{{CFirstName}}, you are receiving this e-newsletter because you have shown interest in public policy issues. Contact us if you don't want to receive future issues.

Volume 8, Issue 11, Jul 28, 2025
 Eau Claire Area Chamber of Commerce, Eau Claire, Wis. 
Published the first business day of each week
Business Advocate Past Issues
Public Meetings Calendar
Chamber Events Calendar
The Chamber's Advocacy Principles
The Chamber's Business Issues Agenda
"Talking Po!nt" Podcast
How to become a Chamber investor
Contact: Scott Rogers, VP Governmental Affairs
rogers@eauclairechamber.org
Chamber Business Hours: Mon-Thu 7:30a-4:30p, Friday 8a-12n
Closed Fridays in July

In this issue:
 • City of EC Zoning update moves forward with mixed action on affordability.
    Next steps: Plan Commission on Aug 4, City Council on Aug 11-12
 • EC County Board to vote on Jon Johnson for County Administrator
 • Gov Tony Evers won't seek reelection in 2026
 • Mark your calendar

Note on article links: A subscription is required for those marked with "$"
Publications known to have article limits or other access restrictions for non-subscribers are marked with "+"

Eggs & Issues: Higher Education in the Chippewa Valley
  At this edition of Eggs & Issues, we'll hear from the leaders of the three major institutions of higher learning in the Chippewa Valley: CVTC President Sunem Beaton-Garcia, UW-Stout Chancellor Katherine Frank, and UW-Eau Claire Interim Chancellor Mike Carney. They'll each share with us the current key aspects of their organization, their unique mission in serving their students and the community, and the challenges of staying relevant into the future.
• Thursday, Aug 21, 7:00-8:30 a.m., CVTC Business Education Center
   Click here for details and to register  

Also for your calendar...
• Golf Day in Eau Claire: Wild Ridge  Country Club - Monday, Aug 4
• Business After Hours - Monday, Aug 11
• Eggs & Issues: The Economic Impact of Local Tourism - Friday, Sep 19
• Business Day in Eau Claire - Wednesday, Sep 24
• 32nd Annual Chippewa Valley Rally - Thursday, Feb 19, Madison

City of Eau Claire Zoning update moves forward
with mixed action on affordability
Next steps: Plan Commission on Aug 4, City Council on Aug 11-12 
   At its Legislative Session last Tuesday, the Eau Claire City Council acted upon a number of amendments to the proposed zoning code draft that has been in the works since 2023. However, the process is not yet over because state regulations require those new amendments that were approved to go back to the Plan Commission for a recommendation before final Council action. The Plan Commission will meet on Monday, August 4, to take up those four amendments, then the code will go back to the Council for action at its August 11-12 meetings.
   On Tuesday, the council took votes on 11 potential amendments before sending the updated code draft back to the Plan Commission. Most of those centered around their anticipated effect on housing supply & affordability, property rights, and tree preservation.
Good and bad outcomes for affordability
   There were a few wins for housing advocates and property owners. The Council approved two affordability-related amendments that had been recommended by the Plan Commission. One allows residential structures of up to four units to have a maximum front-loaded garage projection up to 15 feet, rather than the 5 feet in the code draft for 2-4 unit buildings. The former language would have increased building costs for twin homes and similar buildings. The other Plan Commission endorsed amendment changes amenity requirements for multi-family developments to eliminate what effectively would have been a requirement to have balconies on a majority of the units, which the Chippewa Valley Home Builders Association estimated would have added $150/month to rents.
   Council member Jessica Schoen, who also serves as the City Council member on the Housing Opportunities Commission and on the Waterways & Parks Commission, authored a series of four amendments that she said sought to "ensure our most affordable housing types are not impacted by additional costs while still maintaining a reasonable amount of protections for trees across the community." Council member Charlie Johnson seconded Schoen's proposals. All of them related to provisions in the draft code that would require homeowners and builders to replace or pay significant fees for high value trees over 12 inches in diameter that are removed. At $400 per inch for the required 30% replacement, in some scenarios fees could run into the thousands of dollars even for just a few affected trees.
   Two of Schoen's amendments passed easily. One, that exempts affordable housing projects with 30-year deed restrictions, passed 9-2. The other allows a simplified regulatory process when 10 or fewer high-value trees are affected (rather than the tighter 5 trees). It passed 11-0.
Single family homes and duplexes exempted from tree standards
   Schoen also proposed exempting all 1-4 unit properties from the tree standards, suggesting that during discussions of the intent of the provisions, the focus had been on larger developments and not individual homeowners or small infill housing projects. Although her amendment initially failed 5-6, the Council later passed 11-0 a different version that only exempted 1-2 unit properties. However, after passing that amendment, Council Member Andrew Werthmann proposed requiring those 1-2 unit properties to be subject to the standards if their removal of any trees were part of a project that required any kind of city permit. That amendment was narrowly defeated 5-6.
Trees take precedence over housing in tree diameter vote
   A disappointing Council vote was on Schoen's amendment to modestly increase the diameter of high-value trees subject to regulation from 12 inches to 14 inches, which lost 4-7.  
   This is the provision that is most anticipated to impact the building of new housing in the area and has the most potential to drive projects to other jurisdictions with less onerous rules. Near the end of the drafting process, the diameter was reduced to 12 inches from the original draft of 18 inches.
   In that vote and in the public comment and debate over this provision, a perceived but unsubstantiated danger of a significant and imminent degradation of the city's tree canopy seems to have taken precedence over the clear urgency to address housing affordability and supply in the community. That sentiment appears to have been driven by a very aggressive and well-organized group of "biodiversity" advocates who have dominated the public comment periods at zoning-related meetings with alarming rhetoric about climate change, dismissing supply and affordability arguments as "misinformation."
   In the vote on Schoen's amendment, Council Members voting yes were Emily Berge, Charlie Johnson, Nate Otto, and Jessica Schoen. Voting no were Emily Anderson, Aaron Brewster, Larry Mboga, Joshua Miller, Ethan Reed, Clara Serrano, and Andrew Werthmann.
See these links for more complete information on City Council amendments and votes last Tuesday:
   Full recap of the amendments and votes taken (Provided by Chippewa Valley Home Builders Association)
  Tally of the votes taken by City Council Members on July 22 (Eau Claire Area Chamber of Commerce)
Chamber, housing advocates emphasize affordability goals
   As the process neared completion, letters and communications to the Plan Commission and City Council about affordability came from the JONAH Affordable Housing Task Force, City of Eau Claire Housing Opportunities Commission, and the Housing Our Neighbors Planning Cooperative, as well as input from the Chippewa Valley Home Builders Association and the Eau Claire Area Chamber of Commerce. Each expressed appreciation for many of the zoning provisions that support the update's goals to "Produce more housing supply, diversity of choices, and affordability" such as those related to lot sizes, gentle density increases, improving development process certainties, and other improvements. However, they pointed out that some provisions should be reconsidered, "given their potential to raising housing costs," including aesthetic standards that have to be recovered in the building price or rental rates, onerous tree preservation standards, mandates for multi-family amenities, and park impact fees. These provisions could  inhibit infill development, significantly increase already-challenging construction costs, add red tape, and ultimately make it harder to increase housing supply and improve affordability.
   With last week's Council votes, several of these were improved, but the tree preservations standards remain very concerning.