A zoning map can make room for a home, but it cannot grade a lot, extend a water line or close a construction loan. That is the useful message in a new Wisconsin workforce-housing study receiving statewide attention this month. The research includes Merrill, making it especially relevant to communities trying to add permanent homes across Lincoln, Oneida, Vilas and Forest counties.

The University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh Whitburn Center published the report on June 17, 2026. WisBusiness brought fresh attention to it on September 3. After comparing Madison, Eau Claire, Viroqua, Merrill and Montello, the study found that communities working under the same state framework can achieve very different results. Local rules matter, but so do staff capacity, financing, developer participation and cooperation among governments.

That distinction should change how the Northwoods talks about housing policy. An ordinance amendment is not a housing start, just as a funding program is not a finished neighborhood. The real opportunity is to connect legal permission, a buildable site, a financeable plan and a buyer payment before any one piece is celebrated as the solution.

What the study actually found

The report describes zoning flexibility as an enabling condition. Rules that permit a wider range of lot sizes and housing types, reduce the need for case-by-case approvals and shorten predictable reviews can lower risk. A compliant project is easier to price when the developer does not have to spend months pursuing a variance or conditional approval with an uncertain outcome.

But the researchers did not find that zoning reform works by itself. Their cross-case review points to financing, developer interest, technical assistance and state-local collaboration as complementary ingredients. Larger cities often have planning staff and more active development markets. Smaller communities may have neither, even when local leaders agree that housing is needed.

The study is best read as practical direction, not a final scorecard. It relies largely on public reports and municipal documents from 2024 and 2025, examines only five cities and notes that some projects lack final occupancy or affordability data. That limitation matters. The report identifies a pattern worth acting on, but it does not prove that copying one city’s ordinance will produce the same number or price of homes somewhere else.

What Merrill adds to the discussion

Merrill is the closest case study, yet it also shows why the findings need a careful single-family translation. The report describes Merrill’s recent work as relying on housing-authority activity, rehabilitation of older stock, workforce rental development and WHEDA support more than broad zoning reform. Those efforts are not presented here as Teneleven Development projects, and they are not evidence that Lincoln County’s owner-occupied housing gap has been solved.

What Merrill contributes is a picture of rural municipal capacity. A smaller city can use state financing and technical assistance to move work that local revenue and staff may not carry alone. At the same time, state partnerships cannot make a parcel buildable if local standards, approvals or infrastructure plans do not support the proposed homes. The two sides have to meet at a specific site.

For Northwoods communities, that suggests a manageable role for local government: establish clear rules, identify land with realistic development potential, document the approval path and organize infrastructure information that a builder and lender can use. The municipality does not have to become the homebuilder. It does need to reduce avoidable uncertainty around the work it controls.

The single-family translation

Owner-occupied single-family housing has a different delivery path than the rental projects featured in several of the report’s examples. A for-sale neighborhood depends on finished-lot cost, attainable home plans, mortgage eligibility, appraisals and a sales pace that can repay land and infrastructure financing. Each home eventually needs an individual buyer who can qualify for the complete property—not simply a developer who can finance one larger building.

Local evidence makes that distinction urgent. The 2025 Oneida County Housing Study estimates a need for as many as 1,358 additional housing units by 2030. Among survey respondents looking to buy, more than 85 percent said single-family homes for purchase were the hardest housing type to find. The study identifies subdivision and zoning revisions, comprehensive planning, property disposition, developer outreach and state or regional partnerships among its priority recommendations.

Those recommendations belong together. Smaller lots may spread a street and utility extension across more homes, but only where well, septic, sewer, drainage, snow storage and access all work. Allowing manufactured, modular or CrossMod homes as permanent single-family dwellings can expand construction options, but only when the home, foundation, appraisal and mortgage path are coordinated. Faster approval can reduce carrying cost, but it cannot correct a site budget that never matched the buyer’s price.

A better test for a Northwoods site

A useful local housing initiative should therefore begin with a short list of actual parcels. For each one, the community and development team should know who controls the land, how many lots fit after environmental and engineering constraints, which utilities are available, what public improvements are required and what those improvements cost per home. Vacant acreage without those answers is not a housing pipeline.

The next line in the worksheet is the finished-home target. What can the intended buyer reasonably pay each month after principal, interest, taxes, insurance and utilities? What sale price does that support under current lending assumptions? Subtract the home, foundation, delivery and site-work costs, and the project can see how much room remains for land, engineering, roads, utilities, financing and contingency.

If the numbers do not work, the team can identify the actual gap. Perhaps the first phase is too small to carry the infrastructure. Perhaps the road standard is more expensive than the site needs, or the land price assumes a higher-end market. Perhaps WHEDA financing, a residential tax incremental district or municipal participation in public improvements could change the result. A named gap can be evaluated; a general call for affordability cannot.

Measure homes, not intentions

Progress should be reported in development terms: buildable lots under control, engineering completed, approvals issued, infrastructure financed, homes permitted, sale prices reached and owner-occupied closings recorded. Counting plans adopted or meetings held can show effort, but it cannot tell a local employer whether a new employee will have somewhere to buy next spring.

The study’s broader lesson is encouraging because communities do have leverage. They can make their rules more predictable, bring state partners in earlier, share reliable site information and give serious developers a clear point of contact. Employers can help define the wages and household needs behind the word workforce. Developers can test a repeatable home and site plan against a price buyers and appraisers can support.

Teneleven Development’s role is to connect those pieces for durable, owner-occupied single-family housing. Zoning reform may open the door, but a home appears only when land, infrastructure, design, approvals, construction and financing pass through it together. In the Northwoods, that complete chain—not one policy change—is the work that turns housing need into keys at closing.