyer.
• Assistance is widely available throughout the
city, so most residents of old houses have the
ability to apply for assistance regardless of
geography.
• A forgivable loan on an historic house
may make the difference in the quality of
rehabilitation.
On the other hand:
• The variety of somewhat similar programs can
be confusing.
• The programs are not targeted and lack the
ability to make a substantial visible difference in
any one area.
• Given today’s construction and rehabilitation
cost, a $30,000 loan cap may be too small to
accomplish substantial rehabilitation or home
improvements that increase value.
The nature of these programs may change with
the creation of a Housing Partnership and the
need to channel funds toward other projects.
However, the primary purpose of these and
additional resources should be channeled to
preservation of neighborhoods and maintenance
of the existing housing inventory. Approaches to
consider include:
• Consolidation of programs into specific
categories for greater clarity and marketing
benefits.
• Possible direction of grants and loans toward
specific property improvements such as energy
conservation on a priority basis.
• Re-evaluation of the cap on loan size, and/or
requirement that loans originated through city
sources leverage an equal amount from private
loan sources.
• Increased geographic targeting of loans to
increase visible impact on neighborhoods.
• Identification and focus on rehabilitation (if
feasible) of single structures that have an out
sized impact on an otherwise sound block, done
in coordination with neighborhood associations.
• With a Community Development Corporation
(CDC), initiate an acquisition/rehab/resale
program. When the owner is an older adult
who is unable to maintain the unit and wants
to move, provide assistance and an alternative
setting to help with the move in exchange for
acquisition of the house. This should be done in
connection with development of an affordable
senior living setting by the CDC.
Example of a CDC-built affordable living setting developed by a
community development corporation
120
NEIGHBORWORKS OF
NORTHEAST NE. PURCHASE/
REHAB/RESALE PROGRAM:
COLUMBUS, NE
Over five years, NeighborWorks Northeast
Nebraska has implemented a highly successful
Purchase Rehab Resale program. Under the
program, a qualifying household identifies a
home and completes an assessment of the
home for structural stability. Subsequently,
NeighborWorks Northeast Nebraska
purchases the home to complete any repairs
needed. Repairs can range from $2,000 to
$25,000. Following the completion of the
repairs, the home is sold to the applicant
who identified the home. Down payment
assistance can also be provided at 20% of
the final purchase price (up to $20,000). For
Columbus, Nebraska, this has resulted in 140
homes being updated and owned, often by
first time home buyers.
In this model, houses are acquired and sold in a
rehabilitated or “turnkey” state to owner-occupants.
Traditionally these programs are administered by
a nonprofit housing developer or development
corporation. The model recognizes the limited
number of prospective buyers who want to carry
out a major home rehabilitation project. This
program works best when candidate houses can be
purchased at relatively low cost, usually because
of their quality. Under the program, a development
corporation buys existing homes, rehabilitates them,
and resells them to new homebuyers. The lending
community may participate cooperatively in this
effort by providing interim financing. Mortgage
financing for low- and moderate-income buyers
may be assisted by CDBG or HOME “soft-second”
loans. Realtors may also participate by reducing
commissions on selected projects.
Initiative: Acquisition/
Rehab/Resale
In this model, houses are acquired and sold
in a rehabilitated or “turnkey” state to owner-
occupants. Traditionally these programs are
administered by a nonprofit housing developer or
development corporation. The model recognizes
the limited number of prospective buyers who
want to carry out a major home rehabilitation
project. This program works best when candidate
houses can be purchased at relatively low cost,
usually because of their quality. Under the
program, a development corporation buys existing
homes, rehabilitates them, and resells them to
new homebuyers. The lending community may
participate cooperatively in this effort by providing
interim financing. Mortgage financing for low-
and moderate-income buyers may be assisted
by CDBG or HOME “soft-second” loans. Realtors
may also participate by reducing commissions on
selected projects.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
121
Initiative: Housing Variety
and Review Processes
The need for greater housing diversity pattern
expressed throughout this study. Housing choice
is vital to a diverse community, economic growth,
and quality of life. Diversifying the housing stock
also addresses housing demand indirectly by
encouraging movement in the housing market,
freeing up homes like those lived in by older
households who are not moving from their older
(but affordable) two-story, 3-4 bedroom house.
Recommended strategies include:
• Expanding Program options.
• Pattern books for infill possibilities.
• Increasing mobility in the market – Empty-
nester and retiree housing.
• Leverage older commercial corridors for higher
density residential development.
During the study process, builders and developers
seemed overall satisfied with the City approval
process. However, there are ways to accelerate
approval for more desired products – a possible
incentive to reduce development costs. This can
come from a coordinated departmental review
where administrative approval criteria are agreed.
Many departments partake in review processes,
and open communication between departments
is critical for efficient approvals (public works,
engineering, stormwater, inspections). Better
departmental communication means education on
how departments impact housing costs and how
to make changes without sacrificing public health
and safety.
Even after amending codes to fast-track approvals
with guidance, developers may still be cautious of
changing their building model. Therefore, the tools
in this study should be leveraged as incentives
and financing mechanisms targeting these missing
product types.
There are few developers building anything
beyond single-family homes or large apartment
complexes. That is understandable because
historical consistency in profits and evidence
of past local approvals reduces the risk of a
project falling through. Two methods below are
straightforward ways to eliminate approval risks.
By creating a package of example site plans and
products that will get approved, the builder has
less risk. Oshkosh is starting down this path by
releasing Requests for Proposals (RFP) to develop
assembled sites under specific criteria and
standards.
MISSING MIDDLE FOR
CHATTANOOGA, TN
With help from the Incremental Development
Alliance, Chattanooga leaders and stakeholder
undertook an intensive developer workshop to
identify solutions for missing middle housing
types. The process resulted in a development
packet that lays the framework for a
developer to pursue these projects including:
• Picking a building type based on the
developer’s financing options and site
circumstances.
• Guides and site plans for good urban
design amid traditional single-family
neighborhoods.
• Technical considerations for packaging
development applications.
• Bank packages for different building types
to show how to bring the project to life by
proving profits for lenders.
https://www.incrementaldevelopment.org/
https://www.cneinc.org/creating-homes
122
Subordinate payments
A city front-ends a portion of public improvements,
repaid over an extended period through a second
mortgage on the property. This reduces payments
over special assessments by extending the loan
term and reducing the principal.
Infrastructure standards
Besides cost-sharing, a review of improvement
standards should be made across city departments
to ensure cost efficiency while retaining quality.
Not all departments understand the impact that
standards have on the price of housing. Like
zoning ordinances, infrastructure standards and
design possibilities change frequently but are
often not updated regularly at the city level.
Additionally, requirements are spread across many
organizations that may conflict with each other
such as utility providers, county government,
and federal agencies. Beginning to evaluate
infrastructure standards includes:
• Planning department understanding how
existing standards conflict with city policies.
• Understanding that city review processes
and multiple reviews between departments
cost money which is passed on to the cost of
housing.
• A step further includes how building and fire
code requirements align with housing products
encouraged in certain zoning districts. For
example, unit thresholds that trigger high-cost
development requirements like fire sprinklers.
Initiative: Reducing Site
Costs
Reducing the cost to develop a site leads to lower
lot costs and subsequently lower costs per housing
unit when tied to incentives for including certain
price points or housing products. Examples for
developing new subdivisions include:
Shared costs
Cities can share new infrastructure costs
depending on the development location and
type. The public share might be from 30% to 50%
of the construction cost for cities experiencing
consistent subdivision development. Repayment
is from the added property taxes created by
new development. Oshkosh should require these
developments to include various housing types
and smaller lots to balance future infrastructure
maintenance and tax revenue. Lot variety and
housing variety should also be allowed outright.
Special assessments
Special assessments are used to finance
infrastructure. While assessments reduce the
initial purchase price of the house, they are
repaid through monthly payments and add to
the monthly and overall cost of the house. Thus,
special assessments are not useful tools to target
the lowest income households but rather those
that have adequate monthly funds.
The City could waive the special assessments
on a certain percentage of lots to support more
affordable housing. These households may have
trouble saving for a downpayment because of
student loans or high current rent costs. This tool
requires working with the developer on the type
and price of these units, likely below $250,000 to
waive the special assessment.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
123
HOUSING NEXT - OTTAWA COUNTY,
MI
Housing Next was formed as a 5-year pilot
initiative to work closely with local units of
government, developers and non-profits
to remove barriers to the creation of more
housing supply at all price points.
It is an independent organization, not a non-
profit, acting as a middle person to navigate
resources and connect developers with
projects. It is nested within the structure of
the Greater Ottawa County United Way and
funded by the community foundations of
Holland/Zeeland, Grand Haven and private
donors in Ottawa County. Some of its
initiatives include:
• Evaluate local zoning standards to find
ways to reduce regulatory barriers.
• Works with developers to find available
land, assemble preliminary development
plans that align with a community master
plan and seek out funding opportunities.
• Works with other non-profits and housing
advocates to seek out long term funding
mechanisms and organizational structures.
https://www.housingnext.org/
Initiative: Addressing
Rental Conditions
The City of Oshkosh maintains a voluntary
Residential Rental Registration and Inspection
Program. This program provides for the
registration and inspection of residential rental
dwelling units in the city to ensure units provide
safe, decent and sanitary living conditions for
tenants to prevent further deterioration of
those units. However, the City once had a more
comprehensive registration and inspection
program, but the program was modified because
of State legislation and now has a much more
advisory character.
Nevertheless, the idea of a reasonably
comprehensive program is important to ensure
safety and reasonable standards of property
maintenance. But such a program should:
• Be developed on a consensus basis with the
cooperation of all parties – property owners, the
City, neighborhood associations with high rental
occupancy, and tenants. Generators of the
rental market, such as the university, should also
be involved in the process.
• An inspection program should focus on the
items that are most important to life safety on
the inside and neighborhood quality on the
outside.
• The program should be paired with incentives
and the means to make improvements and
fix things. Comprehensive code enforcement
programs have historically worked best when
connected with rental rehabilitation programs.
124
The two main challenges with older, existing homes
include energy efficiency and regular repair needs.
Inefficient homes can quickly become unaffordable
if tenants (or homeowners) face high utility bills.
Additionally, older homes are subject to more
sudden repairs when systems reach the end of
their life cycle. Programs that aid in funding and
labor can reduce homeowner burden, maintain
affordability, and retain an existing housing unit in
the long term.
With Oshkosh’s low rental vacancy rate and
continued demand for quality units, there can be
few incentives for rental property owners to make
improvements. Rental rehab programs need to
ensure that quality housing is being provided to
households that struggle to afford current rental
rates in new construction. Aspects of the program
should include:
• All or a majority of the units rehabilitated must
be affordable to households making less than
the median income for either five years or the
loan period plus some additional time.
• Properties should be available for inspection by
either the city or a third party. Any property that
receives funding must be maintained to basic
standards.
• Affordability should be connected to the unit.
Under many programs, if a household finds
a better job or receives a raise, they will no
longer qualify to live in the unit. Finding quality
affordable units for households making between
80-100% AMI is also challenging. Allowing a
household to improve their financial footing
without immediately losing their housing should
be encouraged. Additionally, the paperwork
of checking each resident’s income on an
annual basis can discourage some property
owners from participating in the program.
Only requiring income verification at the time
of the rental application can remove some of
these hurdles. This type of approach is usually
not allowed using federal dollars and therefore
would require local funding.
• A special emphasis should be placed on energy
conservation.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
125
Initiative: Universal Design
Nearly all of the programs, strategies, and tools
in this chapter could have criteria targeted
toward improvements/renovations to create more
accessible homes, applying Universal Design
principles. It could be a requirement for any
significant funding allocations to follow these
principles, either for new development or existing
homes so that they are accessible for the next
homeowner. The additional costs of accessibility
will require additional funding allocations or
partnerships for people to be interested in
applying.
Alternatively, programs could only require a
percentage of Universal Design units in large
projects.
Initiative: Preserving
Character
Across all the strategies, it is important to not
forget about the historic and traditional character
unique to each neighborhood in Oshkosh.
Each incentive, policy, and initiative should be
tied to some design requirement to maintain
neighborhood character. This may involve design
guides for:
• Transitions - Provide a transition between
higher-intensity uses and lower-intensity uses to
address compatibility issues.
• Scale - The size and height of new buildings are
in keeping with surrounding buildings or the
neighborhood’s context.
• Context - The design fits the housing styles
around a site, even if the type of units are
different. Other context variables on a site
may include views that enhance the site, or
stormwater facilities add open space amenities.SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF UNIVERSAL
DESIGN
• Equitable use
• Flexible use
• Intuitive use
• Perceptible information
• Tolerance for error
• Low physical effort
• Size and space for approach and use
Policy Examples:
• City of Sacramento: Universal Design
Ordinance that requires builders of single-
family residential developments over 20
units to provide Universal Design options.
• City of Pittsburgh: Gives tax credits for
builders who incorporate universal design
features into new or renovated housing.
• City of Alexandria, Virginia: Rental Access
Modification Program offers grants to help
low-income tenants make accessibility
modifications to their units.
Source: Center for Universal Design at North
Carolina State University.
Appendix
6
• Area Housing Programs and Organizations
• Full Community Survey Results
• Full Landlord Survey Results
128
HOUSING PROGRAMS AND ORGANIZATIONS
County Level
Oshkosh/Winnebago County Housing
Authority:
The Oshkosh/Winnebago County Housing
Authority (OWCHA) has several initiatives aimed
at ensuring housing affordability in the region.
OWCHA administers the Section 8 housing
voucher program. The Housing Authority owns
and manages about 549 Public Housing Units in
Oshkosh.
On top of this, OWCHA provides rental assistance
to low-income families to ensure safe and
affordable housing is attainable to them and has its
own homebuyers program. The Housing Authority
administers the following programs:
• Family Self-Sufficiency Program
• Family Housing Resources
• Winnebago Homebuyer Program -
Downpayment Assistance
• Winnebago Homebuyer Program - Home Rehab
Financing
• Winnebago Homebuyer Program - Accessible
Homes
• Capital Fund Program
• Housing Choice Vouchers Program
City of Oshkosh Programs
A summary of primary City programs are
located at: https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/
PlanningServices/Documents/Oshkosh_
Home_Improvement_Matrix.pdf
Sold on Oshkosh:
Sold on Oshkosh helps promote homeownership
and strengthen existing neighborhoods by
providing eligible participants a 5-year forgivable
loan up to $5,000. Those participating in Sold
on Oshkosh cannot spend over 30% of their
household income on housing. All homes
purchased must be built before 1970 and be
located in participating neighborhoods.
• https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/PlanningServices/
NeighborhoodInitiativePrograms/
SoldOnOshkoshOverview.pdf
Curb Appeal:
Participants in the Curb Appeal program can
receive a 10-year up to $10,000 0% interest
loan to improve the exterior condition of their
home. All homes must be built prior to 1970 and
homeowners cannot be spending more than
30% of their monthly income on housing related
expenses.
• https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/PlanningServices/
NeighborhoodInitiativePrograms/
CurbAppealProgramOverview.pdf
Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation
Program:
Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program grants
eligible recipients a 15-year up to $30,000 0%
interest loan to improve the interior and exterior
facades. Homes must have been built prior to
1970 and homeowners must not be spending over
30% of their monthly income on housing related
expenses.
• https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/PlanningServices/
NeighborhoodInitiativePrograms/
OwnerOccupiedRehabProgramOverview.pdf
Rental Rehabilitation Program:
The Rental Rehabilitation program offers a 15-year
up to $30,000, or $35,000 with incentive, 0%
interest loan to help fund projects that improve
the overall condition of the property. There is a
condition that current residential residents do not
spend over 30% of their monthly income on rent
and that eligible properties be built prior to 1970.
• https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/PlanningServices/
NeighborhoodInitiativePrograms/
RentalRehabProgramOverview.pdf
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
129
Historic Rehabilitation Program:
The Historic Rehabilitation program was created to
provide owners of historic properties with a flexible
and affordable financing option to rehabilitate their
homes in an historically sensitive manner. Eligible
program participants could receive a 0% interest
deferred loan up to $25,000 for historically-
sensitive rehabilitation projects. Property owners
are required to provide a match, the level
depending on the cost of the project.
• https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/PlanningServices/
NeighborhoodInitiativePrograms/
HistoricRehabilitationProgram.pdf
New Homes In Our Neighborhoods:
This program offers an exciting opportunity for
new construction on existing neighborhood infill
sites owned by the Redevelopment Authority
(RDA) of the City of Oshkosh. The program
provides funding to off-set costs to construct a
single-family home for owner occupancy. Only
parcels currently owned by the RDA are eligible for
a grant of up to $15,000 towards construction of a
new owner occupied home under this program.
• https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/PlanningServices/
NeighborhoodInitiativePrograms/
NewHomesNeighborhoodsProgram.pdf
Great Neighborhoods Program:
The program provides residents the opportunity
to originate projects that enhance quality of life
through strategic improvements to the public
realm. Eligible projects must support capital
improvements to the public realm; which includes:
City-owned property/buildings, parks, and streets.
• https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/
OshkoshNeighborhoods/Documents/
GreatNeighborhoodsOverview.pdf
Rental Registration Program:
The City of Oshkosh continues to administer a
voluntary Residential Rental Registration and
Inspection Program. The city-wide program is
voluntary and provides for the registration and
inspection of residential rental dwelling units in
the city to ensure units provide safe, decent and
sanitary living conditions for tenants to prevent
further deterioration of those units. This program
went into effect January 1, 2018.
130
Nonprofit Programs
A list of partners and programs can be
found at: https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/
PlanningServices/PartnersResources.aspx
Housing and Human Services Agencies:
• ADVOCAP
• Aging and Disability Resource Center
• Boys and Girls Club
• Christine Anne Domestic Abuse Services
• Committee on Aging
• Day by Day Warming Shelter
• Equal Opportunity in Housing Commission
• Fair Housing Council of Northeast Wisconsin
• Forward Service Corporation
• Oshkosh Area School District
• Oshkosh Food Coop
• Oshkosh Habitat for Humanity
• Oshkosh Healthy Neighborhoods
• Oshkosh/Winnebago County Housing Authority
• Salvation Army
• Trinity Lutheran Church & School
• Winnebago Apartment Association
• Winnebago County Health Department
• Winnebago County Human Services
• Winnebagoland Housing Coalition
• World Relief
Christine Ann Domestic Abuse Services:
Christine Ann Domestic Abuse has a 37 bed facility
to help shelter individuals facing domestic abuse
and in need of emergency shelter.
Father Carr’s Place:
Father Carr’s Place provides housing to individuals
experiencing homelessness with no set time limit
for stays. Father Carr’s Place works to help clients
set goals to move towards a self-sufficient life.
Day by Day:
Day by Day is a warming shelter providing
temporary housing to individuals experiencing
homelessness. Day by Day seeks to provide
individual services to help place clients on a path
towards self-sufficiency.
Solution Options:
Solution Options offer both domestic abuse
shelter and homeless shelter. Alongside the two
shelter they provide financial counseling on
budget planning and assist clients with finding
affordable housing. Solution Options also provides
limited financial assistance to Individuals and
families facing eviction and threat of disconnected
services.
Solution Options:
ADVOCAP helps provide an array of housing needs
from Homeowner Development Program working
on financial literacy and a 0% deferred secondary
mortgage for persons early 80% less than the CMI
to assistance for foreclosure prevention. Also, of
note is ADVOCAP’s house rehab program and that
they rents several properties to persons within the
income range of 50% to 80% CMI.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
131
Other Initiatives/Programs
City Fair Housing Ordinance:
The City has contracted with the Milwaukee Fair
Housing Council for several years and the City’s
Fair Housing Ordinance was revised in 2016 to
reflect the current structure for investigation and
disposition of complaints through a third-party
contractor (Fair Housing Council) as needed.
Rental Housing Advisory Board:
The City created a Rental Housing Advisory Board
whose purpose is to advise staff on the creation
of rental housing educational materials and
residential rental training programs for landlords
and tenants, to review and make recommendations
regarding City policy or changes to the Municipal
Code pertaining to rental housing.
Diversity Committee and an Equal
Opportunity in Housing Commission:
Receives all complaints alleging any discriminatory
practice prohibited by the Fair Housing
Ordinance within the Oshkosh Municipal Code.
The Commission convenes only when there
are complaints, and seeks settlements that are
agreeable to both complainant and respondent.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit/HUD
Multifamily Housing Projects:
There are sixteen LIHTC projects with 763 units of
affordable rental housing in the city. There are ten
active HUD Multifamily Housing projects with 611
units of affordable rental housing in the city.
132
Under 19 19 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85 or
more
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
20.00%
What is your age?What is your age?
FULL COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
Administered in the summer of 2021 and receiving 509 responses.
Do you live in the City of Oshkosh?
What is your work zip code?
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
133
What is the total annual income of all residents living in your household?
Do you own or rent your home?
How much is your monthly rent or mortgage payment?
134
Are you affiliated with the University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh?
What is your Race?
Are you Hispanic or Latino?
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
135
Would you consider yourself a member of any of the following categories (Check all that apply
In which part of the City of Oshkosh do you live?
136
Have you looked for a new place to live during the last three years? (Choose all that apply)
If you looked for a new place to live in the past three years, did you find what you were looking for?
Is there any reason you’d look for a new place to live in the next three years? (Choose all that apply)
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
137
If you have looked to purchase a home in the past three years, how would you rate the availability of housing in the City of Oshkosh for each of the following price categories? (skip if this does not apply
to you.)
If you have looked rental housing in the past three years, how would you rate the availability of rental
housing in the City of Oshkosh for each of the following rental ranges? (skip if this does not apply to
you.)
138
Do you believe that the current housing market adequately meets the needs of the following
households in the City of Oshkosh? (Places check yes of no for each)
What new housing types do you think would be successful in the City of Oshkosh today?
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
139
What type of housing do you believe households with adults over age 65 are most interested in?
Does Oshkosh need and would you support greater enforcement of property maintenance codes? For
example, using taxpayer dollars to hire additional city staff to proactively notify, levy fines, and take action on property owners that do not follow existing building, zoning, or other safety codes.
140
Does Oshkosh need and would you support programs and services to people without permanent
homes? For example, tiny home villages, shelters, transitional housing, vouchers, food support.
Does Oshkosh need and would you support the use of public funding to remove dilapidated housing? For example, the City acquiring homes that are beyond repair and a hazard to the community and using taxpayer dollars to demolish.
Does Oshkosh need and would you support the use of public funding for home repair and rehabilitation assistance? For example, the City creating a program funded by taxpayer dollars that
allows property owners in designated areas of most need to apply for grants or forgivable loans to
pay for major home repairs. Applicants would typically have to be low-income or elderly households,
among other restrictions to ensure proper use of funds.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
141
Which types of housing solutions would you support to reduce your cost of housing in the City of Oshkosh (select all that apply)?
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the City of Oshkosh on
the following topic areas?
How does the City of Oshkosh’s housing stock
compare to other cities?
142
Comments for those answering “undecided”
to supporting various housing initiatives and
programs.
• i do not live in the City of Oshkosh, i would need
to know the ordinances. To be familiar. I am in
the City of Menasha and I have lived here for
more than 5 years.
• “29-Seen how slow they are with garbage
problems things piling up around homes
& apartments. Grass high & weeds in
homeowners yards & businesses.
• 30-Listening to Oshkosh council meetings I was
in the understanding that there is a fund for this
that taxpayers already help fund.”
• Only hardship cares not owner neglect
• #29-Existing staff should be able to enforce -
have city assessors look at what homeowners
are listing their houses for sale at & raise their
taxes accordingly.
• I’m on low income and have to support myself
could never help anyone else. People set turned
down for anywhere to live at times. Nothing
available.
• What best fits.
• Not quit sure what meant, but after reviewing I’d
say YES!
• I don’t think it’s my place to give a definite “yes”
or “no” to when I truly don’t know about it fully.
• 30. Who ever is buying the property should be
responsible.
• Tired of people here getting away with
harassing me as well as other tenants with
physical violence.
• Only lived in Oshkosh for a few years and not
sure what the city needs.
• Need more information.
• Don’t have enough information to make a
decision.
• “1. As long as the fine worker would not be an
excessive burden on renter or landlords.
• 23. This might be very expensive.”
• Don’t know existing circumstances ie., the need
for land and building.
• Because I don’t know the whole situation.
• Like where I live.
• I’m interpreting “would you support” as being
involved with voting; volunteering or giving $. I
don’t live in Oshkosh, so would not.
• It’s amazing how peeling paint drives city staff
crazy.
• I think at this time the city doesn’t need to be
directly involved in shelters, vouchers, ect. We
other agencies for that.
• Just recently moved to Oshkosh - Haven’t
ventured too far past my neighborhood and
grocery store.
• Would prefer using private donated funds/
grants vs tax revenue. Collaborate with
established not-for-profits like Habitat for
Humanity, Community Foundation, etc.
• With already existing grants, most don’t qualify
because they are over the financial threshold.
• Depending on the qualifications and rules they
would be required to follow! Enforcement to
sum it up.
• Why limit the public funding to certain people?
• Happy to help those who help themselves
when possible. Get a job, and help pay your
way. Don’t depend on assistance by having
more children so you get more free benefits,
especially when you’re not working or married .
Take advantage of programs where your sweat
equity counts, like the Habitat for Humanity
home programs.
• Depending on the amount of tax payer money.
I want my money to go to things that will
BENEFIT the PEOPLE of Oshkosh, the scenery!
• I would support if the area was well maintained,
but worry it would just become another blighted
area.
• There is current assistance for many of these
categories already
• Would need to know area of such homes and
would it be drawing in more homeless people to
Oshkosh
• Don’t know enough about what is available
• Just demolishing dilapidated homes is not
always the best way to go. Empty lots are bad
too. I would prefer encouraging home owners
(not developers) to rehabilitate housing
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
143
• Need more info on the scope of the program.
• RE #30: it depends on the definition of
“dilapidated,” as I don’t think there are that
many in Oshkosh.
• What would you do with the property after it
was cleared?
• I am unaware of current code enforcement so
I can’t speak to the need for a higher level of
enforcement.
• It depends on how strict the maintenance
“police” end up being.
• Owner occupied assistance only, the Rich slum
lords don’t need anymore breaks (like the ones
on city council that don’t pay their taxes or
water bills)
• Municipalities often view enforcement very
rigidly, focused on penalties and adverse
notifications rather than creative solutions that
view the improvement of conditions as a team
endeavor.
• I wonder if landlords would use grants properly
or not punish tenants with Q1, and I don’t see
the benefit of demolishing anything if it makes
someone homeless.
• Question 29, I dislike that people don’t take
pride of owner In their homes but I don’t know if
levying fines is the best use of tax payer dollars.
• Undecided on greater enforcement of codes.
Yes to greater enforcement on college
landlords. They provide housing for college
students that is often unsafe and not up to code.
But no to greater enforcement on independent
homeowners.
• I don’t know enough about the current options
or the plans proposed to know if I’d support
them.
• The conversation around assuring those without
permanent homes is a much blots complex
question that can be answered with a yes or no.
The idea of tiny homes or villages while at first
glance may seem like a viable option, there are
potentially MANY other factors in play which
should be worked and thought through before
such an investment is made.
• All that the city has shown as of late is as long
as a hashtag is ‘trendy’ enough, ‘laws’ and
‘regulations’ are thrown out the window. No
Mow May has to be one of the worst publically
backed program/demonstration that I’ve ever
seen.
• All of the above depend on HOW and WHO
decides how the funds will be allocated, and
How much of a burden property owners are
expected to shoulder: for example, we have to
pay our street assessment for the next 20 years,
but those whose streets were redone AFTER
ours will pay nothing, and we are assessed
EXTRA to pay for others that came after. A
better solution would have been to exempt
those of us that were originally assessed the
amount owed (yearly) and once the term is
met, then start assessing us the same as the
rest of the homeowners that were not forced to
shoulder the original burden.
• I do not support tax paper dollars spent on poor
design. There should be some sort of guidance/
review from architects so the right right choices
are made, not only for the resident but for the
neighborhood and City.
• “Enforcement: Only if done fairly and
reasonably.
• Homeless: It would depend on the ‘programs
and services’ provided - and where.”
• 31. Not sure that I like the idea of possibly
supporting someone who maybe be able to
possibly have a better job but don’t because
they want to receive welfare.
• I would rather see funding put into the
development of programs to enhance our
neighborhoods rather than policing policies.
However, this is sometimes needed to increase
quality of living in areas.
• I am not very informed as to how the city
performs this currently
• I do not support levying fines on owners who
cannot afford the needed repairs, but I do
support levying fines on owners who can afford
needed repairs, yet choose not to do so.
• Transitional housing is tricky to run. I wouldn’t
want it in my neighborhood. I like my neighbors
to stay put.
144
Please let us know any additional comments
you may have regarding housing in the City of
Oshkosh.
• Unless I live in the city of Oshkosh or if you had
gave me the city survey like city of Menasha. I
would have been able to answer your questions.
• I know of several slum lords, applications are
not checked out thoroughly - seedy residents,
lots of bug problems lately.
• Housing in Oshkosh is are poor to get in to.
• Larger units to live in more space.
• Displeased with change of 55 up to open to all
with no say court tower.
• Would like to see more granny home with
maintenance to live & take care of by myself
with limited financial responsibilities.
• From what I hear from people coming to the
food pantry there are a lot of slum landlords in
Oshkosh that don’t do upkeep on their houses
for the renters. I think that is disgusting! I live in
low income housing & there isn’t enough money
for upkeep on my building & only one guy can’t
do everything! We need a lawn care business to
help at court tower for sure. I lived at Simsanna
& they have their own lawn care guys & more
than 1 maintenance man. Fore the homeless
they could use little units to stay in I’ve seen on
TV like the size of a trailer.
• As far as I can tell, it’s overall alright. I think
a lot of places have issues with people having
animals because a lot of places don’t allow
pets at all and if they do, they have so many
strict or down right messed up requirements.
For example: A place Tre: and I applied for on
High Avenue required cat’s front paws to be
declawed; the way they do that procedure is
horrible. 2nd the claws can sometimes grow
back deformed hurting the cat. I think people
nowadays put so many rules and requirements
to have any pets anymore just zaps the fun out
of it. You’re Welcome!
• I really think having tiny houses built, is such
a good idea! Hope that is something that will
happen.
• Keep building apartments, condos, senior
places
• It would be nice if the percentage that the
government paid for low income housing was
higher so it would be more affordable for
people could save more of their money.
• Need to have heating & cooling units fixed and
checked so people with health conditions don’t
freeze or like me have asthma. Can’t breath in
heat when air conditioning is out.
• Oshkosh needs more low income housing. I.E.
Quality housing
• Make Oshkosh more green. Better housing
with ships close to cut down on pollution and
dependent of a vehicle. Better public transport
will also be needed, better housing zones to
accommodate disabled & elderly independence
without requiring a vehicle or other driving
services. It’s difficult for most of this population
to get around to stores independently. With a
better mix of housing & shops this can and will
cut down on the reliance of vehicles.
• Hire more maintenance workers.
• Not informed.
• Oshkosh is a lot nicer from city I moved from
and the building I live in is really nice. My main
issue is I live on Main St. and I walk my dog a
lot on sidewalks and there is glass constantly
smashed on sidewalks and people who walk
their dogs can sometimes be a nightmare, it
doesn’t look good and glass can injure my/
peoples pets.
• A lot of run-down properties that need to
be demolished or reinvaded. It a shame this
happens.
• Poorly managed roads, rundown. Menasha
too. Low standards. Doesn’t motivate people.
I’m looked at as snooty for trying to keep my
property looking nice because so many don’t
feel well cared for and so many areas don’t
look nice. Trash everywhere on the street, not
enough recycle pickup, and new cans are given
or cleaned as needed. The roads ruin our cars
and very few areas are inspiring/motivating for
most
• We need more of everything here to keep the
cost down for tenants. The landlords/owners
are increasing the rents because they can. There
should be a cap on rents. Landlords should have
to prove to someone why they want to increase
the rent over the fair market price.
• so many homes could be great if fixed up.
Especially true with landscaping. Trees need to
be trimmed.
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
145
• Vinyl siding is a temporary fix & makes our
housing stock look cheap. Revitalize our early
settlement neighborhoods for young people/
professionals that want to live near a walkable,
vibrant central city. Build a culture that raises
expectations, raise the bar for Oshkosh, find
the opportunities in maintaining & preserving
historic Oshkosh rather than seeing the
problems. It’s amazing how many apartments
are going up for temporary housing. That’s not
how stable communities are built & developed.
• Property maintenance is a significant problem
in the central/UWO city areas plus many poorly
maintained rentals affecting neighboring values.
Also mixing building styles along the river - ultra
modern buildings beside classic - demonstrates
a lack of overall planning.
• I think we should give an incentive to builders
to build on smaller lots in the city, where houses
have been torn down. My understanding is
builders don’t want to build on them because
the lots are small. We need more housing in
the middle of the city, and there are a few lots
available.
• Finding a 3 BR, 1.5 BA single family rental for
less than $1K/mo is virtually impossible. Unless
you want to live on campus, which most families
don’t. It’s ridiculous.
• Would like to see more apartments built for
college students and take back the old beautiful
homes
• Having sidewalks by all types of residences
that are in the City of Oshkosh, make the
neighborhoods more desirable, and safer . The
neighborhoods look less desirable if you have
people walking in the streets & pushing strollers
etc. in the street.
• We need more landlords allowing pets. So many
renters have dogs and cats and have limited
availability. And they are good renters. This is a
real problem.
• Anywhere you look in the city, you will find
people who ignore city ordinances....blowing
grass and snow in the road, parking on the lawn,
grass not mown. Nothing seems to be done
about. Perhaps more people need to be hired
to enforce city ordinances. Landlords need to
be fined if their property is not kept up because
tenants don’t care. Nice, older neighborhoods
are being taken down because of this, mine
included. Calling the city doesn’t help. It just
gets the caller in trouble with the renters.
Enforce city ordinances!
• Again, I feel that we need to have a balance
of housing for incomes. If you want to have
Oshkosh be a family city, you need affordable
housing. $900 (plus water and utilities!) and
above is NOT affordable for a middle/lower
class income family. Our west side of Oshkosh
has been built up for upper income. There are
neighborhoods where the landlords need to
be held accountable for the making sure their
tenants are safe. (background checks...too many
meth/drug houses)
• We’re looking for an affordable, pet friendly,
independent, and private ranch home with
automatic maintenance like a condo association.
Ready to downsize n travel more.
• I think we need more housing for low income
seniors and disabled.
• Limit owner occupied rentals when not a EAA.
• Follow up with the run down homes. It makes
my older neighborhood look awful and my
neighbors and I work hard to keep ours looking
nice.
• Too many rules, have a reputation in the Fox
Valley of being too difficult to remodel homes
- need permits even to change out a toilet.
Ridiculous, most cities do not require for
this type of repair/replacement to do normal
maintenance of a home.
• There aren’t a lot of options at this time for
quality housing for people making minimum
wage (working poor).
• I think the neighborhood association movement
is a great asset to our community
• Please don’t subsidize more growth on the west
of 41 area. Seems to be doing fine on its own.
The older neighborhoods in oshkosh need more
help. It’s such a nice city and a shame that the
older neighborhoods just seem to be neglected.
There should be plenty of affordable housing
in the heart of the city. Instead of building new
why not rehab properties?
• Upgrading housing stock is important to the
health of a city. This needs to become a priority.
• No more multi-family units. How about
rowhouses? Something more aesthetically
appealing than those monstrosities that are
cheap and all look the same.
146
• it would be nice to have better schools also.
Also to have more low income housing for a lot
of people that are on a 1-4 year waiting list. We
have a lot of family members that are not able
to be together because of shortage on housing.
• Your permits and zoning AND funding have to
benefit the owner occupied homes in this city,
it’s a joke
• The cost of rentals are relatively more than a
mortgage but the quality of rentals are bare
minimum. If you want something “nice” you’re
looking at 1,200 before utilities. It makes it
difficult to find a place and has led me to
consider moving out of Oshkosh
• It was a better city in years past and now more
crimes are being committed
• Really hope we able to find housing solutions
for homeless. Also think neighborhood
associations are working very well
• I grew up in Oshkosh, went to college at
UWO, and moved to Appleton in 2014. Near/
on Campus housing is expensive and poorly
maintained, close to campus (25-45min walk)
is still expensive, but seems to be better
maintained. Once housing begins to deteriorate,
it tends to continue down that path. I feel there
are a lot of houses that would be better torn
down and rebuilt throughout the north side of
the city.
• It has been really difficult finding more
affordable, low income units that are also
decent quality. Many landlords have bad
reputations and have not taken advantage of
incentives to maintain their properties.
• Greatly support increased enforcement for
blighted properties...crack down on landlords
and developers. Developers for River and lake
front poorly maintain properties that have been
undeveloped for years...near Oregon St bridge
and Pioneer Property.
• Prioritize upgrading what we have before
building additional low income housing.
• When we first moved to Oshkosh and rented it
was hard to find a house to rent. It’d be nice if
there was a rental directory. We didn’t want an
apartment or a college party house but a small
house for our family while my husband went
back to school. We randomly saw a yard sign
and it worked out but it’d have been nice to
have had a list of landlords to consider.
• the school district should be part of these
conversations as well. Many of the higher rental
areas are within boundaries of schools who are
at or very near capacity. Development is great,
but bringing the right voices to the table early in
the planning is essential.
• Change the laws that make owning a home
here trash. I imagine you can piece some ideas
together based on some previous responses.
• Maybe need to reexamine the municipal
codes to see where they could benefit older
neighborhoods i.e. trailers/boats/campers filling
up driveways . Then enforce relevant codes that
already exist.
• I am a Realtor and there is definitely a major
shortage of mid range houses from $125k-$250k
• “Any investment in housing stock should only be
in the older parts of the city. Central city, south
side, east side etc...
• If investment by the city is to occur west of
41 it should only be for large apartments to
balance the housing stock. As it exists they
are consistently placed in the same areas and
creating blight”
• I don’t think grants are easily attainable.
• We already have plenty of apartments! Stability
comes with good housing stock that will attract
stable homeowners.
• Oshkosh is already known for being very
unfriendly to real estate investors. Rental rates
are low and home prices are low. Oshkosh
should be focused on encouraging home
improvements and neighborhood investments
rather than on looking for ways to make it more
difficult, costly and time consuming to make
improvements to homes.
• We should work on restoring our old housing/
downtown to create an “old time” look that will
bring in tourists.
• I think the city would benefit to incentivize new
single family building on city urban lots (to help
with density and newer housing supply) through
lenient set backs, infrastructure improvements
(buried power lines/landscaping) and tax
incentives for owner-build or developer build
projects for single family housing.
• I wish all the lakefront property would NOT
become residential. Keep some OPEN green
spaces for ALL to enjoy. Also, do we really
need more apartments? How about multifamily
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
147
homes that support multi generational living. I’d
love to have my parents live in their own home
near us or even in the same building as us, but
I do not want to move to a rental apartment
complex. I already own my home. I want to
continue to own my home and have backyard/
garden space but be able to have them here
also. I have not seen any of this kind of housing
in Oshkosh, or frankly America. My relatives live
this way in Germany and it’s AMAZING. I don’t
want to share all my living space, I want them to
feel they have their own space, but I want them
close enough that I can support their needs as
they age. Just a thought!
• I’m concerned about encroaching rental
properties in my neighborhood.
• Thank you for this thorough assessment and
commitment to improving our community!
• National management is excessively charging
when residents move out. Residents are left
pay outrageous fees for normal ware and tear.
Someone needs to investigate this!!!
• Two teachers are unable to find an apt/ house
that is newer, in our desired area 5, and within
our budget. Unhappy in our current rental
condo that is very overpriced- been looking for
two years and every time a new construction
starts it seems to be for seniors. There is no
new non college housing, or housing that isn’t
“luxury” and out of our budget OR low income.
We will be moving out of the city due to other
surrounding areas having more options for this
• The city must become landlords
• We need more one bedroom apartments for
single people under $500.
• Homeowners should not be responsible for road
or sidewalk construction or repairs. I shouldn’t
be worrying about declaring bankruptcy
because the road in front of my house will cost
10K to be fixed. If I’m being charged for the
repair is it now a private road? Can I set up
barriers and charge people to use it? No, then
it should be a city wide bill not a homeowners
responsibility.
• “Keep fixing up when possible and avoid
complete demolition and reconstruction.
• Not everything needs to go West into Algoma,
keep people near local businesses downtown
and in existing neighborhoods. Prevent
suburban westward flight”
• We need help for the homeless population and
transitional housing.
• Taxes are to high, your taxing average
people into poverty. Also a huge range in
property taxes in similar homes in the same
neighborhood. Homes need to be assessed
more often
• Encourage land lords to make timely repair to
their rentals. Hold renters responsible for any all
damage they cause to rental properties. Make it
easier to remove problem renters.
• The rental properties in this town are
horrendous! Way too many slum lords who
don’t give a damn about taking proper care of
their rentals, and yet they charge an arm and a
leg for those rental properties!
• We need outdated and gross apartments
to be fixed up - we do not need brand new
apartments going for $1200+ a month for a one
bedroom. We just need safe, quality spaces to
live that already exist. We do not have a housing
shortage, but a shortage of affordable, safe, and
decent housing.
• Lots to fix let’s change status quo roll back the
ordinance to protect property owners rights
within reason the city is too critical and rigid
• There are some bad areas as far as outside
yards and home upkeep but the solution,I don’t
know. Is it that they can’t afford it or they don’t
care. Is it the property owners issue or is it
that renters don’t care since it is not “theirs”.
Handouts financed by taxpayers isn’t always the
answers and spending money for “consultants”
isn’t always the answers. Our city housing
employees should have expertise on these
issues, spend less on walking trails and more on
Helping update the older parts of town and now
spending a fortune,on the south main brewery
district and the boondoggle arena.
• Basically I’d like to see greater liberalization of
land use regulations to encourage more multi-
unit dwellings and to encourage denser land
use.
148
Do you allow of offer your units as short-term rentals (Airbnb)?
FULL LANDLORD SURVEY RESULTS
Responses: 249
Where do you have rentals located (Check all the apply)?
Are the majority of your units single-family homes?
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
149
How long does it take to find a new renter for a unit?
What units are the hardest to fill
150
What is the approximate monthly rent ranges for apartment units (3 of more unit structures)?
What is the approximate monthly rent range for duplex, townhome, or single-family units?
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
151
What utilities or amenities are most commonly included in the rent?
Mark any of the following that are an additional cost above the listed rent.
Do you accept Section 8 Vouchers?
152
What percentage of you renters would you estimate are college students?
What percentage of your rents would you estimate are over the age of 55?
# of Units # Vacant Rate
Single Family Home………………………………399 26 6.5%
Studio in multi-family building……………………56 3 5.3%
1-bedroom in multi-family building.……………...637 10 1.6%
2-bedroom in multi-family building.…………...…1355 44 3.2%
3-bedroom in multi-family building……………….300 9 3.0%
4 or more bedrooms in multi-family building...….64 1 1.6%
TOTAL:2811 93 3.3%
2019 ACS Rental Vacancy Rate:5.6%
Reported Units and Vacancy, July 2021
OSHKOSH HOUSING STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
153
Number Address Notes Type/Location Status Parcel ID Zoned Acreage Acq. Price Acq. Year Funds Used Sale Price Potential Re-Use
347 7th Ave W Scattered Vacant 90902760000 TR-10 0.1033 24,600.00$ 2013 Scattered Sites $12,000 Slum & Blight Removal; Residential
0 7th Ave W Parking lot next to Slades/E of 117 7th Ave South Shore Vacant 90300650000 UMU 0.1033 1,550,000.00$ 2005 CIP TIF 20 $8,700
0 8th Ave E South Shore Vacant 90301550100 RMU 2.5933 -$ Redevelopment of Pioneer Dr and 43 E. 7th Ave
0 8th Ave W Formerly 137 W 8th Ave South Shore Vacant 90301010000 CMU 0.1033 26,500.00$ 2005 CDBG $8,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
0 8th Ave W Formerly 123 W 8th Ave South Shore Vacant 90301040000 TR-10 0.1 45,000.00$ 2012 CDBG $8,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
0 8th Ave W Formerly 107 W 8th Ave South Shore Vacant 90301070000 TR-10 0.1033 45,000.00$ 2012 CDBG $8,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
113 8th Ave W South Shore Vacant 90301060000 TR-10 0.1033 31,750.00$ 2013 CIP TIF 20 $8,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
117 8th Ave W South Shore Vacant 90301050000 TR-10 0.1033 60,000.00$ 2017 CDBG $8,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
0 8th Ave W Formerly 30 W 8th Ave South Shore Vacant 90300780100 UMU-PD 1.281 -$
611 9th Ave W Scattered Vacant 91303360000 SR-9 0.1894 24,440.00$ 2019 CDBG $13,200 Single Family Residential
857 9th Ave W Scattered Vacant 91302510000 SR-9 21,000.00$ 2019 CDBG $12,600 Single Family Residential
0 9th Ave W Formerly 136 W 9th Ave South Shore Vacant 90301100000 TR-10 0.1033 33,000.00$ 2012 CDBG $6,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
0 9th Ave W Formerly 126 W 9th Ave South Shore Vacant 90301120000 TR-10 0.1033 25,500.00$ 2004 CDBG $6,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
112 9th Ave W South Shore Vacant 90301150000 TR-10 0.0971 49,667.20$ 2019 CDBG $6,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
132 9th Ave W South Shore Vacant 90301110000 TR-10 0.1033 35,000.00$ 2017 CDBG $6,700 Acquired for larger redevelopment of block
600 Block Jefferson St 8 lots combined into Redevelopment site Scattered Vacant 0402280000/0402310000/0402320000/0402330000/0402340000/0402360000/0402370000TR-10-PD 12 Lots 360,000.00$ 2006-2013 CDBG/ Scattered Sites $5,700 each Multi Family Residential; Near East
0 Custer Ave W Formerly 120 W. Custer Ave.Scattered Vacant 91501010100 SR-9 0.1527 -$ 2013 $13,700
821 Division St Scattered Vacant 91005380000 TR-10-PD 0.1452 19,000.00$ 2017 CDBG $14,700 Slum & Blight Removal
421 E Lincoln St Scattered Vacant 91004030100 TR-10-PD 0.091318 1,300.00$ 2011 CDBG $8,400 Slum & Blight Removal; Residential
0 Franklin St Formerly 630 Franklin Scattered Vacant 90703510000 TR-10-PD 0.1354 11,000.00$ 2012 Great Neighborhoods $11,800
0 High Ave Formerly 405 High Ave Marion/Pearl Redev Vacant 90102840000 UMU-UTO 0.1584 170,174.00$ 2005
0 High Ave Marion/Pearl Redev Vacant 90102850000 UMU-UTO 0.1302 99,900.00$
1122 High Ave Scattered Vacant 90507280000 TR-10 0.1669 DONATED 2019 CDBG $18,200 Single Family Residential
0 Jackson St Marion/Pearl Redev Vacant 90102860000 UMU-PD-UTO 0.2771 300,000.00$ 2007
Jackson St Between Marion Rd & Pearl Ave Marion/Pearl Redev NO SALE 2 Lots -$ TIF 13 Future Right-of-Way
2332 Jefferson St Scattered Vacant 91517140000 SR-9 0.157187 12,432.00$ 2014 CDBG $17,700 Slum & Blight Removal; Residential
706 Main Former Lueck's South Shore Vacant 90301380000 RMU-RFO 0.6636 911,574.03$ 2020 TIF 20 Redevelopment of Pioneer Dr and 43 E. 7th Ave
710 Main Former Rec Lanes South Shore Vacant 90301420000 RMU-RFO 0.1469 199,000.00$ 2016 CDBG Redevelopment of Pioneer Dr and 43 E. 7th Ave
1004 Main S Former Serwas facility Scattered vacant 90302600000 HI 0.3344 118,667.57$ 2020 Scattered Sites $33,000 est.Future Redevelopment
1125 Main St N Hold for Gateway Project South Shore NO SALE 91007580000 UMU 0.1143 26,160.00$ 2014 CDBG Slum & Blight Removal; Gateway Improvements
716 Main St S South Shore Vacant 90301490000 RMU-RFO 0.0459 60,000.00$ 2016 CDBG Redevelopment of Pioneer Dr and 43 E. 7th Ave
0 Marion Rd Marion/Pearl Redev Vacant 90102260200 RMU-PD-RFO 0.5794 1.00$ 2016
0 Marion Rd Marion/Pearl Redev Vacant 90102270000 RMU-PD-RFO 0.0574 1.00$ 2016
300 Merritt Ave Corner of Merritt & Madison Scattered Vacant 90401520000 TR-10-PD 0.12245 28,200.00$ 2016 CDBG $10,000 Slum & Blight Removal; Residential/Near East
653 Mt. Vernon Scattered Vacant 90402580000 TR-10-PD 0.0909 18,000.00$ 2019 CDBG $6,500 Single Family Residential
668 N Main Former Liquid Supply Scattered Vacant 90402300000 UMU 0.0826 43,063.13$ 2020 CDBG Future Redevelopment
1210 Oregon St Residential/Commerical Scattered Vacant 90303280000 CMU 0.1148 50,000.00$ 2014 Scattered Site- CIP $12,000 Slum & Blight Removal; Residential/Commercial
1202 Oshkosh Ave Intersection Reconstruction Osh/Sawyer Intersect NO SALE 91600300000 UMU 0.1596 175,000.00$ 2018 CIP Public Right-of-Way
0 Oshkosh Ave Formerly 1208 Oshkosh Ave Osh/Sawyer Intersect NO SALE 91600310000 UMU 0.26822 49,000.00$ 2021 CIP Public Right-of-Way
0 Oshkosh Ave Formerly 1212 Oshkosh Ave Osh/Sawyer Intersect NO SALE 91600320000 UMU 0.091 40,000.00$ 2021 CIP Public Right-of-Way
0 Oshkosh Ave
Formerly 1218 Oshkosh Ave
Oshkosh Ave/Sawyer St Intersection
Reconstruction Osh/Sawyer Intersect NO SALE 91600340000 UMU 0.1802 150,000.00$ 2021 CIP Public Right-of-Way
0 Oshkosh Ave Formerly 1222 Oshkosh Ave Osh/Sawyer Intersect NO SALE 91600350000 UMU 0.1802 150,000.00$ 2021 CIP Public Right-of-Way
422 Otter Ave Scattered Vacant 90200430000 TR-10 0.1331 21,101.57$ 2020 CDBG Single Family Residential
512 Otter Ave Scattered Vacant 90202100000 TR-10 0.124 2021 Scattered $10,600
0 Pioneer Drive Former Railroad Tracks South Shore Vacant 90301330000 RMU 1.9007 225,000.00$ 2006 CIP Redevelopment of Pioneer Dr and 43 E. 7th Ave
Pioneer Drive Former Decades Property South Shore Vacant
90301330200/
90306110000 RMU-RFO 0.01 1,500,000.00$ 2019 Railroad Acq. Redevelopment of Pioneer Dr and 43 E. 7th Ave
1415 Rainbow Dr Intersect Reconstruct /Includes bait shop Osh/Sawyer Intersect NO SALE 91600300100 UMU 0.0458 50,000.00$ 2018 CIP Public Right-of-Way
1524 Rush Scattered Vacant 91609410000 SR-5 0.25 DONATED 2017 CDBG $29,300 Single Family Residential
413 Scott Ave Scattered Vacant 90500730000 TR-10-PD 0.07379 10,329.91$ 2020 CDBG $9,800 Single Family Residential
1014 Wisconsin Scattered Vacant 90501650000 TR-10-PDUTO 0.1102 36,282.34$ 2020 CDBG $13,300 Single Family Residential
Last Updated 01/11/22
LakeWinnebago
MillersBay
Bay
AsylumSouth
North
Bay
Asylum
F o x
ButteLake
desMorts
Sa
C
rrekeeyw
RoePoint
BraysPoint
DoemelPoint
LibbyPoint
SunsetPoint
Shangri-LaPoint
R i v e r
!"#$41
!"#$41
·_45
·_45
·$44
·$91
·$21
·YTNUOC"K
·YTNUOC"N
·YTNUOC"Y
·YTNUOC"E
·YTNUOC"I
·YTNUOC"S
·YTNUOC"R
·YTNUOC"T
W 20TH AVW 20TH AV N MAIN STN MAIN STOREGON STOREGON STCLAIRVILLE RDCLAIRVILLE RDSAND PIT RDSAND PIT RDBOWEN STBOWEN STJACKSON STJACKSON STFISK AVFISK AV AL
GOMA BLV
DAL
GOMA BL
V
DSSWWAASSHHBBUURRNNSSTT9TH ST RD9TH ST RD
N CLAY RDN CLAY RDHIGH AV
HIGH AV
WITZEL AVWITZEL AV
OHIO STOHIO STOMRO RDOMRO RD
W 9TH AVW 9TH AV
KNAPP STKNAPP STVINLAND STVINLAND STRYF RDRYF RD
PPOOBBEERREEZZNNYYRRDDW SNELL RDW SNELL RD
HAZEL STHAZEL STW RIPPLE AVW RIPPLE AV S MAI
N STS MAIN STS OAKWOOD RDS OAKWOOD RDLLEEOONNAARRDD PPTT RRDD
JAMES RDJAMES RDWWSSOOUUTTHHPP AA RR KK AA VVN OAKWOOD RDN OAKWOOD RDWAUPUN RDWAUPUN RDHARRISON STHARRISON STSSHHEERRMMAANNRRDDLEACH RDLEACH RDCEAPE AVCEAPE AVWISCONSIN STWISCONSIN STGGRREEEENNVVAALLLLEEYYRRDDF
F
OON
N
DDDDUULLAACCRRDDE MURDOCK AVE MURDOCK AV
N SAWYER STN SAWYER STWW LLIINN WWOOOODD AAVV
HUGHES STHUGHES STW WAUKAU AVW WAUKAU AV
COUNTRY CLUB RDCOUNTRY CLUB RDE
L
M
WO
O
D A
V
EL
M
W
O
O
D A
VWWAALLTTEERRSSTT MOSER STMOSER STWW FFEERRNNAAUU AAVV
E SNELL RDE SNELL RD
W MURDOCK AVW MURDOCK AV
WASHINGTON AVWASHINGTON AV
OO SS HH KK OO SS HHAAVV
LLAAKKEEBBUUTTTTEE
DD
E
E
S
S
MMOORRTTSSDDRRMMEENNOOMMIINN EE EE DD RR
E NEW YORK AVE NEW YORK AV
PP LL UU MM MM EERRSS PPTT RRDD
W IRVING AVW IRVING AV
OOLLDDKKNNAAPPPPRRDDS SAWYER STS SAWYER STSUNNYVIEW RDSUNNYVIEW RD
W 24TH AVW 24TH AV
KKNNAAPPPPSSTT
W RIPPLE AVW RIPPLE AV
FISK AVFISK AV
W FERNAU AVW FERNAU AV
W RIPPLE AVW RIPPLE AV KNAPP STKNAPP STW WAUKAU AVW WAUKAU AV
W RIPPLE AVW RIPPLE AV
JAMES RDJAMES RDFISK AVFISK AV
W WAUKAU AVW WAUKAU AV
H:\jeffn\Arc Map Projects\Redevelopment Authority\RDA-Owned Properties Letter.mxd User: jeffn
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 1/5/2022
1 in = 6,000 ft1 in = 1.14 mi¯C i t y o f O sh k o shCity of O s h k o s hRedevelopment A u t h o ri ty O w n e d P ro p e r t i esRedevelopment Aut ho r i t y O wn e d P r o pe rt ie s
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
HIGH AV
JACKSON STALGOMA BLVD
WISCONSIN STPEARL AV
MARIONRDDAWESSTCAMPUS PL
DIVISION STCHURCH AV
RIVERWAY DRH:\jeffn\Arc Map Projects\Redevelopment Authority\RDA Property Map Specific areas.mxd User: jeffn
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 9/3/2021
1 in = 300 ft1 in = 0.06 mi¯City of OshkoshRedevelopment Authority-Owned PropertiesMarion Rd./Pearl Ave. Redevelopment Area
The City of Oshkosh creates and maintains GIS maps and data for its own use. They may show the approximate relative location ofproperty, boundaries and other feature from a variety of sources. These map(s)/datasets are provided for information purposes only andmay not be sufficient or appropriate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They are provided “AS-IS” without warranties of any kindand the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for use or misuse.
405
222435
HIGH AV
HIGH AV
JACKSON STJACKSON STPEARL AV
PEARL AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 42 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 High Ave0 High Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
405
222435
HIGH AV
HIGH AV
JACKSON STJACKSON STPEARL AV
PEARL AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 High Ave0 High Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
405
222338JACKSON STJACKSON STHIGH AV
HIGH AV
PEARL AV
PEARL AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 Jackson Street0 Jackson Street
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
MARION RD
MARION RD
J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 33 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 Marion Rd0 Marion Rd
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
SUBJECTSITE
Parcel Base Map
1201141512321240
1218
1222 120812121218 1 2 0 2
12391211121712211301
1309 1528152415181222 1216 12041300
1325 1319 1313 1309 12051203
130012421319
152714011401A
13181322 15131323 1313
142914191320 13001306
12271225 1219 12171215 12071205 1431
14
2
3
14151226A12261236
1233142
5
1450
OSHKOSH AV
N SAWYER STFOX STR
AIN
B
O
W
D
R
GRAHAM AV
V
E
T
ERANSTRDOVE STH:\jeffn\Arc Map Projects\Redevelopment Authority\RDA Property Map Specific areas.mxd User: jeffn
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 9/3/2021
1 in = 150 ft1 in = 0.03 mi¯City of OshkoshRedevelopment Authority-Owned PropertiesOshkosh Ave./N. Sawyer St. Intersection
The City of Oshkosh creates and maintains GIS maps and data for its own use. They may show the approximate relative location ofproperty, boundaries and other feature from a variety of sources. These map(s)/datasets are provided for information purposes only andmay not be sufficient or appropriate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They are provided “AS-IS” without warranties of any kindand the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for use or misuse.
1201
1222 1208
12121218 1 2 0 2
1211 12051203
1215 1205 1
4
3
1
1
4
2
3
14151226A1226
1
4
2
5
Abe Rochlin Park
R
ain
b
o
w P
ark B
o
at L
a
u
n
c
h
Rainbow Memorial ParkOSHKOSH AVOSHKOSH AV
N SAWYER STN SAWYER STRRAAII
NNBBOOWWDDRRVETERANS TRVETERANS TRJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 Oshkosh Ave0 Oshkosh Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
1201
1232 1222 1208
12121218 1 2 0 2
12111217 12051203
1215 1205 1
4
3
1
1
4
2
3
14151226A1226
1
4
2
5
Abe Rochlin Park
R
ain
b
o
w
P
a
rk
B
o
at L
a
u
n
c
h
OSHKOSH AVOSHKOSH AV
N SAWYER STN SAWYER STRRAAII
NNBBOOWWDDRRJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 Oshkosh Ave0 Oshkosh Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
1201
1232 1222 1208
12121218 1 2 0 2
12111217 12051203
1225 1215 1205 1
4
3
1
1
4
2
3
14151226A12261236
1
4
2
5
Abe Rochlin ParkOSHKOSH AVOSHKOSH AV
N SAWYER STN SAWYER STR
AIN
B
O
W
D
R
R
AIN
B
O
W
D
R
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 Oshkosh Ave0 Oshkosh Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
1201
12321240 1222 1208
12121218 1 2 0 2
121112171221 12051203
1225 1215 1205 1
4
3
1
1
4
2
3
1226A12261236
1
4
2
5
OSHKOSH AVOSHKOSH AV
N SAWYER STN SAWYER STJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 Oshkosh Ave0 Oshkosh Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
OREGON STS MAIN STW 9TH AV
CEAPE AV
W SOUTH PARK AV N MAIN STJACKSON STS MAIN ST BRIDGEPIONEERDRNEBRASKA STW 8TH AV
W 7TH AV
W 6TH AV
W 12TH AV
W 11TH AV
W 10TH AV E10TH AV
OTTER AV
BROAD STE 8TH AV
E 9TH AV COURT STE 11TH AV STATE STE 7TH AVCOMMERCE STE SOUTH PARK AV
W 5TH AV BROAD STH:\jeffn\Arc Map Projects\Redevelopment Authority\RDA Property Map Specific areas.mxd User: jeffn
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 9/3/2021
1 in = 400 ft1 in = 0.08 mi¯City of OshkoshRedevelopment Authority-Owned PropertiesSouth Shore Area
The City of Oshkosh creates and maintains GIS maps and data for its own use. They may show the approximate relative location ofproperty, boundaries and other feature from a variety of sources. These map(s)/datasets are provided for information purposes only andmay not be sufficient or appropriate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They are provided “AS-IS” without warranties of any kindand the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for use or misuse.
106
123 113 107
122 110 609117
131 127 117 105127A131A
133
613
617605132
W 7TH AVW 7TH AV
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV NEBRASKA STNEBRASKA STJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 W 7th Ave0 W 7th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
900920E 8TH AVE 8TH AV
E 9TH AVE 9TH AV
PIONEER DR
PIONEER DR
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 81 ft1 in = 0.02 mi¯0 E 8th Ave0 E 8th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
137
126136
123
132
131 127 117
116122140716714708706800800A802806806A808127A131A
137 119
132
W 9TH AVW 9TH AVOREGON STOREGON STW 8TH AVW 8TH AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 W 8th Ave0 W 8th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
137
126136
123 113 107
132 112
131 127 117 105
100116122140106A
127A131A
137 119
106
132
W 9TH AVW 9TH AV
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 W 8th Ave0 W 8th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
0 MAP
PS
W 7TH AVE
100.0
106
50 ff
51
rs
M
0
0
W 8TH AVE
W 9TH AVE
ggg
a ag (n57
4 LV MXMW
z P]
R -5 6R917
N
1 in = 0,02 m!
1 in = 100 ft
The City of Oshkosh creates and maintains GIS maps and data for its own use. They may show the
approximate relative location of property, boundaries and other feature from a variety of sources. Printing Date: 61312013Thesemap(s)/datasets are provided for information purposes only and may not be sufficient or 0-fHKO-f H
appropilate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They are provided 'AS-IS" without Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI ON THE WATEn
warranties ofany kind and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for use or misuse.
0GIMM_8ase MapsNPIanning Base Map,mxd User: dadenob
Subject Site
OREGON STOREGON STW 9TH AVW 9TH AV
S MAIN STS MAIN STW 8TH AVW 8TH AV
W 7TH AVW 7TH AV
W 6TH AVW 6TH AV
W 10TH AVW 10TH AVNEBRASKA STNEBRASKA STE 8TH AVE 8TH AV
E 9TH AVE 9TH AV
E 7TH AVE 7TH AV
E 10TH AVE 10TH AV
W 5TH AVW 5TH AV
PPIIOONNEEEERRDDRR
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Planning Base Map.mxd User: andreaf
117 W. 8th Ave117 W. 8th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 9/25/2017
1 in = 200 ft1 in = 0.04 mi¯
137
715
707
136 132 128 124 118 114 1 0 6 100
126
131 127 123 117 113 107 105
100112116122132136106A
123A127A131A
106
Subject Site
W 9TH AVW 9TH AV
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Planning Base Map.mxd User: andreaf
117 W. 8th Ave117 W. 8th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 9/25/2017
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯
35 61518
820 822 824 826
828 830 832 834 607A32
W 7TH AVW 7TH AV
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 W 8th Ave0 W 8th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
I
i 7Thl __. ___________________ . _ i-
I
I51I
i
143 19 13c 117
i
I
r
i iI
i i
i to
i
i
i ca
i I RDA OWNED
Il PARCELS
i 0
03 i
i Iii
I
i;
i
i
i
N i
i'CO i II
i I
i
i 8- - 50C8TNA1[E-
1 "iii'=''i i'=_"Oft-
10- 802 804 8800L800- 1 17- 1131A008m
rdilliiiigiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii
1A128128810
i1
Z 806
0 8
i--\
V e
808 II
tr1• im 60 862 864 86r'
i- y s$ 870 872 87.40A Otiii 199 116 0 IIM
40
i Fr I
I
i
I
I
1
137E Sout Shore
136 W 9TH AVE 7
i 7] 4 '
Boundaries
ri i
i
i
i
i
i
1
O N d
6 _____,coLng
t
o 1
w
rno
cc,
ct
40
oi, uLi
i 13 4,
i
DISCLAIMER 136 W 9th Avenue 1;11;1
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor Possible Acquisition
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one. Of HKO1HThisdrawingisacompilationofrecords,data
and information located in various city,county South Shore Redevelopment Area oNn+ew ren
and state offices and other sources affecting City of Oshkoshtheareashownanditistobeusedforreference
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re-
sponsible
City
Department of
for any inaccuracies herein contained.
COIIIIIDepa
tmentOpmerlt
If discrepencies are found,please contact the
City of Oshkosh. Scale: 111 = 100'
4/17/12
Created by- D
137
126136
123 113 107
132 112
131 127 117
116122140800A806A 106A
127A131A
137 119
106
132
W 9TH AVW 9TH AV
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 W 9th Ave0 W 9th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
126
123 113 107
132 112
131 127 117 105
100116122106A
127A131A
119
106
W 9TH AVW 9TH AV
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV
NEBRASKA STNEBRASKA STJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯112 W 9th Ave112 W 9th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
Subject Site
OREGON STOREGON STW 9TH AVW 9TH AV
S MAIN STS MAIN STW 8TH AVW 8TH AV
W 7TH AVW 7TH AV
W 6TH AVW 6TH AV
W 11TH AVW 11TH AV
W 10TH AVW 10TH AVNEBRASKA STNEBRASKA STE 8TH AVE 8TH AV
E 9TH AVE 9TH AV
E 10TH AVE 10TH AV
E 11TH AVE 11TH AV
PPIIOONNEEEERRDDRR
E 7TH AVE 7TH AV
W 5TH AVW 5TH AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Planning Base Map.mxd User: andreaf
132 W. 9th Ave132 W. 9th Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 9/25/2017
1 in = 200 ft1 in = 0.04 mi¯
25
37
14
15
30
25 9
1261517600
7107069001725
18
605
607603A 603
601501
716
901905905A
907A 90717A
901A
605A
824 826
832 834
844 846
852 854
901B607A 85143
W 9TH AVW 9TH AV S MAIN STS MAIN STE 8TH AVE 8TH AV
E 9TH AVE 9TH AV
PPIIOONNEEEERRDDRR
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV
W 7TH AVW 7TH AV
W 6TH AVW 6TH AV
E 7TH AVE 7TH AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base _Maps\Planning Base Map.m xd U se r: andre af
710 S. Main St.710 S. Main St.
The City of Oshkosh creates and m aintains GIS m aps and data for its own use .They m ay show the approxim ate re lative location of property, boundaries and otherfeature from a varie ty of source s. The se m ap(s)/datasets are provide d forinform ation purposes only and m ay not be sufficient or appropriate for legal,enginee ring, or surveying purposes. They are provided “AS-IS” without warranties
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date : 11/7/2016
1 in = 100 ft1 in = 0.02 m i¯
W 9TH AVW 9TH AV
S MAIN STS MAIN STS MAIN ST BRIDGES MAIN ST BRIDGEPPIIOONNEEEERRDDRR
EE 1100TTHH AAVV
E 8TH AVE 8TH AV
E 9TH AVE 9TH AV
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV
W 7TH AVW 7TH AV
W 6TH AVW 6TH AV
W 10TH AVW 10TH AV
E 7TH AVE 7TH AV
Riverside Park
J:\GIS\GIS_ Base_ Map s\Plan n in g Base Map .m xd User: an dreaf
716 S. Main St.716 S. Main St.
The City o f Osh ko sh creates and m aintains GIS m ap s an d data fo r its o wn use.They m ay sho w the ap p ro xim ate relative lo catio n o f p ro p erty, bo undaries and o therfeature fro m a variety o f so urces. These m ap (s)/datasets are p ro vided fo rin fo rm atio n p urp o ses o nly and m ay no t be sufficient o r ap p ro p riate fo r legal,engineering, o r surveying p urp o ses. They are p ro vided “AS-IS” with o ut warranties
Prep ared by: City o f Oshko sh, WI
Prin tin g Date: 11/7/2016
1 in = 181 ft
1 in = 0.03 m i¯
46 52 5692361560090092036
605
607603
601
901905907929913915S MAIN STS MAIN STEE 1100TTHH AAVV
PPIIOONNEEEERRDDRR
E 8TH AVE 8TH AV
E 9TH AVE 9TH AV
E 7TH AVE 7TH AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 124 ft1 in = 0.02 mi¯Pioneer DrivePioneer Drive
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
BOWEN STN MAIN STW 9TH AV
HIGHAV
A
L
G
O
M
A
B
L
V
D
JACKSON STWITZEL AV
OHIOSTWISCONSIN STKNAPP STN SAWYER STHARRISONSTW LINWOOD AV
E
L
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
W MURDOCK AV
W S O U T H P A R K A V OREGON STS MAIN STW NEW YORK AV
CEAPE AVVINLAND STOSHKOSH AV
E IRVING AVW IRVING AV
S SAWYER STE MURDOCK AV
E NEW YORK AV
WASHINGTON AV
CONGRESS AV
E LINWOOD AV
ELMWOOD AVW 5TH AV
W 6TH AV
W 10TH AV
W 8TH AV
W 11TH AV
TAFT AV
PEARLAV GRAND STDOVE STJOSSLYN STBROAD STMASON STW BENT AV
IOWA STNWESTFIELDSTW 14TH AVHAWK STVIOLA AV
SCOTT AV
W SMITH AV
N LARK STOSBORN AV
VINE AV
BAY STSHERIDAN STBOYD STADAMS AV
MICHIGAN STIDAHO STW 4TH AV DIVISION STOTTER AV
PIERCE AV
CONGRESSAVBEECH STCEDAR STASHLAND STHOBBS AV
W 7TH AV
SOUTHLAND AV
MILL STMINERVA STLIBERTY STSPRUCE STWALNUT STCHERRY STMERRITT AVEASTMAN STRUSH AV POWERS STWAUGOO AVCRANE STNEBRASKA STMONROE STWISCONSIN STONTARIO STCOOLIDGE AV
PIONEER DRRUGBY STW LINCOLN AVHAMILTON STCHURCHAVWESTERN STS EAGLE STREICHOW STPLYMOUTH STMINNESOTA STN
CA
MP
B
E
LL
R
DPUNHOQUASTB
A
U
MANSTE PARKWAY AV
JEFFERSON STCOLUMBIA AV
GEORGIA STW3RDAV
E NEVADA AVPARKSIDEDR
MARIONRD
S WESTFIELD STALLEN AV
TYLER AV MT VERNON STS LARK STLIBBEY AV
DEM P S E Y TR
W 12TH AV
IDA AV
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
VETE
R
A
N
S
T
R
LILAC STBISMARCK AV WRIGHT STFULTON AV
COURT STE LINCOLN AV
GUENTHER STN EAGLE STARMORY PLFOX STFOSTERST BURDICK STSTATE STCENTRAL STCLOVER STMITCHELL STSCHOOL AV
AMHERST AV
FRANKLIN STW MELVIN AV
E 10 TH AVARTHUR AV KENTUCKY STOSCEOLA STBALDWIN AV
PROSPECT AV
N MEADOW STKANSAS STMORELANDSTDALE AV
E CUSTER AV
W 2ND AV
MARQUETTE AV
FAUST AV
WOODLAND AV
LAMAR AV
LOCUST STE GRUENWALD AV
N KO E L L E R S T
E 8TH AV
E TENNESSEE AV
JOHN AV
BACON AV
E 9TH AV
WINDSORSTKNAPP STBUCHANAN AV
OXFORD AV
HUDSON AV
E 14TH AV
NATIONAL AV
HOLL ISTER AV
SAWTELL CTCAMPUS PL MERRILL STPYLE AV
UNION AV
MARKET STSTANLEY AV
TITAN CTROCKW ELL AVKENSINGTON AV
FILLMORE AV
W NEVADA AV
MAPLE AV
E SMITH AV
W NEW YORK AV
MORGAN AV
CONCORDIA AV DOCTORSCT
RIVERM
IL
L
R
D
VILAS AV
BROWN STWEISBROD STE 7TH AVDIVISION STE TENNESSEE AV
CENTRAL STJEFFERSON STN EAGLE STJEFFERSON STBALDWIN AVMT VERNON STN EAGLE STE CUSTER AV
BUCHANAN AV
W3RD AV MT VERNON STW 4TH AV
W O O DLAN D AVMONROE STONTARIO STW 12TH AVS WESTFIELD STKENTUCKY STW 7TH AV
W 11TH AV MT VERNON STWALNUT STBISMARCK AV CENTRAL STCENTRAL STGOSS CTH:\jeffn\Arc Map Projects\Redevelopment Authority\RDA Property Map Specific areas.mxd User: jeffn
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 1/5/2022
1 in = 1,761 ft1 in = 0.33 mi¯City of OshkoshRedevelopment Authority-Owned PropertiesMarion Rd./Pearl Ave. Redevelopment Area
The City of Oshkosh creates and maintains GIS maps and data for its own use. They may show the approximate relative location ofproperty, boundaries and other feature from a variety of sources. These map(s)/datasets are provided for information purposes only andmay not be sufficient or appropriate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They are provided “AS-IS” without warranties of anykind and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for use or misuse.
234523372332232723562352234823442336233323262339234523472351235723332327231223222323230723062316232323172311230523132317JEFFERSON STJEFFERSON STC:\Users\annam\Desktop\Planning Base Map - For Windows 10.mxd User: annam
2332 Jefferson St.2332 Jefferson St.
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 12/9/2020
1 in = 60 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯
521300500
227
220 #1 531525526520515320316
408505301 307307A508514527521515310
223
214
217213
414220 #2220 #3216216A
MERRITT AVMERRITT AVMADISON STMADISON STMADISON STMADISON STC:\Users\annam\Desktop\Planning Base Map - For Windows 10.mxd User: annam
300 Block Merritt Ave.300 Block Merritt Ave.
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 12/9/2020
1 in = 60 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯
128 120
13901041141301416 14291335117 14191425135 133 127 121
1329130A
135AKENTUCKY STKENTUCKY STW CUSTER AVW CUSTER AV
J:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 W Custer Ave0 W Custer Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
82118 811805801
809802808835835A821817815829835847841841A844840834814818822826845841831827821819813802A808A80380980318ADIVISION STDIVISION STCENTRAL STCENTRAL STW LINCOLN AVW LINCOLN AV
VILAS AVVILAS AV
RANDALL PLRANDALL PLC:\Users\annam\Desktop\Planning Base Map - For Windows 10.mxd User: annam
821 Division St.821 Division St.
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 12/9/2020
1 in = 60 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯
821 Division Street
630606627621238 639639A631A637A605611619625631637641647651612616622A622619613649645650644638607611AIDA AVIDA AV
FRANKLIN STFRANKLIN STFREDERICK STFREDERICK STJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 Franklin Street0 Franklin Street
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
347
403
336
400
402
805357 351 341 339 333 327
356 352 346 340 336336A 332 326 322
359 353 343 337 333 327
356 352 346 342 330330A 326
327333339343347353357333A
347
326A
342A352A715IOWA STIOWA STW 7TH AVW 7TH AV
W 8TH AVW 8TH AV
C:\Users\annam\Desktop\Planning Base Map - For Windows 10.mxd User: annam
349 W. 7th Ave.349 W. 7th Ave.
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 12/9/2020
1 in = 60 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯
606
611635631625 609
909921556632628
906916924927604
610618
619
636 630 624 620620A 616 612 608
610A
600600A815805624807809815A
OHIO STOHIO STW 9TH AVW 9TH AV
W 10TH AVW 10TH AV
C:\Users\annam\Desktop\Planning Base Map - For Windows 10.mxd User: annam
613 W. 9th Ave.613 W. 9th Ave.
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 12/9/2020
1 in = 60 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯
857
906
904 909861
856862908913900 832840
851 847 843 837
852 846 842 836 828
908A 905903837A
W 9TH AVW 9TH AV
RUGBY STRUGBY STW 10TH AVW 10TH AV
C:\Users\annam\Desktop\Planning Base Map - For Windows 10.mxd User: annam
857 W. 9th Ave.857 W. 9th Ave.
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 12/9/2020
1 in = 60 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯
404449
405506
507 437443
408300
W 4TH AVW 4TH AVMICHIGAN STMICHIGAN STJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 75 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯0 Michigan Street0 Michigan Street
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
5
E- 15—i' . .... .....
LO
o C) Cl)
SSG
16 RJ16
50,0' $0,0' 50'U 50.0'
F50.(Y i 40.0'..... . ...
0
M
0
3
2 2
2 8 TU2,
W 12TH AVE
13
3A
ai _ 3
2; SN'
a(m
Mi
jl
50.9 . 50.0 MY 75.9
KEY 50.1r 15.0
L
W SOUTH PARK AVE
141
T
9
100.0' W.O.
pi
M
2 u
2
R M
10
M.2 A
in = 0,02 mi
1 in= 100ft
The City of Oshkosh creates and maintains GS maps and data for its own use. They may show the
approximate relative location of property, boundaries and other feature frQm a variety of sources' Printing Date: 612412014 OJHKO-fHThesemap(s)ldatasets are provided for information purposes only and may not be sufficient or
appropriate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They are provided "AS-Is' without Prepares! City of Oshkosh, WI ON THE WATER
warranties of any kind and the Cibj of Oshkosh assumes no liability for use or misuse,
10VM-30f30—MapsManning Base Map.mxd User andreas
503
224418 422
421417409
525 533
421
121118112543537
521
513 517
509
529
216210537A
540 548
502
532
524516512508
501 505 509509A 521519513
525 529 535 543 547
502 508 510 516
528522
532
532A409A409B417A
412 418 420
420A
524A
522A
532ABROAD STBROAD STOTTER AVOTTER AV
WAUGOO AV
WAUGOO AV
BROAD STBROAD STJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 5/6/2021
1 in = 83 ft1 in = 0.02 mi¯512 OTTER AVENUE512 OTTER AVENUE
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
1514
1524
1535 1525 1517
5131527 1515519 1507
4471530 1518 1512 1502
1505
15181528 1506Red Arrow Park
TAFT AVTAFT AV
N EAGLE STN EAGLE STRUSH AVRUSH AV
C:\Users\annam\Desktop\Planning Base Map - For Windows 10.mxd User: annam
1524 Rush Ave.1524 Rush Ave.
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identificationpurposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of theinformation. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 12/9/2020
1 in = 60 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯
1524 Rush Avenue
912424 422 416 907913839845853857863413
846852839845851863855838855A838A846A421
400400A
JACKSON STJACKSON STSCOTT AVSCOTT AV
WRIGHT STWRIGHT STWRIGHT STWRIGHT STJ:\GIS\GIS_Base_Maps\Base Map.mxd User: annam
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 6/14/2021
1 in = 50 ft1 in = 0.01 mi¯413 Scott Ave413 Scott Ave
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
In
in
DLAN D-AV oe
0
E-
1IIII-101 MW
E v
1
0 01 2Y T] I J I1 tJ City
of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes
only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information.
Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full
disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.W.us/GlSdisclaimer East
Hall P
GT-AV-- N
1
in = 0.03 mi A1
in = 167 ft Printing
Date: 5/15/2020 Prepared
by: City of Oshkosh, WI 4&
Oshkosh
1GIS
Maps\Planninq Base Map - For Windows 10.mxd I
User:
andreal
2022 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUNDING
Capital Improvement Projects
Scattered Sites/Blight Removal 250,000.00$
South Shore/Sawdust Redevelopment 500,000.00$
Gateway Improvements 50,000.00$
South Main Street Acquisition 250,000.00$
Grove Street Redevelopment 200,000.00$
Community Development Block Grant 200,000.00$
TOTAL 1,450,000.00$
TO: City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director
DATE: January 11, 2022
SUBJECT: Executive Director’s Report for January 19, 2022
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
South Shore Redevelopment Area
Pioneer Marina/Island Area – Mr. Art Dumke continues to work with City staff and
other possible developers to explore development options and funding scenarios. The
City Council approved the TID Project Plan on September 24, 2019. The site also
qualifies for New Market Tax Credits and was included in an Opportunity Zone.
Another pier with additional boat slips was installed in the marina in 2020.
Miles Kimball Building (Northwest corner of S. Main/9th Avenue) - The developers
have started work on the building and plan to have them open in 2022.
9th Avenue extension to CN Railroad – The 9th Avenue extension and utility
undergrounding was approved as part of the CIP for 2022.
Pioneer Drive Riverwalk – The project was awarded to Vinton Construction. The
contractor completed the stormwater outfalls this past fall and will construct the trail in
spring of 2022.
Boatworks Property – The RDA awarded an Option to Chet Wesenberg and Tim Hess
to construct multi-family units on the property and will need to go obtain an option for
the City’s property to the west. City staff are working with the developers, the DNR
and the city’s environmental consultant to work on the contamination on the site.
43 E. 7th redevelopment area- City staff are working with the T. Wall Enterprises team
including site investigation on the site. The developer proposes to start construction on
phase 1 in October of 2022.
Marion & Pearl Redevelopment Area
Merge Update – Construction is complete on the Parcel H site, the location of the Brio
Building, a mixed-use Food Coop/residential building. Construction for phase I of
Mackson Corner on Parcel J along the Fox River has started. City staff applied for a
WEDC CDI grant and were awarded $250,000 for the project.
Morgan Crossing – Phase 2 – Alexander and Bishop has proposed another multi-family
building on the vacant parcel to the east of the existing Morgan Crossing building. Due
to issues with the ATC line along the property, the site plan was modified. In addition,
building costs have increased and the developer is re-formulating the funding plan for
the project which is includes requesting TIF assistance from the City.
Sawyer Street/Oshkosh Avenue
Multi-modal Trail – WisDOT awarded the City $253,000 for extending the trail east
from Punhoqua through Rainbow Memorial Park to the Sawyer Street/Oshkosh Avenue
intersection in 2021. Construction has been completed.
Jefferson Street Redevelopment
City staff continue to promote the properties in an effort to attract private investment.