EDA Agenda - 10/25/2023AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Wednesday, October 25, 2023 — 7:00 a.m.
Academy Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: President Steve Johnson, Vice President Jon Morphew, Treasurer Hali Sittig,
011ie Koropchak-White, Rick Barger and Councilmembers Lloyd Hilgart and
Tracy Hinz
Staff: Executive Director Jim Thares, Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Hayden
Stensgard
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call 7:00 a.m.
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
2. Consent Agenda
3. Public Hearing
4. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of Accepting the 2023 Housing Market Study prepared by MSA
Professional Services
B. Consideration of Authorizing a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for
Outlot A, Great River Second Addition, 14.16 acres along 7t" Street West by WSB &
Associates in the amount of $4,800
5. Other Business
A. Consideration of Economic Development Manager's Report
6. Adjournment
EDA Agenda: 10/25/2023
4A. Consideration of Accepting the 2023 Housing Market Study prepared by MSA
Professional Services
Prepared by:
Meeting Date:
❑x Regular Agenda Item
Economic Development Manager
10/25/2023
❑ Consent Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Community Development
City Administrator
Director, Community & Economic
Development Coordinator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the 2023 Housing Market Study prepared by MSA Professional Services.
PREVIOUS EDA ACTION
June 14, 2023: The EDA authorized a Professional Services Contract with MSA Professional
Services in the amount of $26,400. The contract included a single
presentation to the EDA by the consultants. The September 11, 2023, joint
EDA, Planning Commission and City Council meeting is considered to be that
single presentation by MSA -PS staff.
September 11, 2023: MSA -PS presented an overview of the market demand findings to a
joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and the EDA.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
At its June 14, 2023, regular meeting, the EDA authorized a contract with MSA Professional
Services to complete a 2023 Housing Needs and Demand Study Update. The Housing Market
Study scope of work was organized to review recent demographic trends and housing
developments since 2020 and analyze other available information related to questions
regarding demand for ownership, rental and senior markets in the City. The Study is attached to
this report as Exhibit A.
Budget Impact: The budget impact from the review and acceptance of the 2023 Housing
Market Study is estimated to cost up to $625. The EDA previously authorized the Study
proposal at a cost of $26,400. The EDA has sufficient funds available to cover the cost of
the final presentation review of the Study.
II. Staff Workload Impact: Internal City staff workload related to the final review and
acceptance of the 2023 Housing Market Study consists of communication with the
consultant and preparation of the EDA meeting report. Staff involved in the efforts
EDA Agenda: 10/25/2023
include the Community Development Director, Community & Economic Development
Coordinator, and the Economic Development Manager.
I. Comprehensive Plan Impact: The Vision adopted as part of the Monticello 2040 Vision +
Plan is to create a friendly and safe community which is inclusive and fosters a sense of
belonging. The City's adopted strategy for housing includes developing a range of housing
choices and opportunities. As residents move through their career paths and family status,
their housing needs change. As an actively developing community, Monticello seeks to
provide opportunities for a full range of "life cycle" housing options allowing people to stay
and grow with our community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommend the EDA accept the 2023 Housing Market Study Update. The Study
contains information about market demand in various housing sectors based on recent
demographic trends and in the context of current financial markets. The Study will be useful to
City policy makers in the realm of formulating housing policy, program, and development
objectives. It will also inform developers and policy makers as to the viability and format of
various housing development proposals.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. 2023 Housing Market Study Update
B. 2023 Housing Mkt Study Report No Appendices
C. 2023 Housing Mkt Study -Appendices Section
D. Professional Services Contract w/ Scope of Work— authorized 06-14-23
CITY OF M
MONTICELLO
Housing Needs &
Market Demand
Executive Summary
2023
PAMoivttace
llo
GENERAL HOUSING CONDITIONS
ABOUT THE MONTICELLO HOUSING
MARKET:
Monticello has several strengths as a community
that drive the housing market - it is well
positioned within the region with easy access to
transportation, has amenities that attract a wide
range of household types, and - especially when
compared to the larger Metro - many housing
options that are relatively more affordable.
Though Monticello has housing that is relatively
affordable when considering incomes for the
larger region, overall incomes for residents of
the City are less than in studied regional peer
communities, Wright County, and the 13 -County
Metro. However, there are differences between
income by tenure (rent vs. own). In the ownership
market, rising interest rates and home costs have
pushed the median single-family home value
above the affordability limit for households earning
80% AMI ($263,000). Many homes that would
be considered "affordable" to median -income
residents are disproportionately purchased by
households with incomes that can easily afford
them - spending much less than they could
potentially afford. Households earning less than
area median income are thus competing against
higher income earners in the market and driven
out of the ownerships market due to the high cost
and lack of availability of ownerships units that are
affordable. Units that have been built since 2020
tend to be beyond the affordability limit needed
for median income earners (less than $290,000).
Renters in Monticello tend to be lower-income
than their home -owning counterparts. Some of
these renters are would-be home buyers who
are forced to rent due to the hyper competitive
market and increased ownerships costs seen
since 2020. There are also renters who earn a high
income but would prefer to rent for to a variety
of reasons, including the amenity rich experience
that luxury units provide. In general, rents are
increasing in line with incomes - though there are
many major occupation groups with incomes that
do not support the levels of rent that exist in the
City. Available data shows vacancy in the market
remains tight. However, this does not account
for the new production of units in recent years.
Bringing new units on-line can help ease tension
and increasing costs in the market, but new units
must serve residents of all incomes, not solely low -
or high-income households.
Though the City does not act as a master
developer, housing supply that meets the needs
of local employers and employees should remain
a top consideration in zoning updates, regulation
and fees, and providing incentive to increase
specific types of housing stock, whether entry-level
or step-up.
GENERAL CONDITIONS IMPACTING THE
HOUSING MARKET:
• Average household size has remained stable
(p• 8)
• Families and home -office preferences
sustaining need for larger units (p. 8)
• Aging households are the fastest increasing
demographic since 2010 (p. 9)
• Aging households will be a significant portion
of households through 2050 (p. 12)
• Monticello residents have lower average
incomes compared to peer communities
(p. 13)
• Monticello residents have lower degrees of
educational attainment compared to the
County (p. 14)
• Common occupation groups in the City
indicate a need for affordable housing,
especially for entry-level positions (p. 16)
• Large shares of residents (48% as of 2020)
commute into metro counties daily for work.
Forty-eight percent of community survey
respondents indicated Twin Cities or a suburb
as place of employment (p. 18)
• Housing unit production has not kept pace
with new households moving to the County,
decreasing vacancy and increasing cost
(p. 19)
• Rising costs and interest rates have made the
development process more difficult (p. 97)
• Vacancy rates continue to be low in the City
and region, despite strong unit production
(p. 104/108)
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
OWNER S[ RENTAL FINDINGS
MAJOR OWNERSHIP MARKET FINDINGS: MAJOR RENTAL MARKET FINDINGS:
• Ownership units have made up 25.3% of
planned or constructed developments since
2020, well below historic building trends (p. 6)
• Though the majority of ownership housing is
single-family detached, there are also many
attached ownership units (p. 51)
• Owners make up a smaller portion of the
overall housing market than in most regional
communities. Now at 70% of housing market
as of 2021. (p. 53)
• Though affordable homes exist in the market,
residents still identified the largest negative
aspect of the market as lack of affordability,
with more than half of survey respondents
indicating that affordable housing is
becoming harder to find (p. 58)
• There are generally more affordable
ownership opportunities in the city core,
though attached ownership units are
affordable in many areas (p. 60)
• Many households are remaining in their
housing longer than the 7 -year national
average (p. 61)
• Since 2014, home costs have drastically
outpaced income growth with single-family
home value reducing affordability and
access for potential homebuyers (p. 62)
• The median single-family home value is now
greater than the median income affordability
limit (p. 62)
• The median home cost has more than
doubled since 2010 (p. 62)
• Among its peers, Monticello has the lowest -
cost entry point for a median starter home
(p. 64)
• The median starter home in the City is no
longer affordable to households earning 80%
AMI (p. 64)
• Monticello has the current highest Sales:List
price ratio among peer communities (p. 68)
• There is demand for ownership townhomes
(p. 70)
• Rental units have made up 52.3% of planned
or constructed developments since 2020, well
above historic building trends (p. 6)
• There is good geographic distribution of
rental units throughout the City (p. 28)
• Renter households have been increasing
slightly as a total percentage of City
households since 2010, currently at 30% as of
2021 (p. 31)
• Lower-income households are much more
likely to be renters (p. 31)
• Rental housing in the City is easily accessible
within the region, with good access and
amenities (p. 32)
• Rates of cost burden is much higher for renter
than owner households (p. 33)
• There are significant housing gaps at both
the top and bottom of the rental housing
market (low- and high-cost) (p. 34)
• Most renters that are housing cost burdened
pay more than 50% of their income toward
housing costs (p. 35)
• There are very few rental options in 2-4 unit
structures in the City (p. 38)
• Median rent is affordable to the median
renter, though data does not account for
new construction unit costs (p. 39)
• Monthly rental cost for a 2 -bedroom unit has
gone up 20% since 2020 (p. 40)
• New units are needed to bring the vacancy
rate back to healthy and balanced levels
(p. 41)
• 3+ bedroom units will be needed at all price
points for preference towards larger units
(p. 42)
• Fiber internet is a key rental amenity that
is attractive to households throughout the
region (p. 43)
• Housing subsidies (both local and state/
federal) will be needed to offset increasing
construction costs and ensure lower-income
households can afford rental costs (p. 47)
Executive Summary
4
NEW MARKET ACTIVITY
THIS SECTION features a concise narrative of housing development activity (proposal, approvals,
constructed units) from January 2020 to June 2023. During this period, 1,137 units were planned or
constructed across rental, ownership, and senior housing markets in Monticello which was a construction
level not seen in many years. These projects are in various stages of development with many of these
units anticipated to be completed in the time after this report. Projects are broken down by market type
below.
OWNER MARKET units planned or
constructed in this time period numbered
288 with most projects producing single-
family detached homes. Owner units
represent 25.3% of planned or constructed
development since 2020. New ownership
developments are spread along the
outskirts of City occurring on greenfield
sites.
Notable projects include the two
Townhome/Twinhome developments
that will increase the supply of affordable
ownership units in comparison to traditional
single-family detached unit. These
developments and future townhome and
condo units within Monticello are explored
in a later section.
Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
Source: City of Monticello
RENTAL MARKET units planned or
constructed in this time period reached
historic highs with 595 new units, matching
national trends in unprecedented rental
unit construction. Rental unit production
has outpaced owner market units since
2020 representing 52.3% of planned or
constructed units. All new rental units are
in multi -family apartment developments.
The Savanna Vista project, part of the
Pointes at Cedar planned community, will
contribute 200 new apartments to the City
in part of a development that will provide
a connected, amenity rich experience to
residents and community members.
City of Monticello
Projec
-
Year
TotalPermitted/
Approvedl
Rivertown
SF
Haven Ridge
Residential
MF Apts
2020
47
47
0
Detached
2021
27
27
0
1 st Addition
Deephaven
MF Apts
2022
165
165
0
Homes
Carlisle
Block 52 First
MF Apts
2024
87
0
87
SF Attached
Village 6th
Savanna
2022
73
73
0
200
Townhomes
Addition
Twin Pines
MF Apts
TBD
96
0
96
SF
595
212
383
Featherstone
2021-
5th Addition
Detached
2022
26
26
0
Homes
SF
Edmonson
2021-
Detached
54
24
30
Ridge
2023
Homes
SF
Featherstone
2022-
6th Addition
Detached
2023
21
21
0
Homes
SF
Haven Ridge
2023-
Detached
59
0
59
2nd Addition
2024
Homes
Stoney Brook
SF Attached
Village
Twinhomes
2024
28
0
28
TOTAL
288
171
117
Source: City of Monticello
Source: City of Monticello
Housing Needs and Demand
Rivertown
Residential
MF Apts
2020
47
47
0
Suites
Deephaven
MF Apts
2022
165
165
0
Apartments
Block 52 First
MF Apts
2024
87
0
87
Addition
Savanna
MF Apts
2024
200
0
200
Vista
Twin Pines
MF Apts
TBD
96
0
96
TOTAL
595
212
383
Source: City of Monticello
Housing Needs and Demand
Unit mix within these developments fall heavily
in efficiency, 1 -bedroom, Unit mix within these
developments fall heavily in efficiency, 1 -bedroom,
and 2 -bedroom units. Although unit size within
apartment projects is subject to change, it would
appear roughly only 5% of new units being created
will offer 3 -bedroom space. This is at odds with
some residents' preference towards larger unit size
that our stakeholders have encountered. Future
developments should consider reallocating additiona
3 -bedroom apartments for families to their overall unit
mix.
SENIOR HOUSING remains an important
challenge the City will need to address
as the Baby Boomer generation
continues to age. A mix of active living
homes and apartments, assisted living,
and memory care facilities will be
necessary to provide a range of options
to seniors. From January 2020 to June
2023, 3 new senior living developments
have been constructed or planned
totaling 254 units and representing 22.3%
of total planned or constructed units
during this time. All of these projects are
headed by Headwaters Developments.
Two of the projects will provide 40%
of their units at price affordable to
elderly households at 50% or below
of the Area Median Income (AMI)
the county level.
The Pointes at Cedar
Source: City of Monticello
• -
NalmjL11L
-.
• •
- - •
• • • - •
•
Willows
IL Apt, AL,
Landing
Memory
2020
92
92
0
Care
Headwaters
MF Apts
102
West Senior
(40%
2024
(41
0
102
Apartments
Affordable)
Aff)
(55+)
Headwaters
SF
60
Twinhome
Twinhomes2024
(24
12
48
Senior Living
(40%
Aff)
(55+)
Affordable)
TOTAL
j 2541
104
j 150
Source: City of Monticello
In 2020, Willows Landing opened its door and
welcomed residents in a mix of 92 independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units
within its facility.
at
Willows Landing
Source: Jaybird Senior Living
Executive Summary
R
NOTES ON UNIT DEMAND CALCULATIONS
There are multiple factors that influence demand for new housing, making accurate projections of
future demand and unit production challenging. Our approach in the following pages includes both a
low estimate and a high estimate for new households, with the expectation that the actual growth of
households and units will be somewhere between those estimates.
One important variable is the tenure type split, meaning the distribution between rental and ownership
in new unit production. The City has recently been at about 70% owner occupancy and 30% rental
occupancy, and the level of owner occupancy has dropped a few points as compared to 3 years
earlier. We would expect to see this based on the production of more rental units (including some units
that could be owner -occupied, such as townhomes). This study is not establishing what the City wants in
new unit production, but instead is an attempt to project what the market is most likely to provide. Based
on recent permit history in Monticello and a shift toward more rental housing in much of the country, we
are projecting and assuming a 50/50 split between owner and rental housing in the next few years. If the
City takes actions to incentivize new owner occupant units, and/or declines to provide incentives for new
rental units, it could influence the tenure split outcome.
The rental demand projections suggest that the market requires few or no new rental units before 2028,
at least beyond those already built and those with zoning approvals, due to the recent strong production
of units. In the low estimate for household growth the City will have more units than it needs. In the higher
estimate there is demand for a modest 147 units after all approved units are built. However, it is important
to recognize that none of the new units recently constructed are targeted to lower income residents.
Meanwhile our projections highlight the demand for units affordable to housheholds below the median
household income. There is, we believe, still unmet demand for income -qualified units even if (or because)
there are new high-end units on the market.
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
UNIT DEMAND
This study projects the need for net new housing of various types from 2020 to 2028, including units to
accommodate growth and units to restore healthy vacancy rates. Each projection is broken down by
total projection of unit need from 2020 to 2028, projected unit need subtracting out permitted units (units
constructed or under construction), and projected unit need subtracting out permitted units and units with
land use and land division approval (anticipated units). Two growth scenarios are offered - above (2.9%)
and below (1.7%) Monticello 2040 projections.
Unit need is also calculated for senior and aging households as part of this study. Due to Monticello's
amenities within the region, slightly higher rates of in -migration are projected for senior households. All
demand calculations and recommendations are found on pages 102-116 of the full study.
Executive Summary
CITY OF N
MONTICELLO
cell
2023 Housing Needs
Market Demand
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City of Monticello - Economic Development Authority
Steve Johnson, President
Jon Morphew, Vice President
Hali Sittig, Treasurer
Rick Barger
Olive (011ie) White
Tracy Hinz, Council Representative
Lloyd Hilgarf, Council Representative
Prepared by:
This document was prepared by MSA Professional
Services, Inc. with assistance from City Staff.
Project No.: 13731006 OMSA.
Page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF
Monticello
PURPOSE
This Housing Study presents an in-depth look at the
City of Monticello's housing conditions, market,
and needs. Though national discourse portrays
housing affordability as a universal crisis, we know
that every community is unique, having distinct
needs dependent upon local economic and social
conditions. This study examines these conditions
in Monticello, and proposes how housing needs
can best be met - especially in the context of a
community with pressures for growth.
CONTENT
01 INTRODUCTION
» Community Basics
» Population
» Households
» Age
» Income
» Projections Study Process
» Affordable Housing
» Housing Affordability
» Workforce Housing
Who Needs Housing?
25 RENTAL MARKET
Affordability
» Tenure
» Rental Housing Stress
Consumption
» Unit Types
» Affordability Trends
Cost
» Vacancy
» Size
Age
47 OWNERSHIP MARKET
Affordability
» Tenure
Owner Housing Stress
Consumption
Spatial Affordability
Affordability Trends
» Entry -Level Affordability
» Availability
Mortgage Status
» Unit Types
» Size
71 OTHER MARKET SECTORS
» Homelessness
Aging Populations
» Disability
7Q LOCAL IMPACTS
J » Assessment
» Improvement Value Ratio
» Available Lots/Lot Value
Zoning
» Development Fees
9UNITG DEMAND & RECOMMENDATIONS
J » Ownership Demand
» Ownership Recommendations
» Rental Demand
» Rental Recommendations
Senior Household Demand
L\l
;III
MEOW
b 140
Aodd'
op
w
ABOUT
Monticello
2
Monticello Regional Context
WATER
NSHIP
J)
SILVER
CREEK
TOWNSHIP
MAPLE LAKE
TOWNSHIP
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
BECKER CITY
I
L_
0
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
♦�' BIG LAKE
CITY
♦+ I
r NTIC LLO `••� j
CIT
MONTICELLO
TOWNSHIP
BUFFALO CITY
BUFFALO
TOWNSHIP
This study was originally commissioned by the City
of Monticello's Economic Development Authority
in May 2020. The plan was updated in 2023 to
include changes in the housing market since the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The City has
identified housing as a critical issue that needs
to be addressed in order to provide opportunity
for existing and future residents, and continue to
grow the City's economic and residential base.
City leaders have clearly identified these needs
based on feedback from various stakeholders,
as well as sustained demand that has provided
consistent proposals for both greenfield and
infill development. The purpose of this study is to
expand and revisit the City's 2020 housing study.
This will help the City better understand its housing
market and to craft targeted strategies to improve
housing options.
City of Monticello
.pA
BIG LAKE
TOWNSHIP
ELK RIVER
CITY
10
WRIGHT COUNTY i
OTSEGO CITY
0
ALBERTVILLE
CITY
SAINT ;-'• •.,j
MICHAEL ••
CITY .•,
' ROGERS CITY
H E N N E P I N
(COUNTY
i
There are two main components to all municipal
housing markets. The first component of this
market is all of the housing located in the City of
Monticello; the second component is the housing
in surrounding communities, many of those
homes occupied by people who work or shop
in Monticello but who chose to live elsewhere.
The housing physically located in Monticello is
the easiest to measure and analyze, and is also
the market portion that the City has the most
control over. Housing outside of Monticello is
more difficult to quantify and qualify, but it is
nevertheless important to a holistic understanding
of the market. This report attempts to document
conditions and trends in the overall market,
including insight in two key areas:
• How much demand exists for what types of
housing in the City
• General strategies to support housing needs
and development in the community
Housing Needs and Demand
STUDY PROCESS
This study uses a variety of methods and data to better understand the housing market. Objective,
measurable data were collected from the City, the Multiple Listing Service (real estate listings and sales),
real estate aggregators, Wright County, the State of Minnesota, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City is at times compared to its regional peer
communities, to a wider context (county, metro) in a variety of ways, and also compared to itself in the
form of time -series data that reveal trends. This study also incorporates a series of interviews with people
familiar with the housing market. A community survey of area residents was conducted in 2020, and those
results are carried forward in this update.
PROJECT OVERSIGHT
The study was initiated by the City of Monticello
Economic Development Authority. A working
group of staff in Economic and Community
Development regularly provided insight, including
review of data and material that comprise this
final report. These staff members met with MSA's
project team throughout the project to provide
direction to the planning process.
INTERVIEWS
In 2020, The planning team met with and
interviewed a variety of residents with knowledge
and insight into the local housing market,
including those who know it best: users of the
market themselves. These interviews included
realtors, lenders, developers, landlords, employers,
and employees. Feedback collected through
interviews often naturally gravitated toward similar
topics and knowledge, indicating a strong shared
understanding of how the local housing market
inherently functions. Upon updating this study in
2023, the interviewees from 2020 were contacted
once again and feedback was gathered on
changes to the housing market in Monticello
over the past three years. This feedback is used
throughout the report.
NEW ANALYSIS
A few additional areas of study were incorporated
into the 2023 report update. These include: a
summary of construction activity in the City since
2020; a comparison of Monticello's development
fees and its regional peers; a closer look at condo
and townhome development demand; and
updating the unit demand calculations to reflect
the impact of constructed and planned units since
the last report's publication. Many tables and
charts throughout the report were also updated
with the most up to date data available.
DATA NOTES
All American Community Survey (ACS) data
in this report utilizes 5 -Year Estimates from the
most recent US Census Bureau data release,
which is the 2017-2021 data vintage. The U.S.
Department of Housing & Urban Development
(HUD) releases custom tabulations of ACS data
annually, known as the HUD Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, that
better portrays housing statistics and need. The
CHAS dataset is also used throughout this report
where appropriate, though due to the custom
tabulations releases are slower than typical for
normal US Census data products. CHAS data
vintage utilized in this report is 2015-2019. CHAS
data is used to provide additional insight in certain
study components where newer data sources do
not provide necessary level of detail.
About Monticello
4
COMMUNITY BASICS
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
MONTICELLO is a community in Wright County,
MN, located along the Mississippi River directly
adjacent to Big Lake and Sherburne County. The
larger Monticello region, though not part of the
Metropolitan Council, is considered by HUD to
be within the larger 13 -county Twin Cities Metro
Region. Monticello is about 27 miles from St. Cloud,
26 miles from Maple Grove, and 50 miles from St.
Paul.
With the largest population of all adjoining
municipalities, Monticello is known for its natural
landscapes, including access to parks and trails
systems along the Mississippi River.
City of Monticello
The City is notably located directly on Interstate 94,
providing direct access to the Twin Cities Metro,
but especially convenient access to the northwest
suburbs of Minneapolis, many of which are within
a 30 -minute drive of Monticello's downtown.
Housing Needs and Demand
POPULATION
POPULATION GROWTH has been steady across the
region throughout the past decade. Monticello
saw a net increase of 2,005 residents from 2010 to
2021 per American Community Survey estimates.
This represents a total percentage growth of 16.4%,
the third highest growth percentage among peer
communities. The closest community in growth
percentage is the City of St. Michael, which grew
at a similar the same rate (18%) as Monticello in the
same timeframe.
Increasing rates of household and housing unit
growth throughout the region predict steady
population growth at a healthy rate. Historical rates
of growth are not necessarily predictors of future
growth. Changing preferences, regional economic
conditions, and other factors contribute to past and
future housing choices for residents of the Metro.
Unit demand has been increasing, and continued
growth will follow - which is anticipated at 2%
annually in Monticello 2040.
io,v
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
ti°y° ti°yy ti°yam ti°y� ti°y�
—Monticello - Buffalo
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2010-2021
POPULATION
GROWTH RATES
Municipality
2010 - 2021
Population
Growth lFhange
nnual
ercent
Monticello
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2010-2021
Becker ---Big Lake ---St. Michael
S
6
NEW MARKET ACTIVITY
THIS SECTION features a concise narrative of housing development activity (proposal, approvals,
constructed units) from January 2020 to June 2023. During this period, 1,137 units were planned or
constructed across rental, ownership, and senior housing markets in Monticello which was a construction
level not seen in many years. These projects are in various stages of development with many of these
units anticipated to be completed in the time after this report. Projects are broken down by market type
below.
OWNER MARKET units planned or
constructed in this time period numbered
288 with most projects producing single-
family detached homes. Owner units
represent 25.3% of planned or constructed
development since 2020. New ownership
developments are spread along the
outskirts of City occurring on greenfield sites.
Notable projects include the two
Townhome/Twinhome developments
that will increase the supply of affordable
ownership units in comparison to traditional
single-family detached unit. These
developments and future townhome and
condo units within Monticello are explored
in a later section.
Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
Source: City of Monticello
RENTAL MARKET units planned or constructe
units, matching national trends in
unprecedented rental unit construction.
Rental unit production has outpaced
owner market units since 2020 representing
52.3% of planned or constructed units.
All new rental units are in multi -family
apartment developments. The Savanna
Vista project, part of the Pointes at Cedar
planned community, will contribute
200 new apartments to the City in part
of a development that will provide a
connected, amenity rich experience to
residents and community members.
Unit mix within these developments fall
heavily in efficiency, 1 -bedroom, Unit mix
City of Monticello
Project -
T4mnkntlicipated
Project Name Type MANInticipated
Rivertown
Haven Ridge
Single -Family
27
2021
1 st Addition
Detached Homes
Suites
Carlisle Village
Single -Family
Deephaven
Multi -Family Apts
6th Addition
Attached
73
2022
Townhomes
Block 52 First
Multi -Family Apts
Stoney Brook
Single -Family
Addition
Village
Attached
28
2024
200
Twinhomes
Twin Pines
Multi -Family Apts
Featherstone
Single -Family
26
TBD
5th Addition
Detached Homes
Edmonson
Single -Family
54
TBD
Ridge
Detached Homes
Featherstone
Single -Family
21
TBD
6th Addition
Detached Homes
Haven Ridge
Single Family
59
TBD
2nd Addition
Detached Homes
Source: City of Monticello
d in this time iDeriod reached historic highs with
595 new
Project Name Type MANInticipated
Rivertown
Residential
Multi -Family Apts
47
2020
Suites
Deephaven
Multi -Family Apts
165
2022
Apartments
Block 52 First
Multi -Family Apts
87
2024
Addition
Savanna Vista
Multi -Family Apts
200
2024
Twin Pines
Multi -Family Apts
96
TBD
Source: City of Monticello
Housing Needs and Demand
within these developments fall heavily in efficiency,
1 -bedroom, and 2 -bedroom units. Although unit size
within apartment projects is subject to change, it
would appear roughly only 5% of new units being
created will offer 3 -bedroom space. This is at odds
with some residents' preference towards larger unit
size that our stakeholders have encountered. Future
developments should consider reallocating additional
3 -bedroom apartments for families to their overall unit
mix.
SENIOR HOUSING remains an important
challenge the City will need to address as
the Baby Boomer generation continues
to age. A mix of active living homes and
apartments, assisted living, and memory
care facilities will be necessary to provide
a range of options to seniors. From January
2020 to June 2023, 3 new senior living
developments have been constructed or
planned totaling 254 units and representing
22.3% of total planned or constructed units
during this time. All of these projects are
headed by Headwaters Developments.
Two of the projects will provide 40% of
their units at price affordable to elderly
households at 50% or below of the Area
Median Income (AMI) at the county level.
The Pointes at Cedar
Source: City of Monticello
-
7Landii
.-
ll 0=1 rd
Independent
s
Living Apt,
92
2020
ng
Assisted Living,
Memory Care
Headwaters
West Senior
Multi -Family Apts
102 (41
2024
Apartments
(40% Affordable)
Aff)
(55+)
Headwaters
Single -Family
Twinhome
Twinhomes (400
60 (24
2024
Senior Living
Affordable)
Aff)
(55+)
Source: City of Monticello
In 2020, Willows Landing opened its door and
welcomed residents in a mix of 92 independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units
within its facility.
Willows Landing
Source: Jaybird Senior Living
About Monticello
8
HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLD
GROWTH RATES
Municipality
Becker
2010-20
- ..t4hange
368
nnual
- -
2.13%
St. Michael
1,110
1.82%
Big Lake
625
1.63%
Monticello
797
1.47%
Buffalo
705
1.09%
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2010-2021
HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
7,000
HOUSEHOLD GROWTH within the City grew at an
annual rate of nearly 1.5% since 2010, mirroring
consistent increases in population growth.
Counter to the longer term national trend of
shrinking average household size, causing the
number of households to grow faster than
population, Monticello has seen relative stability
in household growth and size since 2010. This
is a noteworthy trend as we consider how
housing demand is changing in Monticello
since this often manifests in demand for family -
sized housing units in both rental and ownership
markets driven by slightly larger family sizes
since 2010. Owner -occupied household size has
remained steady at 2.8 persons per household
in Monticello between 2010 to 2021. Renter
household size fluctuated over the same time;
it was 2.0 in 2010, increased to a high of 2.5 in
2016, and fell back to 2.2 by 2021. This, along
with work from home preferences, likely points
to consistent demand for family -sized housing
in both the ownership market and the renter
market. Across all tenures, the household size is
2.62 people per household according to ACS
estimates.
6,000 �'-----
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
tiQ) tiQ) ti�y� ti�y� tiQ) tiQy' ti�y� tidy^ ti�y�
—Monticello ---Buffalo ---Becker ---Big Lake ---St. Michael
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2010-2021
City of Monticello
Housing Needs and Demand
AGE COHORTS
AGE TRENDS can help predict current and future
needs of the community. As populations continue
to age, or add members to their households,
needs change as well. Since 2010, the City has
seen the largest percentage increase amongst
persons approaching and exceeding retirement
age. Age cohorts above 50 are driving much
of the population change, with approximately
6% annual growth in the 50-64 and 65-79 age
categories. These persons and households have
likely aged into this category over the decade,
which is consistent with general trends of aging in
the County, State, and Nation as baby -boomers
reach retirement. The age cohort under 10 years
old fell between 2016 and 2020 while rebounding
slightly between 2020 and 2021. However the size
of this age cohort in 2021 was still less than what
it was in 2010. The young -adult to middle -age
cohorts remained relatively stable in comparison
over the past decade.
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
MONTICELLO AGE COHORT
POPULATION CHANGE
Age Cohorti
Annu
Percent
Change
Ig
0 - 9 Years
2,128
2,009
-0.52%
10 - 19 Years
2,079
2,219
0.59%
20 - 34 Years
2,813
2,949
0.43%
35 - 49 Years
2,911
3,058
0.45%
50 - 64 Years
1,235
2,592
6.97%
65 - 79 Years
624
1,046
4.81%
80 and Over
355
362
0.19%
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2010-2021
500
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
-0-9Years X10-19 Years X20-34 Years X35-49 Years -50-64 Years X65-79 Years-80and Over
10
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
MONTICELLO POPULATION GROWTH
SCENARIO
Monticello
Population
14r2035
Projections 202
2025
030
204
Monticello 2040
source: Monuceno Zu4u man
PROJECTING Monticello's population growth into
the future is somewhat uncertain - and due to
its location and amenities is partially dependent
upon the availability and development of housing
units. For a community of this size, large multi -unit
developments or new subdivision development
could be absorbed into the market on an annual
basis, though would impact long-term projections.
As new development occurs, and new amenities
are added, demand will likely continue to increase
with overall desirability of location and access.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
The community's current comprehensive plan
projects a 2% growth rate annually, with the plan
offering development availability and appropriate
densities with potential to draw regional
households into the local housing market. Ranges
displayed show the impact of growth scenarios
at 2% annually, consistent with Monticello 2040
growth projections.
0
,10 ,10 .10 .10 ,10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 ,10 O'L O'L Off' O'L O'L O'L O'L O'L O'� Ong On, O'� O'� Ong Ong Ong Ong On, OA
ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
—Monticello — •Monticello204O
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2010-2021 and Monticello 2040 Plan
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
11
HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
PROJECTING Monticello's future households is
tied to both future population projections as
well as anticipated persons per household
as demographics change and age. Across
the nation, reductions in household sizes are
expected to continue through at least 2040,
though Monticello has been relatively stable in its
household size over the past 10 years.
MONTICELLO HOUSEHOLD
GROWTH SCENARIO
This recent trend is potentially due to the local
combination of young adults staying at home
longer, as well as in -migration of young -family
households with a preference for smaller -town
living within the Metro for various reasons.
Projection scenarios for the Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan anticipate reducing
household size into the future, with larger
household than population gains - again largely
dependent upon the appetite for development
and continued expansion of both housing
opportunity as well as local amenities.
Source: Monticello 2040 Plan
HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti M1 M1 M1 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
—Monticello —-Monticello204O
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2010-2021 and Monticello 2040 Plan
About Monticello
12
AGE COHORT PROJECTIONS
AS POPULATIONS AGE, their housing needs begin to
change. While a family of four might be best suited
to a three- or four-bedroom home, once children
move out of the home they have the effect of
overconsuming in the market - using more housing
than they need. As householders continue to age
they may prefer to downsize, making upkeep and
care more accommodating to their preferred
lifestyle. Similarly, younger households (both single -
person and two -person) have needs for smaller
units prior to family creation, often seeking smaller
homes and apartments before needing larger
homes once they begin to have children.
Looking at projected population growth rates to
2050, the fastest growing populations are those age
65 and over - by a significant margin. There is a
distinct need for housing tailored to this age group,
whether age-specific housing or policies that assist
aging in place in their own homes. The remaining
growth in the market is projected largely to be
driven by family -forming households and children
aged 0-9.
AGE COHORT PROJECTION
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
AGE COHORT
RATES
•.- Cohort
0 - 9 Years
2020
Estimate*Increase
2,292
Projected
Percent
12.2%
-
2050
2,573
10 - 19 Years
1,876
-3.7%
1,806
20 - 34 Years
2,757
11.2%
3,066
35 - 49 Years
2,598
17.5%
3,053
50 - 64 Years
2,274
-26.5%
1,672
65 - 79 Years
1,094
55.7%
1,703
80 and Over
601
252.6%
2,120
*Tied to projections in Wright County, not directly to 2018 estimates.
Source: Minnesota State Demographics Center
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
—0 - 9 Years 10 - 19 Years X20 - 34 Years X35 - 49 Years 50 - 64 Years X65 - 79 Years X80 and Over
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
INCOME TRENDS
INCOME AND EARNINGS are central to housing
affordability. The more income that a
household earns, more housing falls within their
affordability threshold (in this report capped
at 30% of total income toward housing
cost). While incomes are mobile (households
can move place to place), housing units
are stationary. In practice, this means that
households will often commute, choosing
to live wherever they find the acceptable
balance among convenience, quality, and
affordability.
Among regional peer communities, Monticello
has the lowest median and mean incomes -
meaning that households who live in the City
earn less on average than those who live in
other communities, regardless of their place
of employment. Unlike the County, larger
percentages of Monticello's population fall
into lower-income categories, and less of
the City's population falls into high-income
categories. Part of this is likely due to retail
jobs and younger householders, largely living
in apartments in the community, as well as
generally lower housing costs in the region.
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
Median Household Income
13
CITY VARIANCE FROM
COUNTY INCOME DISTRIBUTION
$200,000 or More
$150,000 to $199,999
$100,000 to $149,999
. $75,000 to $99,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$35,000 to $49,999
■ $25,000 to $34,999
$15,000 to $24,999
' $10,000 to $14,999
Less than $10,000 ■
-4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% ON
10
Lower % than County Higher % than County
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Mean Household Income
■ Monticello ■ Buffalo i Becker ■ Big Lake ■ St. Michael ■ Wright County
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
14
EMPLOYMENT INDICATORS
CITY VARIANCE FROM
COUNTY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Bachelor's or Higher
Some College or Associate's 0
Graduated High School
Less than High School Diploma
-10.0% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%
Lower % than County Higher % than County
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
90%
Graduated High
School
J
INCOME is dependent on many factors, including
resident educational attainment and the overall
health of the economy.
Among City residents, educational attainment is
generally lesser than across the entire County.
For residents 25 and over, the City has a larger
share of residents than Wright County whose
educational attainment is capped below a
Bachelors Degree or equivalent. This is consistent
with generally lower incomes, and reflective of
generally lower costs of the housing market.
Even considering educational attainment and
increased job volatility, unemployment for the
County remained at healthy rates pre-COVID. For
those in the labor force and seeking employment,
there is seemingly enough opportunity for residents
to secure employment, whether in the City or in
other accessible communities.
39%
Some College or
Associate's Degree
19%
Vg��Bachelor's Degree
or Higher
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
LOCAL EMPLOYMENT
INCOME is dependent upon accessible
employment opportunities, and Monticello offers
a variety of employers in different sectors - most
with a range of positions offering varying levels of
compensation and experience. Monticello also
benefits from access to Interstate 94 and proximity
to both the Twin Cities Metro and St. Cloud, which
provide more than 200,000 job opportunities
for residents within a reasonable commute. This
also means that the City is within a reasonable
commute for thousands of residents, and has large
potential to continue to capture shares of regional
growth from both local economic development
initiatives as well as for commuting households.
Major local employers (table on right) represent
nearly 3,800 positions available in the community.
Employment in the City acts as a regional draw,
resulting in daytime population growth from
outlying communities that evenly offsets daytime
population loss (balanced commuting patterns).
These in -commuters largely reside in other, more
rural portions of the County and metro - there is
not significant in -commuting from suburbs within
the 7 -county area.
MAJOR EMPLOYERS, 2020
Source: City of Monticello Community Development Department (2018)
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
About Monticello
15
Xcel Energy
680
Monticello Schools
678
CentraCare
535
Cargill
425
UMC
210
Walmart
209
WSI
135
Target
109
Bondhus
103
Home Depot
102
Dahlheimer Beverage
96
Genereux-Westland
67
Suburban Manufacturing
65
Twin Cities Die Cast
62
Camping World
59
Cub Foods
58
Aroplax
52
Production Stamping
50
Karlsburger Foods
49
Source: City of Monticello Community Development Department (2018)
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
About Monticello
15
16
OCCUPATIONAL AFFORDABILITY
WAGE RANGES of employee incomes (both
between different occupations and within career
paths) have a direct impact on the amount of
money they can afford to spend on housing in the
City of Monticello. Using the American Community
Survey of the US Census Bureau to identify
common occupations in the City and associated
hybrid -wage data from the US Bureau of Labor
Statistics, general income ranges for positions can
be translated into housing "affordability limits" for
both rental and ownership markets.
Affordability limits represent the amount that could
be paid monthly for all housing costs - including
taxes, utilities, insurance, etc. - without paying more
than 30% of total income toward housing.
For many of Monticello's most common occupation
groups, affordability limits indicate modest monthly
housing costs are most appropriate to ensure
enough residual income for other necessary
expenses. Though the numbers below represent
single -person households, tightening housing
markets and increased cost of ownership still
impact and limit many households that may wish
to purchase within Monticello's ownership market.
Source: 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS offers data for Minneapolis and St. Cloud Metro areas - the numbers above represent an average of both Metro regions (though wages are comparable between
the two). Entry -Level Wage is considered to be the 10th Percentile of reported Wages. Mid -Career is considered to be the Median (50th Percentile) of reported wages. Number of workers Age 16 and Older
per 2014-2018 ACS Estimates. Number of workers is reflective of 2018 ACS 5 -Year Estimates.
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
Mid-
ntry
Mid-
Entry Level
--
.-
Major Monticell
Ln evel
Career
[e el
Career
Ownership
Ownership
of
.Occupation C1
age
Wagel
ent Limit
Rent Limit
Limit
Limit
Workers
Office & Administrative
240
$6,3
$41,005
$659
$1,025
$88,502
$137,777
1,007
Support - All
Sales & Related
Occupations - All
$22,140
$31,810
$554
$795
$74,390
$106,882
765
Production
Occupations - All
$26,370
$38,825
$659
$971
$88,603
$130,452
659
Transportation &
Material Moving - P
$ 23,445
$36,210
$586
$905
$78,775
$121,666
649
Management
Occupations - All
$55,760
$102,995
$1,394
$2,575
$187,354
$346,063
618
Food Prep & Serving
$21,420
$25,210
$536
$630
$71,971
$84,706
- All
Healthcare
Practitioners & Related
$42,105
$74,885
$1,053
$1,87
$141,473
$251,614
381
- All
Business and Financial
$41,795
$66,300
$1,045
$1,658
$140,431
$222,768
238
Operations -AII
Educational Instruction
$27,740
$52,495
$694
$1,312
$93,206
$176,383
233
& Library - All
Source: 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS offers data for Minneapolis and St. Cloud Metro areas - the numbers above represent an average of both Metro regions (though wages are comparable between
the two). Entry -Level Wage is considered to be the 10th Percentile of reported Wages. Mid -Career is considered to be the Median (50th Percentile) of reported wages. Number of workers Age 16 and Older
per 2014-2018 ACS Estimates. Number of workers is reflective of 2018 ACS 5 -Year Estimates.
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
COMMUTING TRENDS
EMPLOYMENT LOCATION for residents who live in
the City of Monticello varies, with a large share
(48%) commuting into metro counties daily for
work. Notably, a significant share of residents
who commute into the metro are traveling well
into it during their daily commute, bypassing
other employment centers that exist in both first -
and second -ring suburbs. The most common
place of employment for residents besides
the City of Monticello itself is Minneapolis, with
over 450 commuters daily by the most recently
available data.
Other common destinations include Plymouth,
Maple Grove, Rogers, St. Paul, and Eden Prairie.
This is consistent with the 2020 community survey
responses, in which 48% of all respondents
indicated that their primary place of employment
was either "Twin Cities", or directly named a
first- or second -ring suburb of the Twin Cities
in a comment. As issues with housing access
and affordability continue in the larger region
and transit access is increased, coupled with
individual preference some households have for
smaller communities, this share is likely to remain
a strong portion of the housing market within the
City.
Though preliminary, impacts of COVID were
mentioned in the community survey and are
worth considering in future growth. Several
respondents indicated working from home in
addition to other COVID-influenced factors in
their housing and commuting, and as work -
from -home accommodations become more
prevalent, this could begin to impact the local
market as households with a preference for
smaller -town living no longer find it necessary to
remain in the City for their employment. It is likely
this will have less of an impact on Monticello than
surrounding communities (as key transportation
corridors already eased access to the Twin
Cities), though there is still potential for impact
and this dynamic should be tracked in the
coming years.
MONTICELLO RESIDENT
TOP PLACES OF WORK, 2020
Source: US Census OnTheMap 2020
Data most recent vintage.
About Monticello
17
Monticello
1,303
Minneapolis
457
St. Cloud
305
Plymouth
279
Buffalo(City)
269
Maple Grove
267
Rogers
221
St. Paul
207
Albertville
182
Elk River
176
Eden Prairie
147
St. Michael
144
Brooklyn Park
138
Bloomington
117
Minnetonka
108
Coon Rapids
107
Ostego
107
Golden Valley
94
Big Lake
83
Chanhassen
77
St. Louis Park
77
Anoka
66
Edina
64
Source: US Census OnTheMap 2020
Data most recent vintage.
About Monticello
17
18
COMMUTING TRENDS
COUNTY OF EMPLOYMENT
■ Hennepin ■ Wright ■ Other Metro County ■ Other Non -Metro
Source: US Census OnTheMap 2020
Data most recent vintage.
COUNTY OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MONTICELLO RESIDENTS
40%
33%
30%
20%
10% -
6% 5%
1%
0 /o
oma
Source: US Census OnTheMap 2020
Data most recent vintage.
City of Monticello
COMMUTING will continue to remain a factor for
future housing decisions and growth. As scenarios
in the comprehensive plan update focus on
development potential, availability of units based
on future land use decisions and development
potential will directly impact the commuter -
share that Monticello captures out of the Twin
Cities market. While 52% of current residents
work in places outside of the 7 -county metro,
an increasingly large share commute into metro
counties on a daily basis.
For example, 48% of Monticello residents work
within the 7 -county metro, while regional
communities display shares of 48% for Buffalo, 53%
for Big Lake, and 38% for Becker. Key differences
include community size, access to amenities,
and ease of transportation - which may position
Monticello to continue to see housing market
demand pressures from potential out -commuters.
33%
6%
5%
1% ■ 1%
�y
Housing Needs and Demand
REGIONAL GROWTH
WRIGHT COUNTY
PRODUCTION & GROWTH
P01111dEM
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Households Added 167
81
201 622 681 678 996 855 1,193
Housing Units 126
Added
287
259 319 756 529 581 772 1,264
Annual Gap -31
+206
+58 -303 +75 -149 -415 -83 +71
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2013-2021
A BALANCED HOUSING MARKET requires new unit
production to keep pace with new households
moving into the market. This is discussed in more
thorough detail within the following chapters, but
at a most basic level, housing unit production must
match increases in demand (in -migration and
new household formation) in order to continue
to provide a balanced housing market for all
residents and would -be -residents of the City.
This includes unit production at a variety of price
points that serve the income needs for households
currently working in the City, as well as higher -
priced housing for choice commuters and users
that have a greater degree of mobility, or choices,
within the housing market. Though housing unit
production has been at record levels in recent
years within the County, households were added
at a greater rate, indicating a shrinking vacancy
rate and suggesting more competition for housing
units. This is a common dynamic in housing markets
since the Great Recession.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
■ Households Added . Housing Units Added
F
19
20
REGIONAL GROWTH
TIGHTENING housing markets within the County
can be seen more readily when the annual
addition of both housing units and households
are viewed cumulatively. While a healthy supply
gap remained through 2015, data indicates an
increase in housing demand from household
growth in the County, which occurred at a rate
higher than that of housing unit construction. With
the gap growing tremendously in the last 3 years.
WRIGHT COUNTY
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION & GROWTH
Tighter housing markets impact the market in
various ways - most notably through decreasing
the amount of vacancy in both ownership and
rental markets. Decreasing vacancy shifts market
balance toward sellers and landlords in both
sectors, and often result in increased competition
for units, increased prices, and can lead to
decreased stability for individual households
whose incomes may be capped at levels that
cannot sustain increasing housing costs.
§ 1=�.'4
2015 2016 201 a6@1
8 2019 2020
Households Added
248 449 1,071 1,752
2,430 3,426 4,281
5,4/4
Housing Units
Added
136
423 682 1,001 1,757
2,286 2,867 3,639
4,903
Cumulative Gap
-31
+175 +266 -70
-144 -559 -642
-571
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2013-2021
WRIGHT COUNTY GROWTH
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2013 2014 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
City of Monticello
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Households Added -Housing Units Added
Housing Needs and Demand
EMPLOYEE HOUSING is found both inside and outside the City. Per the U.S. Census, 4,000-5,000 workers live
outside Monticello and commute in for work, slightly a greater amount commute out of the City for work,
and 1,000-2,000 persons both live and work in Monticello.
INFLOW/OUTFLOW OF PRIMARY JOBS, 2020 TOP EMPLOYEE
PLACES OF RESIDENCE, 2020
"1- t
-
5,457 5,956
mug
4 �
J-1
Source: US Census OnTheMap 2020
Ten municipalities other than the City of Monticello in the table on
right represent 1,719 employees whose primary job is in Monticello -
26% of all employees that commute into the City daily for work.
21
source: u) census un i nemap tutu
Monticello
1,303
Big Lake
443
Buffalo (City)
241
St. Cloud
208
St. Michael
165
Becker
162
Ostego
158
Elk River
132
Clearwater
74
Albertville
69
Maple Grove
67
source: u) census un i nemap tutu
AFFORDABLE HOUSING is housing that serves the
residents currently living in a community or wanting
to move to a community, especially residents with
no income up through residents making 80% of the
area median income (less than 100% AMI).
However, these numbers are calculated by
HUD using family incomes for the Minneapolis -
St. Paul Metro. If calculated locally using a
similar methodology, the income categories for
households already living in Monticello would be
much lower, as indicated in the table below.
In Monticello, the area median income (as
defined by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development and applied by the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency) is $86,444 for
a family of 4. This means that the 80% income limit
is $69,155 for a family of 4.
LOCAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME CATEGORIES
FUNDING for newly constructed affordable housing
often comes through subsidy that offsets costs of
construction and/or operation, primarily through
federal tax credits awarded by the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency. This allows rents to
be set at an amount that is considered to be
manageable for lower-income households, while
also ensuring they have residual income to afford
childcare, transportation, healthcare, and all other
amenities necessary for personal and family health
and stability. Many housing subsidy programs set
income limits to qualify households, typically a
percentage of the area median income, adjusted
by household size. Other forms of affordable
housing can include:
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Housing Operated by Non -Profits
Vouchers and Other Federal Programs
Housing supported through TIF
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
NM-
Extremely
Low
Income
$18,153
$20,747
$23,340
$25,933
$28,001
$30,083
$32,157
$34,232
$86,444
(30% AMI)
Very Low
Income
$30,255
$34,578
$38,900
$43,222
$46,680
$50,138
$53,595
$57,053
Monticello
(100%
AMI)
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
$48,409
$55,324
$62,240
$69,155
$74,688
$80,220
$85,752
$91,285
(80% AMI)
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
EXAMPLE MONTHLY COSTS:
2 Adults
1 Child
Annual
Income
_ $52,500
30%
housing
limit =
$1,313
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY describes the relationship
between housing cost and household income.
Affordability is measured at the household level,
in terms of the percentage of gross income that
goes toward housing costs. The widely accepted
standard for "affordable" is 30% of total household
income going to housing. For renters, housing
costs include contract rent, utilities, and renters
insurance. Homeowner costs include principal,
interest, taxes, insurance, and utilities.
This measure is relative, meaning that higher
income households have the choice of many
homes within their budget, while lower income
households generally have fewer options that
would be affordable within the housing market
2 Adults
1 Child
Annual
Income
_ $82,500
30%
housing
limit =
$2,063
Monthly
$4,375
Income
($1,421)
Transportation
($1,421)
Food
($683)
Childcare
($701)
Medical
($647)
MWwome left
for Housing &
$9
Other Expenses
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY describes the relationship
between housing cost and household income.
Affordability is measured at the household level,
in terms of the percentage of gross income that
goes toward housing costs. The widely accepted
standard for "affordable" is 30% of total household
income going to housing. For renters, housing
costs include contract rent, utilities, and renters
insurance. Homeowner costs include principal,
interest, taxes, insurance, and utilities.
This measure is relative, meaning that higher
income households have the choice of many
homes within their budget, while lower income
households generally have fewer options that
would be affordable within the housing market
2 Adults
1 Child
Annual
Income
_ $82,500
30%
housing
limit =
$2,063
RESIDUAL INCOME describes the remaining income
a household can pay toward other expenses or
save after housing and other costs of living are
accounted for. As most other costs are fixed, most
households pay the same for them regardless of
how much they earn (e.g. food, childcare, etc.).
For example, a Monticello household of 2 adults
and 1 child earning $82,500 could comfortably
pay $2,063 in housing costs a month and still
have nearly $1,400 left over. The same household
earning $52,500 annually (which equates to one
full time job at $25/hour) could afford $1,313
in monthly housing cost, but after other fixed
expenses would not have enough money to pay
30% or less, likely sacrificing expenses elsewhere to
oav for housina.
23
Monthly
Income
$6,861
Transportation
($1,421)
Food
($683)
Childcare
($701)
Medical
($647)
ncome left
for Housing &
Other Expenses
$3,409
RESIDUAL INCOME describes the remaining income
a household can pay toward other expenses or
save after housing and other costs of living are
accounted for. As most other costs are fixed, most
households pay the same for them regardless of
how much they earn (e.g. food, childcare, etc.).
For example, a Monticello household of 2 adults
and 1 child earning $82,500 could comfortably
pay $2,063 in housing costs a month and still
have nearly $1,400 left over. The same household
earning $52,500 annually (which equates to one
full time job at $25/hour) could afford $1,313
in monthly housing cost, but after other fixed
expenses would not have enough money to pay
30% or less, likely sacrificing expenses elsewhere to
oav for housina.
23
SIM:
11IIrA[t
WORKFORCE HOUSING is housing that is affordable
to the workforce in a community regardless of
income. Because incomes within the workforce
vary (pg. 14), a range of housing options is
needed to fit different needs. Workforce housing
means ensuring a supply of affordable housing
for employee households that earn minimum
wage - and ensuring appropriately priced housing
for moderate to high income earners in both the
rental and ownership markets.
Income categories below are calculated based
on HUD methodology, and can be used to
determine appropriate monthly housing costs for
different households in Monticello.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY LIMITS
=F010,
•
HOUSING VARIETY is a necessary component in
a healthy housing market, as households have
a variety of preferences and needs that impact
where and how they can live. A healthy local
economy requires a variety of housing to serve
area employees including various structure types,
sizes, locations, and price points.
WORKFORCE AFFORDABILITY is different among
essential members of the workforce. Management
employees, service workers, municipal workers
(police, fire, etc.) all have housing need, while all
generally desire cost -appropriate housing that
allows enough residual income to support other
necessary expenses.
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
Extremely
Low
Income
$454
$519 $583
$648
$70(
$752
$804
$856
$2,161
(30% AMI)
Very Low
Monticello
(100%
Income
$756
$864 $972
$1,081
$1,167
$1,253
$1,340
$1,426
AMI)
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
$1,210
$1,383 $1,556
$1,729
$1,867
$2,006
$2,144
$2,282
(80% AMI)
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
25
AFFORDABILITY WITHIN THE METRO varies, as incomes are different for residents of different areas. For
example, the following are "affordable" housing costs at three different levels: the City of Monticello,
Wright County, and the 13 -County Metro.
MONTICELLO AFFORDABILITY LIMITS
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
WRIGHT COUNTY AFFORDABILITY LIMITS
,m
Extremely
Extremely
Low
Income
$454
$519 $583
$648
$700 $752
$804
$1,073
$2,161
(30% AMI)
Very Low
Very Low
Wright
✓lonticello
(100%
Income
(100%
Income
$756
$864 $972
$1,081
$1,167 $1,253
$1,340
(50% AMI)
AMI)
(50% AMI)
Low
Low
Income
$1,517
$1,734
$1,951 $2,168 $2,341
$2,514 $2,688
Income
$1,210
$1,383 $1,556
(80% AMI)
$1,867 $2,006
$2,144
$2,282
(80% AMI)
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
WRIGHT COUNTY AFFORDABILITY LIMITS
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
1 �I-COUNTY AFFORDABILITY LIMITS
Source: HUD FY 2021 Income Limits
About Monticello
,m
Extremely
Low
Income
$569
$650
�'$878
$943 $1,008
$1,073
$2,709
(30% AMI)
Very Low
Wright
('nunty
(100%
Income
$948
$1,084
$1,219 $1,355 $1,463
$1,571 $1,680
$1,7`
AMI)
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
$1,517
$1,734
$1,951 $2,168 $2,341
$2,514 $2,688
$2,&
(80% AMI)
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
1 �I-COUNTY AFFORDABILITY LIMITS
Source: HUD FY 2021 Income Limits
About Monticello
BAKKEN ST
to
1 n:
�-
r..
•�o n aIM�
�-fia-.,;` �
}�,�9-�T,I1 �r tTl � c1 c a�� ■n
, ,spa,
Mi.i
t S r
r
Fe. Sf
„
�-
r..
•�o n aIM�
�-fia-.,;` �
}�,�9-�T,I1 �r tTl � c1 c a�� ■n
, ,spa,
Mi.i
t S r
Fe. Sf
„
27
RENTAL MARKET
Demand & Supply
is
RENTAL MARKET
I �
I
I
— .............. _ , I
I �
El
I I
•V I
'•% I
WRIGHT COUNTY %
0
0
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
1 I I
I II
_-I
i
1 jo
I r.
I
El
r ��---- ; I --I
iI
I— J
I I
SHERBURNE -
COUNTY
i
` ❑
•'� "'> ♦ t
oL—L—J,
Ell
i
MONTICELLO'S rental market consists of a variety of
housing types. Single -unit homes, rented attached
unit housing, and 5+ unit multi -family residential
structures are the most prevalent type of rental
units found in the City.
Importantly, there is also generally good
distribution of rental units throughout the
community. Interview and focus group
conversations did not identify any particular areas
that are lacking in access for renters, which is
confirmed through assessment data (mapped
Residential
Properties
Renter Occupied
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
L —1 Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Rental Property
Mixed Tenure Property
Right of Way
tnsn�,te,
GIS Data
Wrigh[ County GiS &Assessor Data
DMSAa ozs as moes
above), which shows consistency with the local
understanding of the community.
As would be expected within the City, there are
higher concentrations of rental units throughout
the downtown, core City, and off of key
transportation corridors such as Interstate 94.
However, neighborhood and subdivision access
to rental housing options is adequate to provide
choices in tenure for households, providing
opportunity to own or rent in areas of their
preference throughout Monticello.
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
29
AFFORDABILITY LIMITS IN THE RENTAL
MARKET
INCOME OF RESIDENTS is central to housing affordability. Though the housing market extends outside of
Monticello, and the City has a large commuter -share working in the Metro, incomes shown below illustrate
the median for current residents living in the community.
Using the City's incomes to determine affordability limits as opposed to those used by the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency and U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development gives income ranges
and categories found below, which reflect the lower average income than in other geographies.
MONTICELLO INCOME CATEGORIES
Source: American Community Survey S -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
AFFORDABLE RENTAL LIMITS are calculated based on the incomes above and illustrate the general
amount a household already living in the City could afford in the housing market without becoming
housing cost burdened. These vary based on percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI) as well as
family size. The median income household for the City (100% AMI) could afford about $2,161 monthly in
total housing costs (not solely contract rent), while maintaining "affordable" housing.
MONTICELLO RENTAL "AFFORDABILITY" LIMITS
Extremely
Low
Income
%18,153
$ 20,747
$ 23,340
$25,933
$28,008
$30,08
$86,444
(30% AMI)
Very Low
Income
$30,255
$34,578
$38,900
$43,222
$46,680
$50,138
Monticello
(100%
AMI)
(50% AMI)
$756
$864
$972
$1,081
$1,167
$1,253
Low
AMI)
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
$48,409
$55,324
$62,240
$69,155
$74,688
$80,220
(80% AMI)
$1,210
$1,383
$1,729
$1,867
$2,006
Source: American Community Survey S -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
AFFORDABLE RENTAL LIMITS are calculated based on the incomes above and illustrate the general
amount a household already living in the City could afford in the housing market without becoming
housing cost burdened. These vary based on percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI) as well as
family size. The median income household for the City (100% AMI) could afford about $2,161 monthly in
total housing costs (not solely contract rent), while maintaining "affordable" housing.
MONTICELLO RENTAL "AFFORDABILITY" LIMITS
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
Rental Market
Extremely
Low
Income
$454
$519
$583
$648
$700
$75'
$2,161
(30% AMI)
Very Low
Monticello
(100%
Income
$756
$864
$972
$1,081
$1,167
$1,253
AMI)
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
$1,210
$1,383
$1,729
$1,867
$2,006
(80% AMI)
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
Rental Market
30
[Following the Great Recession],
household growth has finally
returned to a more normal pace.
Housing production, however,
has not. The shortfall in new
homes is keeping the pressure on
house prices and rents, eroding
affordability particularly for
modest -income households
in high-cost markets. While
demographic trends should
support a vibrant housing market
over the coming decade, realizing
this potential depends heavily on
whether the market can provide
a broader and more affordable
range of housing options for
tomorrow's households.
- Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University; State of the Nation's Housing 2019
31
TENURE IN THE HOUSING MARKET
TENURE in the housing market refers to the structure
of occupancy - ownership or rental. Within the
City, ownership is by far the most common tenure
type - more households own their primary place
of residence than rent, though this has been
decreasing slightly since 2010 (74.7% to 73.2%
between 2010 and 2018).
This is consistent with general trends within the region
- similar homeownership shares in peer communities,
generally more affordable housing than other areas
of the larger region, and access to various types of
structures. Lower-income households nationwide are
more likely to be renter households, and this is true
in the City as well, especially for the lowest income
households earning 307o AMI or less.
As households (and their associated incomes) are
mobile, housing in the City represents larger shares
of more lower-cost rental options that are affordable
to lower -wage workers. High-income (>100% AMI)
renters are choosing to live in the community,
though a large majority of households transition to
the ownership market once their income reaches
this point.
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
0 800
w
0 600
400
200
0 _
HOUSEHOLDS, INCOME &
TENURE
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
0%-30%AMI 31%-50%AMI 51%-80%AMI 81%-100%AMI >100%AMI
0 Owner Renter
0% - 30% AMI
480
155
635
31% - 50% AMI
200
355
555
51% - 80% AMI
405
580
985
81% - 100% AMI
155
545
700
> 100% AMI
130
1,815
1,945
Total
1,370
3,450
4,820
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
0%-30%AMI 31%-50%AMI 51%-80%AMI 81%-100%AMI >100%AMI
0 Owner Renter
32
TENURE IN THE HOUSING MARKET
REGIONAL PEER COMMUNITIES, while part of the
commuter shed and larger Monticello housing
market, display different trends in rates of
homeownership. Income is generally higher for
residents of these communities - and considering
higher income ranges it is expected that they have
higher rates of homeownership. Coupled with ease
of transportation access and amenities found in
Monticello, rental housing is more accessible and
affordable as situated regionally.
Monticello has the 2nd highest rate of renter
households amongst its peer communities, with
only Buffalo having a higher share of rental housing.
This reflects not only income differences between
these communities, but how the built environment
has adjusted to market demand. With a higher
share of ownership options available, households
who want to purchase homes outside of the metro
without the direct access to the Interstate have
historically driven this market - and are more likely
to be households with higher incomes and more
purchasing power.
REGIONAL TENURE COMPARISONS
Buffalo Becker
Big Lake
St. Michael
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello
TENURE - MONTICELLO
■ Owner Households ■ Renter Households
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Wright County
181.7%1
L I
Owner Households Renter Households
Housing Needs and Demand
33
RENTAL HOUSING STRESS
RENTAL HOUSING STRESS
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Renter Households
HOUSING STRESS is measured by cost burden,
which reflects the amount of income a
household pays for total housing costs.
Generally municipalities with larger stock of
rental housing and very little vacancy would
show higher housing costs for consumers and
increasing rates of cost burden. This does not
hold true in Monticello when compared to peer
communities, which show similar rates of rental
burden overall (with the exception of Becker).
This also represents a share of older rental
housing stock that is naturally more affordable
to households through a combination of age,
amenities, and "wear- and tear" on the units
themselves. There is some evidence of higher -
income households "renting down" within the
market (spending less than 30% income toward
rent), which in this case lowers rates of cost
burden overall.
As is typical due to income disparities between
tenure types, cost burden is much more
prevalent in Monticello for renter than owner
households, indicative of generally higher owner
income and tight lending standards.
Owner Households
0 Cost Burden <=30% 0 Cost Burden >30% to <=50% Cost Burden >50%
Monticello
47.4%
633
Buffalo
53.1%
939
Becker
29.5%
110
Big Lake
55.1%
318
St. Michael
45.0%
321
Wright County
44.5%
3,858
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Renter Households
HOUSING STRESS is measured by cost burden,
which reflects the amount of income a
household pays for total housing costs.
Generally municipalities with larger stock of
rental housing and very little vacancy would
show higher housing costs for consumers and
increasing rates of cost burden. This does not
hold true in Monticello when compared to peer
communities, which show similar rates of rental
burden overall (with the exception of Becker).
This also represents a share of older rental
housing stock that is naturally more affordable
to households through a combination of age,
amenities, and "wear- and tear" on the units
themselves. There is some evidence of higher -
income households "renting down" within the
market (spending less than 30% income toward
rent), which in this case lowers rates of cost
burden overall.
As is typical due to income disparities between
tenure types, cost burden is much more
prevalent in Monticello for renter than owner
households, indicative of generally higher owner
income and tight lending standards.
Owner Households
0 Cost Burden <=30% 0 Cost Burden >30% to <=50% Cost Burden >50%
34
RENTAL STRESS BY INCOME
RENTAL STRESS in Monticello exists almost
entirely within low-income City households. While
there are renter households over 80% AMI that
experience cost burden, higher -income cost
burdened households often have the option to
spend more than 30% of income toward housing
while still maintaining the ability to cover fixed
costs - cost burden by choice. Due to the structure
of the rental market in the City, there are gaps in
unit availability at appropriate price points to serve
specific incomes in the market.
Overall, there is a general oversupply of low-cost
units that serve households between 31% and 80%
AMI (approx. $800 - $1,300 monthly rent). These
units represent natural appreciation of units within
the market - they do not have subsidies that allow
them to alleviate cost burden for the lowest -
income households, while also not filling demand
for the highest -income users in the market.
There are significant housing gaps at both the
top and bottom of the rental housing market,
with an undersupply of market -rate units for
households earning over 80% AMI (rental housing
cost $1,500+) as well as affordable units with
250
200
150
100
50
Less than $20,000 $20,000 - $34,999
rents below $800 monthly. Although there is a
high market gap, there is an upwards limit to
income that can realistically be spent on housing.
Many higher income households also value
affordability (spending less than 30%), so this does
not display true unit for unit demand for high cost
housing. It does create some additional market
tension, where some high income households
rent significantly below what they could afford,
using units otherwise affordable to lower-income
households.
RENTAL UNIT
MISMATCH
*most recent available data - does not include Monticello Crossings
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
M
m
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
0% - 30% AMI
480
215
-265
31% - 50% AMI
200
650
450
51% - 80% AMI
405
460
55
> 81% AMI
285
45*
-240
*most recent available data - does not include Monticello Crossings
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
M
m
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
0 Cost Burdened Severely Cost Burdened
> $75,000
35
RENTAL HOUSING STRESS
COST BURDENED RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
LEVELS OF COST BURDEN (2018)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Monticello Buffalo Becker
■ Cost Burden (30%-50% Income Toward Rent)
RATES OF RENTER COST BURDEN may be low
in Monticello overall, but those renters who
are cost burdened are much more likely to be
severely cost burdened (spending more than
50% income toward rental costs). Of those
experiencing cost burden in the City, 73% are
severely cost burdened. This rate is significantly
higher than in regional peer communities, 21.7
points higher than the next closest community.
While rates of cost burden are low overall,
higher income households "renting down",
as well as increased demand in the market
overall increases competition for units in the
moderate- and middle- market segments.
This also indicates a lack of appropriately -
priced units for the lowest income households
already living in the community, and indicates
opportunity to better serve low-income
households through income -restricted and
subsidized units that ensure affordability levels
not currently provided within the market.
Big Lake St. Michael Wright County
Severe Cost Burden (>50% Income Toward Rent)
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study Rental Market
Monticello
174
4;
72.5%
Buffalo
519
4'
44.7%
Becker
72
38
34.5%
Big Lake
289
29
9.1%
St. Michael
165
159
48.6%
Wright County
1,889
1,951,
50.8%
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
LEVELS OF COST BURDEN (2018)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Monticello Buffalo Becker
■ Cost Burden (30%-50% Income Toward Rent)
RATES OF RENTER COST BURDEN may be low
in Monticello overall, but those renters who
are cost burdened are much more likely to be
severely cost burdened (spending more than
50% income toward rental costs). Of those
experiencing cost burden in the City, 73% are
severely cost burdened. This rate is significantly
higher than in regional peer communities, 21.7
points higher than the next closest community.
While rates of cost burden are low overall,
higher income households "renting down",
as well as increased demand in the market
overall increases competition for units in the
moderate- and middle- market segments.
This also indicates a lack of appropriately -
priced units for the lowest income households
already living in the community, and indicates
opportunity to better serve low-income
households through income -restricted and
subsidized units that ensure affordability levels
not currently provided within the market.
Big Lake St. Michael Wright County
Severe Cost Burden (>50% Income Toward Rent)
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study Rental Market
36
RENTAL UNIT CONSUMPTION
WHICH HOUSEHOLDS are over- or underconsuming
housing (renting above or below an affordable
limit) is tracked annually by both the US Census
Bureau and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). While we know based
on general over- and undersupply that higher -
income renter households "rent down", spending
less than 30% of income on housing, we can also
match which income -range units they are actually
occupying.
In Monticello at the time of data collection, low-
income households (80% AMI or under) had been
renting 100% of higher -end market rate units. This
has likely changed, as US Census and HUD data
do not yet reflect unit increases in the market -rate
segment of the Monticello rental market from
newly developed units.
This reflects some of the reason for increased rates
of severe cost burden in the City overall, though
due to unit numbers does not account for a large
portion.
RENTAL UNIT CONSUMPTION (BY INCOME)
0% 10% 20% 30%
Affordable at>80% AMI
Affordable at 51% - 80% AMI
Affordable at 311/- - 50% AMI
Affordable at < 30% AMI
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Moderate- to high-income households (making
over 80% AMI) rent approximately 14% of rental
housing units that would be affordable to
households earning 31% - 80% AMI. The largest
mismatches in unit consumption in the City are
from households earning 51% - 80% AMI renting
units affordable to 31% - 50% AMI households
(32% of those units), and 0% - 30% AMI households
renting units above their affordability level (64% of
all extremely low income households are in units
unaffordable to them).
While this means access to affordable housing
options are readily available for low- and
moderate -income households (>80% AMI), it also
means that extremely low-income households
(which are less competitive in the rental market)
must spend more to secure housing, and often
housing that is significantly above their affordability
limit.
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■0%-30%AMI ■31%-50%AMI 51%-80%AMI 81%-100%AMI ■>100%AMI
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
37
RENTAL UNIT CONSUMPTION
WHILE UNIT CHOICE is important to the freedom
and desirability of the local housing market, more
options at appropriate price points can help guide
consumers into more appropriately priced units
that ease burden at all levels.
Comments received in the 2020 Community
Survey largely called out this need for housing
across multiple price points - even when not
directly asked. While a few respondents were
hesitant toward new development, themes largely
arose that clearly identified both affordable
and executive level housing options as needs
within the community. This included a significant
response for increased housing support directed
toward households at risk of homelessness -
which per HUD guidance is considered severely
cost burdened, extremely low-income renter
households (approx. 225 of these households
currently live in the City).
RENTAL UNIT
HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANCY
The survey also identified specific building types
they would like to see within the market - and
in addition to amenity -rich market rate options
for renters who may choose to telecommute,
attached unit and townhome development were
commonly listed as options to help fill the mid-level
market, whether ownership or rental.
In looking to directly address rental costs for low-
income households, one method commonly used
is to aim to add the undersupply. In Monticello, this
would be a goal to add 265 units of rental housing
affordable to the lowest -income earners in the
community (0% - 30% AMI households). This would
allow options for these households to eliminate
or severely reduce their housing costs, decrease
rates of rental cost burden, and open up units
they were occupying to other households in the
community or moving to the community at price -
points appropriate to their own income.
IM i;VAIRK-7."l PARIM4 Rmumv.
Affordable at 30%
175
40
0
0
0
Affordable 31% - 50%
195
85
210
105
60
Affordable 51% - 80%
95
60
180
50
70
Affordable at >80%
15
15
15
0
0
38
RENTAL UNIT TYPES
1®1
WRIGHT COUNTY
0
0
Hsr11
/ 4
Data not updated in 2023 Housinq Studv
UNIT TYPES are important to provide choice in
the housing market that match characteristics
and meet preferences of residents and potential
residents of the City. Of note, there are very few
rental units per the U.S. Census that are in 2-4 unit
structures.
C
36% of the rental units in the City are either single -
unit detached or single -unit attached homes.
Although a significant portion of the rental housing
stock, 58% of all rental units are in 5+ unit structures.
Commonly housing different household types,
this balance across structure (and cost) segments
indicates a healthy mix of preference and type
options for varying household needs.
.:.
HERBURNE
COUNTY
EICsAH14 �—
I `
tl �
f`
ell
US Highway
S Water Body
Parcel Boundary
—I Surrounding Municipality
AN Monticello
Number of Units
Single Unit Detached
- Single Unit Attached
2
3-4
S-,9
20 or More
- Manufactured Home Park
_ Right of Way
�ra=o�Rez
Minnesota GIS Dato
• WngM1e Gaunry GIS &assessor Data
G MSA
0 0.25 OS Miles
N
RENTAL UNITS - TYPE
.-
1-unit detached
I
Renter Occupied
of Unit
Type
r
Residential
12.0%
1 -unit attached
Properties
`
-
,I
By Number of Units
I
0
Monticello Housing Study
I
ill �
Monticello, Wright County, MN
96.8%
20+ unit
1� Streets
26.2%
98.1%
'\. Interstate
55
3.4%
State Road
HERBURNE
COUNTY
EICsAH14 �—
I `
tl �
f`
ell
US Highway
S Water Body
Parcel Boundary
—I Surrounding Municipality
AN Monticello
Number of Units
Single Unit Detached
- Single Unit Attached
2
3-4
S-,9
20 or More
- Manufactured Home Park
_ Right of Way
�ra=o�Rez
Minnesota GIS Dato
• WngM1e Gaunry GIS &assessor Data
G MSA
0 0.25 OS Miles
N
RENTAL UNITS - TYPE
.-
1-unit detached
NumberFnit
Units
..TotalRental
-
Units
of Unit
Type
399
24.8%
12.0%
1 -unit attached
181
11.3%
27.9%
2-4 unit
35
2.2%
34.3%
5-19 unit
516
32.1%
96.8%
20+ unit
421
26.2%
98.1%
Mobile Home
55
3.4%
15.4%
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
AFFORDABILITY TRENDS
39
450
400
350
300
250
Z
200
150
100
50
=0010 0
0
p9° X59° X699 X99 q9° �9° ytid9 pcO 0�
�- Lo No to do do
419 No 400 X900 000to Kyoto
yti' yti'
GROSS RENT
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
Rental Market
GENERAL MEASURES AND TRENDS in
affordability are a contrast of current
incomes compared to current costs. One
measure is whether or not the median
renter household can afford the median
RENTAL COST & INCOME
rental unit, which is a measure of choice. If
yes, 50% or more of all rental units would be
available to that household. If no, choice is
$1,400
restricted and market supply and demand
are unbalanced. Though the median rent
$1,200
was affordable to the median renter in
$1,000
2021, the newest units in the City are not
accounted for in this dataset. Recent
$800
estimates of family income and rent (using
HUD methodology) show both have risen
$600
steadily in the aftermath of the COVID-19
pandemic.
$400
$200
Ranges of unit rental costs in the City show
that most units rent over $1,000 per month
$0
(including utilities), and though there are
2013 2014 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
units priced below $500 monthly, there
Median Rent Rent Affordable to Median Renter Household
is not enough supply for residents at this
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
income level already living in the City.
About $500 in rental costs per month is
the affordability limit for a two -person
household earning $20,000 annually, and
UNIT RENTS
equates to a City household at 30% AMI.
450
400
350
300
250
Z
200
150
100
50
=0010 0
0
p9° X59° X699 X99 q9° �9° ytid9 pcO 0�
�- Lo No to do do
419 No 400 X900 000to Kyoto
yti' yti'
GROSS RENT
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
Rental Market
40
RENTAL HOUSING COST
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS in the City currently pay
$1,100-$1,300 per month for a 1 -bedroom
unit (average), and between $1,200-$1,600
per month for 2 -bedroom units (average).
This marks a 20% increase in monthly rent for
2 -bedroom units since 2020. Within the market,
however, there is significant variation in unit costs
expected with variance in age of construction,
location, and amenities.
Among peer communities, Monticello generally
sees lower rent for units of all sizes across
the spectrum. Due to the way ACS data is
calculated, recent rental unit construction is
not included. As of 2021 ACS 5 -year averages,
Monticello tends to have highest 3 -bedroom
rental units amongst its regional peers. All other
unit prices in Monticello remain generally more
affordable or on par with prices elsewhere in
the region, although matching affordability for
current residents remains a top concern.
$2,000
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
S
MONTHLY RENTAL
ESTIMATES
-
,. W M F.M. LUP.. • ..-.k-.
Efficiency
po27
-
$1,337
1 -Bedroom
$739
$1,115
$1,264
2 -Bedroom
$989
$1,367
$1,554
3 -Bedroom
$1,634
1,815
$1,762
4 -Bedroom
$1,665
2,456
$2,333
All Bedrooms
$1,041
-
-
trental Aggregators are aasea on aa)ustea active listings, average rot 2u2s
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021; (1) Zumper; (2) Apartments.com
Efficiency 1 -Bedroom 2 -Bedroom 3 -Bedroom
I7
A
11 1
4 -Bedroom 5+ Bedroom
■ Monticello ■ Buffalo ■ Becker ■ Big Lake ■ St. Michael 0 Wright County
41
VACANCY RATE
VACANCIES in the rental market are important for
continued access and affordability. Healthy rental
vacancy rates are considered to be between 5%
and 7% of all units. This falls within the assumed
vacancy for new development (5%), allows
turnover and growth in population, keeps market
rental cost increases to appropriate amounts, and
provides a general balance between landlord and
tenant.
The U.S. Census Bureau provides relatively
accurate numbers for rental vacancy in the City,
especially when utilizing moving averages over
multiple survey years. These vacancy numbers
were verified to be relatively accurate through
interviews with property managers, developers,
and landlords, though there was variation reported
based on unit age and condition. Generally,
more affordable older units were at vacancies
approaching 0%, while newer unit construction
had greater vacancy - though still below typical
development assumption of 5%.
In general, low vacancy increases competition
for units, and as a byproduct can inflate year
over year rental cost increases. These large year
over year increases were confirmed by study
participants, with some reporting contract rent
increases of over 10% on an annual basis without
impacting renewals or lease -ups.
WRIGHT COUNTY
VACANCY RATE
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
.
1%
0%
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Vacancy Rate — — -2 per. Avg. Vacancy Rate
RENTAL UNIT VACANCIES
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
•
zo .—,--
10
0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
—Vacant for Rent (Units)
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
INCREASING SUPPLY and increasing vacancy of
rental units in the community would be healthy
for the housing market. Doing so would allow
potential residents, employees, and commuters
that prefer smaller markets the opportunity to
move into the community. It would also allow
healthy turnover of units within the market
providing more choices of housing for current
residents, and allow residents to self-select into
housing of both an appropriate size and type.
The significant decrease in rental vacancy
from 2013 to 2021 has continued, and though
development has occurred, property owners
and managers interviewed for the study did not
report significant vacancies at their properties -
with all below the recognized healthy range of
5%-7%.
It should be noted that the available vacancy
data lags actual conditions, and while
anecdotal reports indicate low vacancy, the
continued production of new rental units in 2022
and 2023 may finally be pushing vacancy up
again. If and when vacancy rises, it will slow the
rise of rental rates but should not be expected
to result in lower rates.
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
Rental Market
42
RENTAL HOUSING SIZE
HOUSEHOLD SIZE is important to the housing market,
as larger households require units with more
bedrooms to not be overcrowded (more then 1
person per room). In 2021, over half (520) of rental
housing in Monticello was occupied by 1 -person
households; all other household sizes (2 -person to
7 or more) combined make up remaining 480 of
rental -occupied housing units. Of note, between
2018 and 2021, the number of 3 -person renter
households increased from 45 to 133—an increase of
195%. Similarly, the estimated number of 3 -bedroom
rental units increased from 223 to 464 according
to ACS 5 -year estimates. These were the largest
increases among household sizes and unit bedroom
sizes.
While the majority of rental units are still 1 -and
2 -bedrooms (58%),the growth in 3 -person rental
households and 3 -bedrooms rental units over the
last few years shows there is strong demand larger
rentals that provide more space. In the rental
market, especially for low- and moderate -income
family households, maintaining access to 3 or more
bedroom units will be important in the coming years
to allow residents to grow their families in place.
RENTER HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Buffalo Becker
Big Lake
St. Michael
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
City of Monticello
RENTER HOUSEHOLD SIZE -
MONTICELLO
■ 1 -Person ■ 2 -Person ■ 3 -Person ■ 4 -or -more Person
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
Wright County
■ 1 -Person ■ 2 -Person ■ 3 -Person ■ 4 -or -more Person
Housing Needs and Demand
RENTAL HOUSING SIZE
HOUSING UNIT SIZE works to not only match the
requirements of households based on family size, but
also preferences for additional space - for example,
the expanding need for housing that includes
room for office spaces and other work from home
accommodations.
One key amenity that is not often mentioned
in housing choice is access to fiber internet
connection. As many rural areas struggle with
access, this amenity could work to further attract
former metro residents who prefer smaller town
accommodations, while allowing fluidity in commute
as well as telecommute access. If this trend does
persist long-term, even a small change in preference
to work from home or more remote locations could
have a significant impact on the rental housing
market, as well as preferences for size of housing.
600
500
400
300
z
D
200
100
0
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS -
RENTAL
■ Efficiency ■ 1 -Bedroom 2 -Bedroom
3 -Bedroom 4 -Bedroom ■ 5+ Bedroom
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
Efficiency 1 -Bedroom 2 -Bedroom 3 -Bedroom 4 -Bedroom 5+ Bedroom
43
44
RENTAL UNITS 8C BUILDINGS
Apartment Buildings MaNkAddress
A�jkijt�icipated
Constructed/
Monticello Crossings
202
2205 Meadow Oak Ave
2015
Savanna Vista
200
The Pointes at Cedar
2025
Deephaven Apartments
165
1255 Edmonson Ave NE
2022
Headwaters West Senior Apartments (55+)
102
Golf Course Rd & 7th St
2024
Twin Pines
96
School Blvd
TBD
*Willows Landing
192
9872 Hart Blvd
2020
*St Benedicts—(Independent Living)
191
1301 E 7th St
1999
Block 52 First Addition
187
101 W Broadway St
2024
The Bluffs
172
1700 , 707, 714 E 7th St
1987
Headwaters Twinhome Senior Living (55+)
160
I Tee Box Trl
2024
Monticello Village Apts
160
1725 - 733 MN St
2000
*St Benedicts—(Independent Living)
159
1305 E 7th St
1999
*Mississippi Shores
149
1213 Hart Blvd
1997
Ridgemont Apts—(Low Income)
148
716 Maple St
1988
Rivertown Residential Suites
147
1212 Locust St
2020
Ridgeway Apts—(Low Income)
144
330 - 333 W 6th St
1976
Westcello Apts
144
915 - 921 Golf Course Rd
1987
*Cedar Crest Apt
38
406 Cedar St
1977
Hillside Properties 1—(Low Income)
35
1207 E 7th St
1981
Silvercrest Apts
35
1307 E 7th St
2002
*River Park View Apts
31
1218 W River St
1986
*Broadway Square Apts
28
1243 W Broadway
1989
Terrace View Apts—(Low Income)
26
1401 E 7th St
1986
City of Monticello
Housing Needs and Demand
RENTAL UNITS SC BUILDINGS CONT.
Apartment Buildings
Units
Address
Constructed/
Jefferson Heights Apts
24
615 7th St E
-Anticipated
1975
River Road Apts
24
139 Riverview Dr
1986
Marywood Apts
24
407 E 7th St
1985
Hammer Apts
15
154 E Broadway
1943
Seventh Street Townhomes
15
313 W 7th St
1993
Chock Apts
12
801, 803, 807 W 3rd St
1970-1985
Hillside Properties II—(Low Income)
12
301, 303 E 7th St
1981
Monticello Manor
12
306 W 6th St
1972
Pointe Apts, The
12
607 E 7th St
1975
Terrace Six Apts
12
318 W 6th St
1972
Source: City of Monticello
* Indicates senior living developments
Rental Market
45
46
MULTI -UNIT RENTAL AGE
tiJ
I
I
I
I
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
El _
I I
I I
IN
;14 ��'�i is � ,w�'.. ♦♦•�
N� +� I]
WRIGHT COUNTY , ��~` ., !�•^`
F1 1116
Q'
�
106 ` , � `•
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
MONTICELLO'S rental market consists of a variety of housing
types - with varying ages of construction. Many of the oldest
rental units in the City are single -unit structures throughout the
downtown, consistent with general development patterns.
There are also significant larger -unit rental structures built near
downtown that were built in the 1970s and 80s. Monticello
Crossings is the largest unit structure that has been built since
the recession in 2008.
Thirty-nine percent of all rental units in the housing market
were built prior to 1989, and are often the most affordable
rentals in a community. The 1990s saw a large increase in
construction that became rental housing, and the early 2000s
saw decreased production before the recession, though
rebounding significantly post -2014. Since 2020, there has been
304 units built with 545 approved units on their way.
Renter Occupied
Residential
Properties
by Year Built
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
`�, Streets
'N♦ Interstate
'�. State Road
US Highway
f Water Body
Parcel Boundary
—I Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Year Built
1850- 1895
1896 - 1930
1931 - 1969
1970- 1991
1992-2007
2008-2018
No Year Built Data
Non Residential Parcels
Right of Way
DMSAa 025 osM•.�
RENTAL UNITS — YEAR BUILT
;o
1115!
I
I
767
1990 to 1999
o_
I
380
2010 or Later
_
I IIJ
/
I
r
I
I
I
;14 ��'�i is � ,w�'.. ♦♦•�
N� +� I]
WRIGHT COUNTY , ��~` ., !�•^`
F1 1116
Q'
�
106 ` , � `•
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
MONTICELLO'S rental market consists of a variety of housing
types - with varying ages of construction. Many of the oldest
rental units in the City are single -unit structures throughout the
downtown, consistent with general development patterns.
There are also significant larger -unit rental structures built near
downtown that were built in the 1970s and 80s. Monticello
Crossings is the largest unit structure that has been built since
the recession in 2008.
Thirty-nine percent of all rental units in the housing market
were built prior to 1989, and are often the most affordable
rentals in a community. The 1990s saw a large increase in
construction that became rental housing, and the early 2000s
saw decreased production before the recession, though
rebounding significantly post -2014. Since 2020, there has been
304 units built with 545 approved units on their way.
Renter Occupied
Residential
Properties
by Year Built
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
`�, Streets
'N♦ Interstate
'�. State Road
US Highway
f Water Body
Parcel Boundary
—I Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Year Built
1850- 1895
1896 - 1930
1931 - 1969
1970- 1991
1992-2007
2008-2018
No Year Built Data
Non Residential Parcels
Right of Way
DMSAa 025 osM•.�
RENTAL UNITS — YEAR BUILT
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
supplemented by City of Monticello data records.
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
1969 or Earlier
1115!
1970 to 1989
767
1990 to 1999
401
2000 to 2009
380
2010 or Later
605
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
supplemented by City of Monticello data records.
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
EXAMPLE -CONSTRUCTION COST
1 -BEDROOM RENTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION)
Equity to Cost Ratio 20%
M= Mmr.v-
Loan to CostjRatioj7
80%
Required Equity
$40,000
Mortgage Loan
$160,000
Annual Pre-tax Distribution Rate
10%
Mortgage Interest Rate
5%
Cash Payments for Equity
$4,000
Debt Service
$8,000
Net Operating Income
$12,000
Operating Expenses
$2,791
Real Estate Taxes
$3,349
Replacement Reserve
$502
Effective Gross Revenue
$18,642
Vacancy (5% required assumption)
$932
Gross Potential Income
Fakeven Annual Rent
=1$19,574
$19,574
LLakeven Monthly - nt 91$1,631
Source: Construction and Land Cost Estimates for the Twin Cities Metro region
THERE IS A NEED for new rental construction
in the City that serves low- and high-income
earners alike. High-income earning households
can afford rents associated with higher cost of
new -construction, and developers can market
increased costs through increased amenities.
However, lower-income households largely cannot
afford new construction.
Construction cost and the requisite rents to cover
debt service, reserves, and operating expenses
even under a conservative example necessitate
rents that would be unaffordable for low-income
households. Simply, construction costs are a direct
barrier to ensuring Monticello's lowest -income
households have access to housing they can
afford.
To ensure expanded opportunities and units
that meet the needs of all residents of the City,
subsidies are needed to offset construction costs
to make more units affordable, in combination
with rehabilitation programs to ensure continued
unit adequacy at affordable cost (pg. 27),
especially for existing aging units.
Rental Market
47
48
EXAMPLE -AFFORDABILITY
PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for LULI Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
Extremely
Low
Income
$454
$519
$583
$648
$700
$752
$804
$856
$2,161
(30% AMI)
Very Low
Income
56
$864
$972
$1,081
$1,167
$1,253
$1,340
$1,426
Monticello
(100%
AMI)
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
$1,210
$1,383
$1,556
$1,729
$1,867
$2,006
$2,144
$2,282
(80% AMI)
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for LULI Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
�� s �• � r�ir 301 1�. ...
k ,a.
'ilk
50
OWNERSHIP
MARKET
Demand & Supply
OWNERSHIP MARKET
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS in the
City of Monticello are owner -occupied units.
This holds true across all areas of the City, not
only throughout various neighborhood and
subdivisions, though downtown parcels are more
evenly divided. Owner housing is a large and
key component of the local housing market,
and ownership opportunity is one of the key
considerations that has been driving growth in the
City over the past decade.
51
Owner Occupied
Residential
Properties
By Number of Units
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
-\, State Road
US Highway
S Water Body
rn Parcel Boundary
�
_I Surrounding Municipality
IIID Monticello
Number of Units
Single Unit Detached
Single Unit Attached
Manufactured Home Park
Right of Way
Dam saaTe:
Minnemm GIS Dam
�/([� Wright County G's &Assessw-
)". MSA 0 0.25 0.5 Mlles
While the majority of owner -occupied units within
the City are single -unit detached housing, there is
also good representation of single -unit attached
housing units, as well as a few condo units in small
residential (3 to 9 unit) structures. Notably, the
two manufactured home parks account for over
200 total units of owner -occupied housing, which
serves a key market in the City for low-cost housing
stability at a reduced cost.
Ownership Market
52
AFFORDABILITY LIMITS IN THE OWNERSHIP
MARKET
INCOME OF RESIDENTS is central to housing affordability. For ownership opportunities, this largely refers
to the "purchasing power" of a given household based on known incomes. Though the housing market
extends outside of Monticello, and the City has a large commuter -share working in the Metro, incomes
shown below illustrate the median for current residents of the community.
Using the City's incomes to determine affordability limits as opposed to those used by the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency and U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development gives income ranges
and categories found below, which reflect the lower average income than in other geographies.
MONTICELLO INCOME CATEGORIES
PURCHASE LIMITS based on the incomes above illustrate the general amount a household could afford in
the housing market without becoming housing cost burdened. The median income household in the City
could afford a $290,452 home purchase from annual income of $86,444.
MONTICELLO OWNERSHIP "AFFORDABILITY" LIMITS
Purchase Persons in Household
Extremely
Low
Income $60,995 $69,708 $78,422 $87,136 $94,106 $101,077
$290,452 (30% AMI)
Monticello Very Low
(100% Income $101,658 $116,181 $130,703 $145,226 $156,844 $168,462
AMI) (50% AMI)
Low
Income $162,653 $185,889 $209,125 $232,361 $250,950 $269,539
(80% AMI)
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimate for 2021 Family Income Adjusted per HUD FY Income Limits
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
TENURE IN THE HOUSING MARKET
TENURE IMPACTS OWNERSHIP MARKETS as well as
rental markets. Referring to whether a household
owns or rents their property, tenure's impacts
means that larger shares of owner households in a
community mean more owner housing stock - and
more choices for households who prefer ownership
as a tenure over renting.
The current percent of ownership households in
Monticello is slightly less than in most regional peer
communities. While this makes it slightly out of line
for the region, it does have easy access to Interstate
94, generally lower-cost housing, and older rental
housing stock that make it more affordable
for renters, decreasing owner households as a
percentage of the community overall.
Buffalo Becker
Big Lake
St. Michael
TENURE - MONTICELLO
■ Owner Households ■ Renter Households
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housinq Studv
Wright County
Owner Households Renter Households
53
54
TENURE BY INCOME
THE MAJORITY of owner -occupied homes in
the City are occupied by households that are
above the median income for the 15 -county
metro. This is not an uncommon occurrence, as
increased income opens up increased ownership
opportunities and eases costs associated with
homeownership (down payment, taxes, etc.).
While the largest share of owner households in the
City earn more than the metro median income,
there are still large portions of lower-income
households who do own their housing within the
City. These households may be attracted to the
general lower cost of housing compared to other
areas of the metro - they also often represent
aging homeowners who have entered retirement
and seen significant loss in income, which brings
new challenges. Although these owners may
own their home free and clear, they may struggle
with property tax payments, upkeep, and other
factors of homeownership that require continual
maintenance funds or physical requirements that
aging populations sometimes struggle to meet.
TENURE BY INCOME
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
HOUSEHOLDS, INCOME &.
TENURE
Income
Renters
Owners
W
0% - 30% AMI
480
155
635
31% - 50% AMI
200
355
555
51% - 80% AMI
405
580
985
81 % - 100% AMI
155
545
700
>I 00% AMI
130
1,815
1,945
Total
1,370
3,450
4,820
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
0%-30%AMI 31%-50%AMI 51%-80%AMI 81%-100%AMI >100%AMI
■ Owner Household Renter Household
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello
Housing Needs and Demand
OWNER HOUSING STRESS
OWNERSHIP HOUSING
STRESS
Municipality
of Owner
Households
with Cost
Burden
# of Cost
Burdene
Owner
Households
Wright•
Source: American Community Survey S -Year Estimates 2015
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
HOUSING STRESS - TENURE
Renter Households
HOUSING STRESS is measured by cost burden,
which reflects the amount of income a
household pays for total housing costs. While the
rental housing market in Monticello is marked
by relatively high levels of cost burden (> 30%
income toward rental costs), the ownership
housing market has significantly reduced levels
of burden in comparison.
Further - for those households in the ownership
market who do experience cost burden, they
are much less likely to experience severe cost
burden (> 50% income toward housing costs).
While housing is a necessity, so all households
must participate in the market in some aspect,
owner households have the financial resources
available to choose to purchase their housing.
An effect of that choice is that in order to
qualify, potential owner households must meet
underwriting standards - an aspect of the market
that drastically reduces the cost risk associated
with owning, as borrowers are more likely to
have higher incomes and increased access to
credit.
Owner Households
■ Cost Burden <=30% ■ Cost Burden >30% to <=50% Cost Burden >50%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Ownership Market
55
56
OWNER STRESS BY INCOME
OWNER HOUSING STRESS in Monticello exists
almost entirely within low-income households.
Important to consider is that for households
above this amount - 80% AMI or greater, cost
burden is less impactful than for low-income
households. Even accounting for increased
housing costs, costs associated with fixed -cost
goods (childcare, healthcare, food, etc.) allow
more flexibility within a monthly budget to allow
some levels of cost burden while maintaining
financial stability. For lower-income households,
there is less room for increased costs or
unexpected expenditure.
In ownership unit mismatch, homes available
in the market are generally oversupplied in the
lower cost market when considering incomes
for the 11 -county metro. This is consistent with
known lower housing costs in the area - but is
also reflective of slightly lower incomes in the
City than the County and metro as a whole.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
OWNERSHIP UNIT
MISMATCH
Ve55 tray X20 000 X20 o to Aga 999 X35 � toA9 999 X50 � to
999
0 Cost Burden No Cost burden
Unit numbers are reflective of vacancy within the market
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
oPte
0�
��5 X00
OWNER HOUSING STRESS
COST BURDENED OWNER
HOUSEHOLDS
I
Municipality
Monticello
with Cost
Burden
(30%-50%)
370
Severe
Burden
(>50%)
110
- - ely
Burdened
23%
Buffalo
455
190
29%
Becker
170
55
24%
Big Lake
465
255
35%
St. Michael
415
295
42%
Wright County
4,065
2,330
36%
Most recent dataset vintage 2016. Less detailed data from 2018 on pg. 52
indicates higher rates of owner cost burden overall.
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AMONG THOSE 480 Monticello owner
households that are cost burdened, less than
one-quarter are severely cost burdened
(spending 50% or more of income on
housing). This is again reflective of relatively
more affordable housing costs in the City
compared to peer communities, and has
been decreasing year-to-year.
Combined, these factors display relative
historic stability within the ownership market.
For the majority of those that own their homes,
current housing costs are relatively affordable.
With that in mind, housing prices are
appreciating to a point where more typical
homes within the community are becoming
more unaffordable to the typical household
- due to a combination of slight reduction
in income, increased housing demand, and
increasing housing prices in the ownership
market.
Monticello Buffalo Becker Big Lake St. Michael Wright County
0 Cost Burden (30% - 50% Income Toward Housing Cost) 0 Severe Cost Burden (>50% Income Toward Housing Cost)
57
58
OWNER UNIT CONSUMPTION
The U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development tracks household incomes
compared to the cost of the housing unit they live
in. Per HUD data, within the City the largest share of
ownership homes in the market (1,810 units) should
be affordable to households earning about 50%
of the 13 -county metro's AMI ($52,000 for a family
of 4). Of these housing units, only about 20% are
owned by households that fall into that income
category. The remainder are owned by higher -
income households, with nearly 45% being owned
by households earning above the 1000 of the
1 1 -county area median income.
These homes are extremely affordable to higher -
income households, and provide desirable
affordable ownership options for high income
earners. However, it does provide increased
competition that precludes lower-income earners
from entering the owner housing market.
OWNERSHIP UNIT CONSUMPTION (BY INCOME)
00
t6
ab1
e at
clo/ 01 E
t 51 �0 PM\ I
Pf\otaab\e a
z
00E 6.ab\ea�g1(o-
M\
00° 6,ao\e 710o0/ N
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Overall, the market at all levels is dominated
by households earning over 80% AMI (68% of all
owners). These households are consuming units
in the housing market that are very affordable to
them - their relative incomes significantly lower
housing cost burden, and income shares spent
on housing costs are extremely low. While this is
beneficial to these households, it does strain the
market and ultimately increase sales prices in all
housing ranges, from entry-level homes upward.
Consistent with insights from the 2020 Community
Survey, residents feel that the largest negative
aspect to the housing market in Monticello
is ownership housing affordability (457o of all
respondents), with 527o of those with an opinion
indicating that affordable housing is becoming
increasing harder to find year-to-year. As the
market is restricted, community concerns of
affordability and availability are connected as
higher -income owner households can outbid
lower-income households for homes that would
otherwise be affordable at a lower rate.
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
00%-30%AMI 31%-50%AMI 51%-80%AMI 081%-100%AMI >100%AMI
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Housing Needs and Demand
OWNER UNIT CONSUMPTION
DISPARITY in ownership opportunity is apparent
when looking at the distribution of homes, by
value, that have a lien on the property. The
table above shows the household incomes of
occupants of ownership housing both with and
without a mortgage. Difference in mortgage status
can generally be thought of as "purchased in the
past 15-30 years" for homes with a mortgage and
"purchased more than 15-30 years ago" for homes
without a mortgage.
For units with a mortgage (representing more
recent home purchases), 57% were purchased
by households earning more than the 11 -county
OWNERSHIP UNIT
HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANCY
median family income ($103,400 for a family of 4).
However, homeowners > 100% AMI own only 38%
of homes without a mortgage. While some of this
discrepancy is due to reduced income for retirees
who have paid off their homes, it is also reflective
of appreciating values within the market over a
typical 30 -year amortization period - those homes
that have resold have sold for more.
Tightening lending standards and unit availability
do have an impact on lower-income households
within the market, but many are finding homes
that they can purchase, especially households at
middle -incomes that are greater than 50% of the
13 -county median income.
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
This table represents 2,554 ownership units with a mortgage, and 895 with no mortgage or other lien
on the property.
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Ownership Market
S9
Owner Household
Income
Ownership Units
07o 30%
317o 507o 517o 807o
817o 1007o
315
>11 007.
595
Q)
Affordable at 50%
60
215
a
0
Affordable at 51% - 80%
210
125
710
0
N
Affordable at 81 % - 100%
60
4
135
Affordable at > 100%
0
0
25
Affordable at 50%
80
35
60
230
a
i
Affordable at 51% - 80%
40
60
0
}
Affordable at 81 % - 100%
25
0
40
3
Affordable at > 100%
0
15
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
This table represents 2,554 ownership units with a mortgage, and 895 with no mortgage or other lien
on the property.
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Ownership Market
S9
60
SPATIAL AFFORDABILITY
` wen wars �E I,
., : � WA'sr7� �. ❑ ��
�''. •N�o .mrd �� ��
'� SHERBURNE
WRIGHT COUNTY w°-«'
"'`�' �••�;� COUNTY
4"
�f��► �.�aswv'�o,� „
♦ 0�,� ,S S io C\
/4V �� l�r'� ��•
.i �,.,, ��� w, •1.
EI
El
El:
F�q 11TH
1,
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
APPROXIMATE VALUE of homes is mapped above,
using assessment records. While this is not a
perfect approximation of sales/cost value within
the market, it does offer a baseline for estimation
and comparison. This spatial availability of homes
by market cost shows where opportunity for
affordability exists in the City's housing market for
residents at different income levels.
This map (also in Appendix A), illustrates the
general affordability of smaller and attached -unit
housing options within the community. In general,
the more affordable ownership options are within
the downtown core of the City, as well as in
scattered attached -unit housing development
throughout different neighborhoods. Maintaining
this range of options is key in ensuring new
development remains affordable for households
at various income levels.
OWNERSHIP UNITS, 13 -COUNTY
Owner Occupied
Residential
Properties
Total Property Value
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
I`— State Road
US Highway
S Water Body
Parcel Boundary
Monticello
Right of Way
Total Property Value
Less than $100,000
$100,000 - $200,000
$200,001 - $250,000
$250,001 - $300,000
$300,001 - $350,000
$350,000 - $450,000
Greater than $450,000
No Assessed Value
Non Residential Parcels
ooro sources:
Minnesoro GIS DaM
Wright County GIS &Assessor Data
DMSAo -1 osMe=�
AMI calculation shown is applicable to the entire 13 -County Metro based on a
household size of 4 persons.
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
AFFORDABILITY TRENDS
GENERAL MEASURES AND TRENDS in
homeowner affordability have to do with
market conditions in real estate markets
and prospective buyer incomes at the
time of purchase. Looking at housing in the
City of Monticello, home values historically
peaked pre -Great Recession before seeing
a decrease in value through the recession.
Both townhome and single family units
have regained lost value associated with
the recession, surpassing previous market
highs by 2015 and continuing to rise since.
Within the City, many households have
remained in their home for long periods
of time, with many having been in their
unit since 2009 or earlier. These represent
long -tenured homeowners who are
residing in their homes longer than the
7 -year national average. There is also an
increasing number of homeowners who
have moved into their home after 2015 with
the development of new units.
SINGLE -UNIT & TOWNHOME MARKET VALUE
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
YEAR OWNER MOVED INTO UNIT
1p00 to 10p9
1010 to 1p1p
1p15 to 101$
61
1019 oC \ate, ■
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
O� O� 01 O� 00 y0 yti yL y3 yR y� ti0 ti� y4' ti0 LO LV
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Single -Family Townhome —6 per. Mov. Avg. (Single -Family) 6 per. Mov. Avg. (Townhome)
Source: Multiple Listing Service
Ownership Market
62
AFFORDABILITY TRENDS
WHILE UNIT PRICE is an important factor in housing
affordability, unit price must be compared with
incomes and affordability levels to reflect a true
measure of housing access. The City of Monticello
experienced rising incomes for residents coming
out of the recession - and for a time these incomes
rose at a rate ahead of the real estate market.
When single-family and townhome units reached
the bottom of their market dip in 2012, both were
affordable to many local households based on
income.
In 2012, the median single -unit home was within
the affordability limit of not only the median
household, but also within the limits of households
at 80% and 50% of the City median income.
Households at 50% AMI had seen an increase in
incomes so that the median condo/townhouse
unit was an attainable method of homeownership
through 2015.
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
Since 2014 however, house value growth has
drastically outpaced income growth for the same
period, most significantly since 2020, to the point
that the median single -unit home is no longer
affordable to even the median household, much
less the an 80% AMI household in the City. This is
largely reflective of regional forces and increased
demand that appreciate home values, while
local income conditions have caused the median
Monticello household to see a slight reduction in
real income over recent years.
Of note, the appreciation in market value of both
single -unit detached and condo/townhouse
units has continued to rise at a steady rate. The
relative consistency in appreciation has more
than doubled housing prices for entry into the
ownership market over the past decade, while
current incomes remain at a similar levels to a
decade ago, illustrating challenges in ownership
opportunity and affordable options.
........... -'
..........
.. •• ..�� '�•
$200,000 .�� • ...
$150,000OA
..ISOOF
•..
$100,000
$50,000
ti� titi ti� ti� ti� tib tib by tib tiro til ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� titi ti� ti� ti�
bac yeQ `Sad �a� '4 49 `Saa qac 49 40 >at' 49 40 -1a11' 49 `Sad -1a11 49 40
Single -Family Value -Townhome Value
----Median Income Affordability Limit ----Low Income Affordability Limit ----Very Low Income Affordability Limit
63
AFFORDABILITY TRENDS
INCREASING SALES PRICES of houses in the
City directly impact monthly owner cost and
affordability. While some homes are owned
free and clear with monthly costs consisting
solely of taxes and insurance, new borrowers
are paying increasingly more for housing.
Appreciation as well as the large cost of
new construction places ownership entry
costs into higher brackets year to year, and
represent many of the higher monthly owner
costs recorded.
By cost per square foot, there has been a
$97 increase as tracked through home sales
since 2010. This increase is higher in the
City of Monticello than in any of the peer
communities in this study, as well as for rates
within the County.
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
-$20
MONTHLY OWNER COST
$2,500 or more ,
$2,000 to $2,499
$1,500 to $1,999
$1,250 to $1,499
$1,000 to $1,249
$800 to $999
$600 to $799
$400 to $599
$200 to $399 .
Less than $200 '
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
-$40
y0 y0 titi titi titi titi ti0 y3 ti� ti� tih ,yh y0 ,y0 NA NA ,yob N% ti� ti� ti0 LO Lti ,Lti ,ti fti' 'L ,L3
\
Monticello Big Lake Buffalo Saint Michael Wright Country
64
ENTRY-LEVEL AFFORDABILITY
LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS that own their
housing commonly occupy what is referred
to as the "starter home" market. For purposes
of this study, this is tracked as the "Bottom Tier
Home Value" and is the median of the 511, to 35t1,
percentile of all home values within the City.
These homes followed the same general trend
both going into and coming out of the recession
- showing consistent steady increases in cost over
the past decade. Amongst peer communities,
Monticello still has the lowest -cost entry point
into the ownership market, even considering
appreciation.
However, the "starter home" market is still
becoming increasingly unaffordable for those who
live in the City. As of the most recent data and
estimates (2023), the median starter -home cost is
just out of reach of the affordability limit for a City
household earning 80% of the median income
($269,000 home entry cost vs. $263,000 purchase
limit). As housing costs continue to rise throughout
the market, Monticello households below the AMI
will be increasingly precluded or "priced -out" of
ownership opportunities in the City, consistent with
occupancy and consumption records.
STARTER HOME VALUE
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
OCCUPANT INCOMES OF HOUSES AFFORDABLE TO
50% AMI HOUSEHOLDS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Monticello Buffalo Becker Big Lake Saint Michael
Source: Plow Data and Research (MLS Aggregator)
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
HOUSE AVAILABILITY
SINGLE -UNIT HOME AVAILABILITY as tracked by the
Multiple listing Service is often inversely related to
prices - as inventory decreases, prices increase. As
the local housing market was coming out of the
recession, there was a market slowdown - though
this slowdown (as represented by months' of
supply) still indicated a balanced market. Months'
supply is generally considered to be balanced
when there are 4-6 months' of inventory in the
market. As that lessens, it is indicative of increased
competition for available homes in what is often
referred to as a "seller's market".
Since peaking in 2011 at more than three months,
the average days on market has dropped to
a steady 2-3 weeks on market over the past 4
years. There is seasonal variation within the data
that reflect common market periods, but time on
market has generally decreased to a point where
during peak real estate season, houses have
averaged less than 3 weeks since 2016.
SINGLE-FAMILY AVAILABILITY
140
120
100
v
c
80
0
H
0
60
40
20
This increased sales activity is directly reflected in
the months of supply metric, as it is the balance
between inventory and demand (number
of sales). Together, these metrics indicate a
competitive market with increased competition
among buyers that is causing cost inflation well
beyond the 2% average U.S. inflation rate. A slight
increase in months supply in recent years may be
due to the increase in units coming online within
the City which can signal a return to a more
balanced market.
5 -YEAR AVERAGE APPRECIATION
RATE ON MEDIAN SF HOME:
9.3% ANNUALLY
5 -YEAR APPRECIATION ON
MEDIAN SF HOME (BY SALES PRICE:
$130,450
Source: Multiple Listing Service
0
>ac 1J\ 'IF, 10 >ao 1�\ >ao 1J\ >ao 1J\ >ao 1J\ 1110 1J\
Source: Multiple Listing Service
-Days on Market -Months Supply
7
6
5
CL
OL
D
4
t
Y
C
cO
G
3
2
1
T 0
ti� titi ti� ti�
Ownership Market
65
66
HOUSE AVAILABILITY
INVENTORY of single-family houses for sale slowly
decreased from 2015 to 2021, with a slight increase
in the last two years. As inventory decreased, the
median sales price showed steady corresponding
increases - with fewer homes available, and steady
demand, markets shift toward favoring sellers
through increased competition and appreciation.
As available supply has slightly increased over the
past two years, there was still a marked increase
in the median sales price due to the skyrocketing
demand for home buying coming out of the
COVID-19 pandemic amid very low interest rates.
With recent high interest rates, the sales price should
stabilize.
From January 2015 to January 2021 during the
period of decreasing inventory, the median home
appreciated at a rate of 10.2% annually. The
recent slight increase in inventory has correlated
with appreciated at a rate of 5.2% annually for the
median home. This shows that increasing inventory
helps to ease pressures on the market that cause
cost increases, though the months of supply metric
indicates there is still demand for units in the market
that will further shift buyer/seller indices toward a
more balanced market.
MONTHLY INVENTORY
3.7% 4.5%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
TOWNHOME AVAILABILITY AND COST
$250
$200
, $150
c
ai
$100
$50
6
s
4 Q
L
3 a
2
1
$- 0
do titi titi ti'' tia ti`' tib ti� ti$ tia ,yo titi titi ti3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Price/Sq.ft.-Months Supply
Source: Multiple Listing Service
2.7% 5.5%
O 0
6.8%
0 $400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
0 111111 liL" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -LL" I I I I I I I I I I I I I liu" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w" I I I I I I 111 $-
tih tih ti(0 y(0 tiA til y'b tiCb ti ti0) LO LO Lti Lti LL LL L3 ��'
Monthly Inventory Median Sales Price
Source: Multiple Listing Service
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
HOUSE SALES
SALE TO LIST PRICE RATIOS also display trends in
the ownership market that indicate increased
competition on an year-to-year basis - though
stabilizing as inventory of units on the market has
also stabilized. Since coming out of the recession,
sellers have generally accepted offers that have
been more than 95% of the asking price for single-
family homes in the City. The greatest peak in this
ratio came amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the
summer of 2021 when sellers accepted offers that
were nearly 105% of their list price.
With increasing supply coming in 2022, the sale
to list price ratio dipped slightly, tracking with
the slight decrease in median sales price. This
is consistent with growth in number of units and
indicative of a healthy market.
MEDIAN SALES PRICE COMPARED TO LISTING
105%
100%
95%
90%
TOWNHOME PCT OF ORIGINAL PRICE
(AUGUST 2023)
100%
for 3 consecutive months
SINGLE-FAMILY PCT OF ORIGINAL PRICE
(AUGUST 2023)
10 0 % or over for
4 consecutive months
Source: Multiple Listing Service
85%
ti� ti� titi titi ti� titi ti� ti� ti� ti� tih tih ti� ti� til til ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� titi titi titi titi ti� ti3
1J >ao
Townhome Single -Family
Source: Multiple Listing Service
Ownership Market
67
68
HOUSE SALES
REGIONAL SALES TRENDS largely indicate a
tightening (increased demand) of the market
for many peer communities as well. Though
Monticello's market was slightly slower to see
increased competition and increasing offers
post -recession (when tracked through sale:listing
ratio), it then increased to become the second
community to see the median sale cost meeting
asking price, behind only Big Lake.
Monticello has the highest current sale:list price
ratio among its peer communities, though many
have shown a consistency through the past year.
Off-peak sales without a large percent decrease
in sales price indicates that growth potential for
the region is strong, and demand is shifting into
other areas. It also likely indicates that Monticello
(as the community with the largest ratio) is seeing
demand that it cannot fill with the existing stock,
which has spillover into other regional communities
(both peer communities and others), although this
is impossible to tell solely from data.
105%
100%
95%
90%
TOWNHOME PCT OF ORIGINAL PRICE IN
PEER COMMUNITIES JULY 2020)
99% in July 2020
SINGLE-FAMILY PCT OF ORIGINAL PRICE IN
PEER COMMUNITIES JULY 2020)
100%
for 4 consecutive months
Source: Multiple Listing Service
85% T TT T
>ao >�� >ao
-Monticello -Big Lake -Buffalo -Saint Michael
MORTGAGE STATUS
AGE OF HOUSEHOLDERS is one of the aspects that
impacts mortgage status. While the average
householder nationally remains in their home
for 7 years, many members of the community
purchase homes to age into them, not for capital
investment, but to provide consistent shelter costs
throughout their ownership. The City of Monticello
has a large number of owner households with a
mortgage on their property, consistent with the
age range of the owners themselves. With 69%
of all owner -occupied homes being owned by
residents under the age of 55, the largest portion
of the ownership market will look to either remain
in their homes, or consider move -up housing
options.
The remaining 30% of owner households 55
or older may choose to age -in-place, while
some will require of her housing options in the
community with age -accessibility options. The 2020
Community Survey indicated at different points
desire for zero -entry, patio, and rambler style
homes that serve aging populations, and capture
well the construction styles and design features
that serve aging households at various price points
throughout the market.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Monticello
25%
Buffalo
Becker
The City should take into consideration plans to
best serve these community members over the
next 20-30 years as more residents continue to
age into this range, with nearly 3,000 additional
residents expected reach this age range by 2050.
OWNERSHIP MARKET - AGE
■ 35 or Under ■ 35 to 54 55 to 74 75 or Over
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Big Lake
0 With a Morteaae - Without a M
St. Michael
Wright Coutny
69
70
OWNERSHIP UNIT TYPES
C
I—ON 6r O\lwTI s,
WRIGHT COUNTY
-1141 El
0
�ITH IT NE
NO
Owner Occupied
L11, Residential
Properties
I '° By Number of Units
I o I I 0 Monticello Housing Study
•� I I
� I ElI Monticello, Wright County, MN
❑
•� u
'
i
'� Streets
I I ` r
10 11 Interstate
State Road
SHERBURNE
US Highway
COUNTY
`� '�'•''�'�•:..
OWNERSHIP UNIT TYPE DISTRIBUTION across the City
shows that the majority of owner households live in
single unit detached homes, though the city has
a healthy and growing number of attached unit
homes as well. Together, these two unit types make
up 89% of all ownership unit types, in the City - the
large remainder being manufactured housing (8%
of all ownership housing).
While the Condo as an ownership structure type
within the market has never been prevalent in the
City, the lack of 2-19 unit structures presents an
ownership opportunity for denser redevelopment
in areas of the downtown while maintaining
ownership options through gradual redevelopment
and density increase where financially feasible.
City of Monticello
rtti�
Right of Way
T,� r o
DNa souRet'
Minnesota GIs Data
wnynr coaary Grs r<a.:e::o, Dora
uO MSA o ozs osM e. �
OWNERSHIP UNITS — TYPE
.-
Numbe
Water Body
-
Unit Type
87.9%
Unit Type
Parcel Boundary
��,,�•
Yvyoq'wv;w�•.�• 0 ,..„,.
i — _
—I Surrounding Municipality
•
•�••,••
12.4%
Monticello
��
��. ��
•
1.8%
Number of Units
♦ ��T �j� •w••����•O
t
�
0.5%
Single Unit Detached
Single Unit Attached
20+ unit
8
0.2%
1.9%
Manufactured Home Park
OWNERSHIP UNIT TYPE DISTRIBUTION across the City
shows that the majority of owner households live in
single unit detached homes, though the city has
a healthy and growing number of attached unit
homes as well. Together, these two unit types make
up 89% of all ownership unit types, in the City - the
large remainder being manufactured housing (8%
of all ownership housing).
While the Condo as an ownership structure type
within the market has never been prevalent in the
City, the lack of 2-19 unit structures presents an
ownership opportunity for denser redevelopment
in areas of the downtown while maintaining
ownership options through gradual redevelopment
and density increase where financially feasible.
City of Monticello
rtti�
Right of Way
T,� r o
DNa souRet'
Minnesota GIs Data
wnynr coaary Grs r<a.:e::o, Dora
uO MSA o ozs osM e. �
OWNERSHIP UNITS — TYPE
Housing Needs and Demand
.-
Numbe
TotalOwnership
Owner
Occupied
77.1%
-
Unit Type
87.9%
Unit Type
Units
1 -unit detached
2,910
1 -unit attached
467
12.4%
72.1%
2-4 unit
67
1.8%
65.7%
5-19 unit
17
0.5%
3.2%
20+ unit
8
0.2%
1.9%
Mobile Home
303
8.0%
84.6%
Housing Needs and Demand
OWNERSHIP HOUSING SIZE
THE MOST COMMON household size for owner
households within the City is 2 -person households.
Which often represents younger ownership markets
- areas where young family households with no
children will locate to be able to afford a "starter
home" within their price range before having
children. Knowing that the market in Monticello is
generally affordable when compared to the larger
region, the large number of 1 -person and 2 -person
households is typical under that context. These
smaller household types make up 57% of all owner
households in the City, slightly more than the County
as a whole, and more than all peer communities.
As these households continue to undergo expansion,
or changes in life circumstance, they often look
to move up into options that afford more space
to grow. This includes 3- and 4- bedroom units as
family size grows. Additionally, there has been a
trend of commuter -share households who may
prefer the housing cost and community character
of Monticello, who will continue to telecommute or
work from home in evolving employment markets,
which may increase need for housing size over time
at a rate unpredicted by needs based solely upon
household size requirements.
OWNER HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Buffalo
Becker
St. Michael
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
OWNER HOUSEHOLD SIZE
■ 1 -Person ■ 2 -Person ■ 3 -Person
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Wright County
71
4 -or -more Person
■ 1 -Person i 2 -Person
3 -Person 4 -or -more Person
Ownership Market
72
OWNERSHIP HOUSING SIZE
THE MOST COMMON bedroom size for owner -
occupied housing in the City is in 3 -bedroom units
(42%), followed by 4 -bedroom units (31 %) and
2 -bedroom units (20%). Ownership housing often
has a larger size (more bedrooms) than rental units,
and is a component of the preference for families in
commonly seeking out ownership housing units rather
than rental. While smaller -unit ownership housing is
generally more affordable both within existing and
new -construction markets, balance between small
and large bedroom units within a community helps
to accommodate households who wish to remain
long-term residents through changes in need and
requirements.
Manufactured homes likely make up a sizable portion
of smaller ownership housing units listed as 1- and
2 -bedroom units (up to 25% of these categories).
Development of smaller -size single -unit structures
outside of manufactured home communities are
an important component of the housing market,
especially as prices continue to appreciate so that
options are available for families without children,
aging households have the option to downsize, and
lower-income households have the ability to enter
the ownership market earlier.
OWNER UNITS By BEDROOM SIZE
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
1 -Bedroom 2 -Bedroom
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS -
OWNER
nog
■ 1 -Bedroom ■ 2 -Bedroom 3 -Bedroom
■ 4 -Bedroom ■ 5+ Bedroom
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
3 -Bedroom
4 -Bedroom
5+ Bedroom
Housing Needs and Demand
II
I I'D
1-kL
1111
;ffi
I
it s �
UF17,16
I C.
ha=
f tit,:
j MlssissipplSh may' •iF,k - 6
- I
/a �,- I
9
74
OTHER
MARKET SECTORS
Demand & Supply
HOMELESSNESS
UNITED WAY WRIGHT
COUNTY COMMUNITY
SNAPSHOT:
• Over 6,000 Wright County
households live in poverty
• One in three homeless
persons continue to work
at a job
• Wright County ranks 10th
in population, but 5th in
child protection cases
• One-third of Wright
County homeless are
children, half under the
age of 5
HOMELESSNESS - WRIGHT COUNTY 2019 PIT
10
E3
N.
4
0
HOMELESSNESS in Greater Minnesota is often not a
central part of the housing conversation, as rates of
homelessness are much lower than those within the
Twin Cities metro. However, the local Continuum
of Care (Central CoC) still tracks and reports
homelessness within the community. A vital statistic is
the annual PIT (Point -In -Time) count, which takes the
total number of persons experiencing homelessness
on a given night in the community. This data include
those who are experiencing homelessness but
sheltered. For instance, all homeless individuals and
families in Wright County during the PIT in 2019 were
in some form of shelter - and all households with
children reported were in transitional housing.
It is important to note that the PIT does not always
capture all homeless households, especially in more
rural areas. Common categories that count as
homeless, though not "literal homelessness" include
doubling up with friends or family, stays in hotels,
and other types of "recovery" homes - although
these households may not have a fixed, permanent
nighttime residence.
Children under 18 Young Adults (18-24) Adults (over 24) Young Adults (18-24) Adults (over 24)
Households with Children
Source: Central MN Continuum of Care
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Households Without Children
Other Populations
75
76
AT -RISK OF HOMELESSNESS
TRADITIONAL MEASURES of homelessness are
focused on assisting households and individuals
in finding housing, stabilizing employment, and
arranging long-term solutions. But there are
different risk factors associated with homelessness,
which include financial insecurity and housing
cost burden. Per the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, households who are
extremely low-income (<30% AMI), severely cost
burdened, renter households are those who are at
the greatest risk of facing homelessness, and are
classified "at -risk".
In quickly appreciating and tight housing markets,
extremely low-income households are likely to
be the first "squeezed out", and income shocks
are more impactful to a household remaining in
housing. In most recent data (2016), there are 200
households in the City of Monticello that meet
this definition of being at -risk of homelessness -
those with the lowest incomes, whose housing
costs make up the highest portion of their annual
incomes.
The number of these at -risk households has
largely remained consistent on a yearly basis,
perhaps even slightly declining over time. As
recent income estimates show slight decreases,
while housing markets have shown increased
costs, it would be expected that the number
of households already living in the community
that classify would increase - especially under
consideration that this AMI standard is for the
1 1 -county metro, which has largely shown income
growth over the same timeframe.
If income in the 1 1 -county metro continues to
show strong growth, and local incomes remain
consistent or decrease slightly, more local
households fall into the definition of low-income
categories used by Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency and HUD which set 30%, 50%, 60%, and
80% AMI income standards for the region.
255
250
225
200
200
200 1-0�190
180
150 0-100
150
100
50
T6 0 ti�1�
At -Risk Households
T13 -1T " T
AGING POPULATIONS
SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS are anticipated to have the
largest percentage growth through 2050. Many
are current homeowners, and some will require
different accommodations, specialized housing, or
programming to assist aging -in-place.
Senior housing generally refers to the combination
of services and housing that allow seniors to
continue to live comfortably. This ranges from
continuing to live in their own home with virtually
no services, townhomes and apartments that offer
the ability to "downsize" living quarters, specialized
housing units with limited services, and different
types of assisted living facilities.
Generally, independent -living senior facilities
attract residents age 65 and older, while more
specialized facilities (assisted living, etc.) attract
residents who are age 80 and over and need
assistance with daily living activities.
The Community Basics section of this plan
detailed expected population increases for
400
350
300
Ln 250
0
J
Q
W 200
N
Q
= 150
100
50
0
senior populations in the City. In addition, growth
in population aged 35 and older often sees an
accompanying increase in senior populations as
persons aged 35-54 often have parents who will
locate closer to their children for care as they age
into more intensive services and care.
As varying levels of services are included with
different types of housing for aging populations,
typical affordability standards do not apply.
Often senior households will pay up to 50% of their
income for market rate senior housing, up to 90%
of their income for specialized and assisted living,
often funded in part through the sale of a home
they owned. Many households age 62+ in the City
are still homeowners, who have not yet sold homes
to fund other housing or services, while those 85+
are more likely to be renters as they continue to
age and need alternate accommodations.
Over the next 30 years, approximately 1,500
residents will age into the 80+ age category,
and may look to sell their housing for other living
options.
■ <30%AMI - 31%-50% AM 1 51%-80% AM I >80% AM I
77
78
AGING POPULATIONS
MANY AGING HOUSEHOLDS will be able to use
funds from home sales for other housing options.
While home value increases make it more difficult
for lower-income households to enter the housing
market, it also means that senior homeowners
have access to extra capital through the rapid
appreciation of homes, and will have more funds
available to ensure care as they continue to age.
Assuming that a senior household owns their home
free and clear, and their home sells for a median
value of $265,450 (circa 2020), they would be
able to generate approximately $5,360 in annual
income from a 2% interest producing account
($446.50 per month) to supplement housing costs.
Monticello's 2020 mill rate (at the highest district
value) signifies an additional $2,900 annually they
would have already been paying for housing cost,
which brings their monthly total housing allowance
to $690 without increasing share of income spent
on housing.
55+ DETAILED HOUSEHOLD CATEGORIES - MONTICELLO
600
490
500
400
300
446
Importantly, many of the households who might
otherwise have sold their home during the past
decade may have delayed plans for other
housing options due to decreased housing
values associated with the recession, choosing
to continue to age -in-place. With recent
appreciation of home values in the City, these
households may be more interested in sale of their
home over the coming years should demand
continue to drive appreciation closer to the 8%
average annual mark post -recession.
In the next 10 years, this does not represent a
drastic number of housing units that may be
transitioning - likely between 125 and 145 units, or
12-15 annually. However long-term, especially as
other 55+ age groups continue to age, this could
represent upwards of 30 additional units per year
opening to new owner households, which will help
alleviate some market pressures through transition
of existing housing stock - including more housing
stock in desirable locations at various price points
that had not been on the market for many years.
208 196
200 156 176
127
100
100 63
48
0 ■ •
55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2021
City of Monticello
■ Owner ■ Renter
Housing Needs and Demand
DISABILITY
PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY do not inherently
require access to specific housing types or
accommodations, dependent upon the type
and severity of the disability. More commonly,
persons with a disability receive services and
accommodations related to the disability as they
continue to age and require more specialized
forms of housing. This is due to the percentage of
population, by age, that experience a disability
being disproportionately higher in aging and senior
households.
When housing units are constructed, they are
not traditionally built using methods that easily
accommodate aging populations and often
require renovation such as wider doorways, lower
countertops, and zero entry showers/baths. For
instance, Monticello offers density, height, and
parking bonuses/reductions for new construction
with significant percentages of units built to
universal design standards (among other green
building standards) within overlay districts. These
standards will remain an integral component of
choice for aging households over the next 30
years.
AGE PROJECTIONS
PERCENTAGE OF AGE GROUP WITH A DISABILITY - MONTICELLO
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
14.0%
10%
6.2%
3.4%
0%
79
*Tied to projections in Wright County, not directly to 2018 estimates.
Source: MN State Demographic Center
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
16.4%
< 17 years 18 to 34 35 to 64 65 to 74
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
52.6%
75 and over
Other Populations
0 - 9 Years
2,292
12.21%7.
2,573
10 - 19 Years
1,876
-3.7%
1,806
20 - 34 Years
2,757
11.2%
3,066
35 - 49 Years
2,598
17.5%
3,053
50 - 64 Years
2,274
-26.5%
1,672
65 - 79 Years
1,094
55.7%
1,703
80 and Over
601
252.6%
2,120
PERCENTAGE OF AGE GROUP WITH A DISABILITY - MONTICELLO
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
14.0%
10%
6.2%
3.4%
0%
79
*Tied to projections in Wright County, not directly to 2018 estimates.
Source: MN State Demographic Center
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
16.4%
< 17 years 18 to 34 35 to 64 65 to 74
Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 2018
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
52.6%
75 and over
Other Populations
80
ACCESSIBILITY
NEW MARKET RATE AND WORKFORCE units in the
City, both ownership and rental, will likely see an
increased demand for universal design features
due to projected age increases for residents -
both current and within the larger County (due to
hospital and transportation accessibility). Current
City trends show that while there are households
containing a member with a disability in all income
ranges, there is especially a need at both the
highest and lowest income categories, indicating
need for both affordable and market rate housing
options.
While lower-income households often have
disabilities go unreported or undiagnosed,
there are residents at all ages in households of
all incomes that require access to appropriate
housing design to meet their needs. Many middle-
income households may additionally fall into
lower-income categories as income becomes
more limited in retirement.
200 195
150 145
0 100 . 95 85 90
65
r 0 1 0 55
50
30
There is no database on a local level for units
currently accessible (due to the nature of private
market retrofits at varying levels), though estimates
nationally place accessible single family homes at
just 1 % of the total housing stock.
This is important as, even at advanced ages,
many residents choose to continue to remain
in their own housing. For those that do move
at advanced ages, including in the ownership
market, over 50% choose to actively seek out
residential units with accessibility features such as
no -step entries, level style door handles, accessible
shelving and electrical, and single floor living. As
the population of the City continues to age, and
parents of residents move to be closer to their
primary caretaker, ensuring continued supply of
units with accessibility features should remain a
priority.
200
115
95 95
85 85
175
< 30% AMI 31% - 50% AMI 51% - 80% AMI > 80% AMI
105
0 Hearing/Vision Impairment Ambulatory Limitation Cognitive Limitation Self-Care/Independent Living Limitation
82
LOCAL IMPACTS
on Housing
NEW CONSTRUCTION
NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITY has increased
significantly post -recession, with the single -unit
detached market being the first residential
construction sector to rebound with significant
starts in 2012. Since 2012, the attached -unit market
also started seeing increases in starts annually
in the City, with every year bringing at least a
handful of new units online.
New single -unit permits peaked in 2014, briefly
declined and then peaked again in 2021. In
recent years, the attached -unit market has made
up 50% or more of all new single -unit construction
making up for a period of construction dominated
by single -unit attached.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 101110
2010 2011 2012 2013
2014
2015
While there is still a healthy amount of construction
activity in the single -unit market on an annual
basis, construction costs have been increasing -
and therefore ownership and rental costs as well.
This is one of the forces regionally and nationally
pushing toward attached -unit construction, as
efficiencies in construction and decreased land
cost create some cost -savings in the development
process.
Attached units are a key component of a healthy
market, especially in Monticello, where generally
lower regional incomes combined with increased
demand from in -migration means that more
affordable options are needed to ensure current
residents can continue to call Monticello home.
MENEEMEN
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023*
■ Single -Unit Attached 0 Single -Unit Detached
83
84
NEW UNIT CONSTRUCTION
NEW UNIT CONSTRUCTION over the past decade
has also consisted of development in the multi-
unit or multi -family market. This development
primarily occurs to supplement the rental supply
with newer options, as many of the existing
rental units in the City are in older multi -unit
buildings. Multifamily development in the City
has historically existed in older housing stock, and
as residents commuting to the metro continues
to increase, expanding and diversifying options
across market segments helps to expand
opportunity for a variety of household types
across all incomes, family types, and preferences.
Recent market rate developments in the City
report healthy lease up rates with less vacancy
required than expected in development
assumptions, and it is likely that there is a
continued market for multifamily housing to
continue to serve as market differentiators for the
City.
NEW UNIT PERMITS BY TYPE
250
200
150
100
50
n
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: City of Monticello
*Data includes January 2023 -June 2023
Note: Monticello Crossings permits spread across 2015 and 2016.
City of Monticello
In years where multi -unit construction occurs, it
makes up a significant portion of housing starts.
26% or more of current rental units in the market
exist in 20+ unit buildings with new larger
apartment buildings fueling unit development in
recent years. There is also opportunity to expand
construction while balancing housing options
through encouragement of new single -unit
rental properties both attached and detached,
which currently exist in the core city as well as in
subdivisions and neighborhoods throughout the
City in developments known as build -to rent -units.
2016 2017 2018
Multi -Unit ■ Attached ■ Detached
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023*
Housing Needs and Demand
NEW UNIT AFFORDABILITY
PERMITTED UNITS are charged permit fees, which
are based on the total cost of construction
(valuation) - as market costs are largely
unknowable at the time of permitting. This makes
judging future affordability of proposed units
somewhat difficult, as builders and developers are
taking a risk in development that their investment
will come online in an appreciated market to
maximize returns.
While there is no consistent, perfect method to
anticipate future market costs based solely on the
cost of construction, the basis of just construction
costs adjusted for builder/developer profit show
general ranges for what a buyer would pay for the
type and quality of construction needed in new
single-family starts regardless of location in the
City.
The National Association of Home Builders reports
a decreasing gross profit since 2020 with current
percentages at 18.20. Using this gross profit
percentage applied to valuation over the past
5 years, the chart below shows the approximate
market construction cost of units (cost to buyer)
that have been permitted.
This is necessary to track trends in new
construction, as many homes may not be
directly listed with the Multiple Listing Service, but
marketed and sold either before built, or directly
by the developer.
In recent years, the shift from low-cost to higher -
cost can be seen through the number of units with
higher construction costs year-to-year.
SF NEW CONSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION COST TO BUYER
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
■,$150,000 ■$150,001-$200,000 •$200,001-$250,000 •$250,001-$300,000 ■$300,001-$350,000 ■$350,001-$450,000 ■,$450,000
Source: City of Monticello
1-0
2023
Local Impacts
85
86
NEW UNIT AFFORDABILITY
NEW UNIT VALUATION since 2015 shows a
decrease in new unit construction in several areas
of the market - slightly less construction at the most
affordable price points, slightly less construction
in the highest -cost price points, and increased
construction in the middle of the market.
Though house construction in recent years has
spanned many building sales price categories
(consumer costs excluding land), in terms of
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
CONSTRUCTION COST TO BUYERS
affordability much construction is still higher than
many households that live in the City can afford.
The low end of the buyer construction cost range
(<$300,000) would be "affordable" to a household
earning approximately $90,000 annually, which is
still above the average median household in the
City. The high-end range ($350,000+), equates to
affordable cost for a household earning $104,000
annually, which is nearly $20,000 greater than the
median household income for the City - and does
not include significant land pricing.
Ownership Units
2015
2016
2017
Approximate
Sales
Cost
020
MM
2021 2022 20
201
00
ON
$150,000 - $200,000
15
ME
$200,001 000
MEN
000
ME
$300,001 - $350 000
ME
$350,001 $450,00(
VALUATION
I
O
\ ` I El
0 I
°..°x31 Ai
j MID
1 z, 'sir
!w"' •�\ i S H ERBU'R N E
`" �•!�� /COUNTY
T L ♦ Ii:-•♦••
A%, ° 9s, o
Amell ,►-� a �•\ �, `
°°9pw
X711►►/ •,°r �'♦ t,
WRIGHT COUNTY��o �� �t ��� ` ';�'•
c'snx ae
El
f
e_ :
M; o m
. o �,xs,xE °sTMs,xx
e �g2o
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
THE VALUATION of land in the City helps to portray
local impact and accessibility of the housing
market. Residential values have increased
significantly in recent years consistent with overall
market conditions, and outpacing commercial
valuations by as much as 3 -to -1.
As assessments and valuations roll into housing
cost for resident homeowners, increasing
valuations can lead to increasing unaffordability
for residents who own their homes, especially
those with limited, fixed, or decreasing incomes.
As Monticello's median family income has
remained relatively steady since 2010, this can
create tension in the housing market where
owners invested at the top of their affordability
limits can see increases that make their current
housing unaffordable. In the 2020 Community
Survey, 10% of homeowner respondents indicated
87
Residential
Properties
Total Property
Value
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
'�. Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
_I Surrounding Municipality
If] Monticello
Total Property Value
Less Than $50,001
$50,000 - $200,000
$200,001 - $500,001
$500,001 - $1,000,000
$1,000,000 - $5,000,000
Greater than $5,000,001
No Assessed Value
Non Residential Parcels
Right of Way
Data Sou o
�(�(
Wright Count' - &Az esso, Da
DMSA0 0.25 OS Miles
they had to forego other needs such as food, ,N
healthcare, or childcare to continue to be able to
afford housing in the past 5 years.
Appreciating housing is important to healthy
markets, and provides a stable financial base
for homeowners into the future. However as the
capital is tied up into housing, the increased costs
at rates higher than inflation and income increase
can become burdensome over time.
Spatially within the City, subdivision development
in the residential market generally sees higher
property values than areas built out in the City
center, with the exception of riverfront properties.
Attached -unit affordability is also shown directly
in this map, as observed through categorization
differences between detached and attached
ownership areas.
Local Impacts
88
IMPROVEMENT VALUE RATIO
PARCEL VALUATION is made up of two components
- land value and improvement value. While both
land and improvements (buildings) generally
appreciate over time, development and use
trends can drastically shift associated land
values over the course of decades. In practice,
this means that very desirable areas have large
increases in land value, while other areas grow at
rates more consistent with overall inflation.
This shifting land value impacts the housing
market due to the overall usable life of residential
buildings. Single -unit homes have a usable life of
100 years or more, while small- to mid-size multi -
units buildings can have a usable life between 65
and 80 years if properly maintained.
Since construction and development is based
heavily on financial incentive, parcels with low
Improvement:Land value ratios are more prone
to redevelopment, and will often see increased
pressure for teardown/rebuilds even in the single
family market.
In the City, newer construction generally shows
higher Improvement: Land Value ratios. This is
partially due to lower land costs (location) as
well as increased construction cost and buyer
preference (size/bedrooms/etc.). Areas of the City
that are most prepared for redevelopment are, in
general, areas of the downtown and central city
that have older housing stock and low ratios, while
greenfield construction will increase values on the
edges of the City.
I I
1 I I I 10 ' LI
I
LEI
r
��� — Zi• I IDI 0 j
°AMS°Ns.
I I �♦ I I
r
I' ♦ I I
All "•,`\ I SHERBURNE
�� ♦ `• !�;�.
COUNTY
❑ter
kk,
ft
WRIGHT COUNTY �������;►`,liEl
I'•////���R +♦ '.•.�, `. i� ;•••�••+
❑' 'i
Jill
EA
ED
Sol
1 .,
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
City of Monticello
Residential
Properties
Improvement Ratio
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
^+ Interstate
'1. State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
_I Surrounding Municipality
If] Monticello
Improvement Ratio
Less than or Equal to 1.0
1.0 - 3.0
3.1 -6.0
6.1 -10.0
10.1 - 15.0
Greater than 15.0
' No Year Built Data
Non Residential Parcels
Right of Way
ogm so�r<e::
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright CounryGlS&Assessor Data
DMSA
Housing Needs and Demand
AVAILABLE LOTS
uaca riot upaatea in �v" Housing xuay
ASIDE FROM REDEVELOPMENT, there are parcels
in the City that remain vacant and awaiting
construction/development of some type. The map
above shows residential parcels which have an
assessed improvement value of $0 and are zoned
for residential development. Some of these are
already platted and serviced, while other require
re -platting.
Available parcels are located in several zoning
districts, though the number available in each
varies. Notably, there are significant numbers
of parcels identified as being available within
the downtown of the City. Though individual
parcels, they provide opportunity for slight
increases in density that supports other downtown
development.
89
Available
Residential
Properties
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
'\+ Interstate
-*,, State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
_I Surrounding Municipality
IX Monticello
Residential Vacant Land
Single - Unit Bank Owned
Right of Way
Dmo sou.�e::
ro GIS Dara
Wright County GIS & Assesso, Da[a
, H(MSA o azs os muee
This analysis is largely focused on showing which
parcels are available for potential development,
and is not intended to be all-encompassing. The
City maintains a map of available residential
parcels that have been platted in subdivisions (pg.
90), which contains more detailed information on
specific numbers of units available for construction
in each.
A full-size scalable version of this map is located
in the appendix to better identify parcels with
potential for development opportunity.
Local Impacts
February 2020
Size (Acres) 2019 Taxes
Zoning
City of Monticello
0.47
$0.00
CCD
14_
►air >�., � ,�, � ! ,1 �., a
0.19
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
'11111L
Pi M.
i 16 15� 8c. rt
` ff
.44
Legend
_ EDA Owned -Guided Downtown
EDA Owned - Guided Residential
City Owned Parking Lots
PID
7
155-010-017011
2
155-010-050011
3
155-010-054011
4
155-010-036090
�
Fr -
155 -010-052071
6 155-010-034130 / 155-010-034140 /
155-010-034150
7
155-010-034102 Iff
8
155-010-034040
9 155-010-067010 / 155-010-067060 /
155-010-067100
.�. 10 155-010-052120
!/ 155-010-052110
12 155-019-007050 / 155-019-008010 /
155-010-067100
13
155-010-052132 / 155-010-052140
14
155-010-052150
15
155-010-034080
16
155-010-034101
17
155-010-034030
18
155-010-034020
19 155-010-035011
1 ■
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
monticello.mn.us 1 (763) 271-3254 , ,
Owner
Size (Acres) 2019 Taxes
Zoning
City of Monticello
0.47
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.19
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.25
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.10
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.22
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.36
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.19
$0.00
CCD
City of Monticello
0.50
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
1.33
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.07
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.43
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
1.40
$0.00
R-2
City of Monticello
0.28
$0.00
CCD
Monticello EDA
0.23
$0.00
CCD
City of Monticello
0.25
$0.00
B-3
City of Monticello
0.09
$0.00
B-3
City of Monticello
0.25
$0.00
B-3
City of Monticello
0.25
$0.00
B-3
City of Monticello
0.70
$0.00
B-3
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
AVAILABLE LOTS -CITY-OWNED
-- I
Eilloll
El
.•` I g�z I
ElCAI 'RON IT Ak
I _
--- I
I
n
,1�,•� I SHERBURNE
`,�\ •!��
COUNTY
El
74 74 7 74
74
♦ �� �� 1r � � I 1
WRIGHT COUNTY � �� '`••.,,� !�••' '
cm
m � �
9o,�s.NE El
J �
y
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
A COMPONENT OF AVAILABLE PARCELS; there
are parcels in Monticello that are under direct
ownership and control of the EDA (inset pg. 87).
Many of these parcels are available for residential
use, and should continue to be considered in
unique strategies that can increase affordability,
types of development, and integration of tenure
types.
Local control over development parcels allows
Monticello the ability to heavily influence any
future development that would occur, utilizing
known needs and the vision of the comprehensive
plan to guide development types in key areas.
91
City Owned
Properties
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
'�. State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
1' Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Available City Owned Properties
Right of Way
GIs Do,,
wright County GIS & Assusor Dora
PJMSA a ozs os Mne,
Parcels displayed on this map are available
parcels that are zoned for some form of residential
use, and exclude all land records that indicate
park use for the properties. While many of
the properties are within neighborhoods and
subdivisions, there are also parcels in key corridors
along Interstate 94, the downtown, and other
districts.
The City has consciously invested into securing
properties for future redevelopment, and should
continue to do so as growth pressures continue to
ensure quality design and housing that meets the
needs of residents.
Local Impacts
92
CITY -OWNED LOTS BY ZONING
AVAILABLE LOTS under EDA ownership have
been located in a variety of different districts
with different associated densities and building
structure types - ranging from Single and Two
family Residential, Medium Density Residential,
Traditional Residential, Residential Amenities
District, and carryover parcels that have
undergone zoning conversion to PUD.
While some of these parcels are dedications
from development, they are indicative of
the opportunities that the City has to control
development potential in different areas of the
City across zoning districts.
WRIGHT COUNTY
s❑e
�o
0 1
k . o
As the City updates the comprehensive plan and
looks categorically at future land use and densities
in specific areas, continuing proactive acquisition
of parcels in areas that advance City housing
policies should be a key consideration - including
continuing to activate and increase density and
vibrancy in the downtown, subdivisions with ranges
of unit types, structure sizes, and tenure, and
more intensive development options in areas with
transportation and easy amenity access.
Downtown inset is on pg. 87.
I • 0
I
El I 0
I
I I
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
'❑° g�g f 1
I I
'�'�• IIS•'••'•• •_�
i
• � 189
0
City Owned
Properties
By Zoning
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
'�.. State Road
US Highway
f Water Body
In Parcel Boundary
,' - Surrounding Municipality
AMonticello
Right of Way
Monticello Zoning
Highway Business
Medium Density Residential
DOM Sources.'
Minnes.. GIS -
C .. ty
Co..y GIS &Auessa Wto
OMSA °°.°s °s ilea �
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
RESIDENTIAL PLATTED LOTS
PLATTED PROPERTIES within the City represent
current available parcels that are ready for
development, including approved numbers of
total units for potential purchasers both in the City
and those looking to relocate.
There are currently 5 subdivision developments
that have been platted, and include opportunity
for 153 new units in the City. These are included
in demand calculations to best ensure accurate
f f
Three of these subdivisions are largely built out,
containing opportunity for 1, 2, and 5 units in
Hillside Farm, Club West, and Carlisle Village
respectively. Sunset Ponds recently received
approvals and permits for completion.
The total unit mix across these subdivisions
indicates a unit mix consistent with recent
development across both single -unit and multi -unit
avallablllty o lots and units ready or creation. building structures.
Updated: February 2020 I Available Platted and Utility Serviced Lots
a
To St. Cloud C��a
X13'3 99
93
CITY OF
� Monticell
Development Single Family Lots Multi Family Lots
Featherstone 25 0
3 Mllesto T:H.10 Hillside Farm 1 0
Carlisle Village 5 13 buildings / 60 I
Autumn Ridge Villas 24 0
Club West 2 0
Haven Ridge 27 0
mem' s' Sunset Ponds 0 2 buildings / 9
• W
Totals: 84 69 units
Local Impacts
94
DEVELOPMENT FEES
ONE OF THE COSTS directly passed on to
consumers in both ownership and rental markets
are fees associated with development. These fees
are assessed by the City in order to ensure quality
of development, as well as to mitigate potential
negative impacts associated with increased
residential density. Monticello's fee schedule
is reproduced on an annual basis, reassessed
to ensure fees charged meet the required
intent without dissuading development due to
prohibitive cost.
PERMIT FEES:
The amounts in the table below are a sample
of recent per-unit permit fees for development
projects in the City over the past four years. These
fees are used for illustrative purposes only, to give
relative example of how individual subdivision,
building, or structure types have different
associated permitting and development fees
dependent upon project details and levels of
review.
TotalPer
Unit Cost
Type
Project-
Valuation
Revenue
Check
Fee
SAC
Fees
WAC
Fees
Total. -
Unit
$15,500,000
$3,483.12
$364.37
$20.88
$2,576.99
$56.08
$6,501.58
Multi -Family
Construction
$5,125,000
$510.82
$272.76
$32.05
$4,651.94
$88.15
$5,556.00
$6,480,000
$367.40
$238.81
$23.85
$4,190.00
-
$4,820.06
$141,864
$2,024.04
$320.71
$70.93
$4,315.00
$833.00
$7,563.68
$159,326
$2,130.96
$352.44
$79.66
$4,315.00
$833.00
$7,711.06
Single -Family
Attached
$203,200
$2,364.32
$417.78
$101.60
$4,190.00
$833.00
$7,906.70
$218,971
$2,453.42
$1,114.16
$109.49
$4,190.00
$833.00
$8,730.07
$224,762
$2,489.06
$1,167.32
$112.38
$4,190.00
$833.00
$8,791.76
$152,000
$2,038.67
$340.57
$76.00
$4,190.00
$833.00
$7,478.24
$187,528
$2,252.51
$1,024.46
$93.76
$4,190.00
$833.00
$8,393.73
Single -Family
Detached
$215,000
$2,457.66
$1,128.71
$107.50
$4,315.00
$833.00
$8,841.87
$270,000
$2,784.36
$1,341.07
$135.00
$4,315.00
$833.00
$9,408.43
$302,000
$2,946.44
1,464.62
$151
$4,190.00
$833.00
$9,585.06
DEVELOPMENT FEES COMPARISON
95
DEVELOPMENT FEES vary from community to community. While most communities charge similar types
of fees, the way each municipality calculates those fees and the rates they set can vary significantly
depending on their differing contexts and needs. A detailed summary table comparing a sample of
Monticello's development fees for 2023 in relation to its regional peers can be found in the Appendix.
One-to-one comparisons between fees are not always possible given the differing methods for
calculating fees amongst the municipalities. For example, Monticello calculates its cash -in -lieu of parkland
dedication fee based on the fair market value of the raw land in the new subdivision (set at 1 I%), while
the City of Buffalo charges different rates based on the number and type of residential units being
created ($2,900 per single family unit or $5,800 per duplex).
Two types of fees that are able to be compared on a relatively one-to-one basis are area trunk area
utility charges and availability/access charges for water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater infrastructure. For
the sake of comparison, the tables below detail the how these charges would vary if the Savanna Vista
multi -family apartment complex and Featherstone 6th Addition single family home developments were
hypothetically built in each community (these are real world projects planned or already constructed in
the City of Monticello). These calculations are for the sake of comparison and may not reflect the true
cost of these charges in each community.
Multi -Family Fee Comparison - Savanna Vista (200 units / 10.73 acres)
Residential -. Water Sanitary StormwaterTOTAL
Utility ..-
Monticello $236,400 $328,200 $47,169 $611,769
Buffalo
$21,535
$20,323
$3,756
$45,613
Becker
$29,465
$35,645
$68,017
$133,127
Big Lake
$17,705
$57,191
n/a*
$74,895*
St. Michael
$180,000
$509,400
$124,000
$813,400
- .-..
-
Monticello
$99,400
$911,000
$1,010,400
Buffalo
$1,894
$7,962
$9,856
Becker
$1,042
$1,400
$2,442
Big Lake
$440,000
$647,000
$1,087,000
St. Michael
$1,190,400
$590,400
$1,780,800
Local Impacts
96
DEVELOPMFr\1 T FEES COMPARISON CONT.
Single -Family Fee Comparison - Featherstone 6th Addition (21 units / 10 acres)
Residential -.- -LTOTA
Utility ..-
1p
Monticello
$24,822
$34,461
$43,960
$103,243
Buffalo
$20,070
$18,940
$3,500
$42,510
Becker
$27,460
$33,220
$51,830
$112,510
Big Lake
$16,500
$53,300
n/a*
$69,800*
St. Michael
$23,604
$59,388
$62,769
$145,761
Monticello
$10,437
$95,655
$106,092
Buffalo
$1,894
$7,962
$9,856
Becker
$2,382
$3,200
$5,582
Big Lake
$75,285
$111,825
$187,110
St. Michael
$124,992
$61,992
$186,984
Source: Municipality Development Fee Schedules
*Stormwater trunk area utility charges are determined by the City Engineer in Big Lake, therefore an accurate total cost cannot be computed for this exercise.
However, it should be assumed their total trunk area fees would be higher than the amount listed in the above tables.
For these two developments, Monticello's total fees are neither the most or least expensive amongst
its regional peers. For availability/access charges, St. Michael and Big Lake are the most expensive
communities, with Monticello in third place. Buffalo and Becker's availability/access charges by
comparison are dramatically less than the other communities since they charge a flat amount per
development rather than calculate their fees based on the number of units or total acreage in the
development. This discrepancy is seen most dramatically with the hypothetical 200 -unit multi -family
apartment complex, and demonstrates how different methodologies for calculating fees can impact the
total cost passed on to consumers.
City of Monticello
Housing Needs and Demand
TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
CONDOS are smaller, owner -occupied housing units
that are a popular, and often more affordable,
alternative to a typical single-family home. Condos
come in many forms including larger, multi -story
buildings or in attached style housing. Townhomes
are an example of a form of condo ownership
type that are categorized as a smaller attached
home that can exist in blocks of 2 or more units.
Townhomes mostly fall under ownership as a condo
but can also be found in rentable units. They can
be a substitute for a starter home and are found
both in traditional downtown neighborhoods as
well as new developments nationwide. Although
each have their respective differences, townhomes
and condos can often meet the housing needs of
young families and elderly people who might be
interested in a smaller space at a more affordable
price.
Monticello has a larger inventory of condo and
townhomes than its peers and performs better than
average nationwide in number owner -occupied
1 -unit detached and condo developments as a
percentage of total housing units. However, the
near zero vacancy rate for owner -occupied units
combined with an increasingly unaffordable single-
family home and rental market suggest that there
is a great need to supply more affordable owner -
occupied housing options like townhomes and
condos.
Costs are rising. Interest rates are high, and
inflation has pushed construction costs up.
Since January 2023, construction material cost
is up 11.3% and labor cost is up 2.9% for the
national average according to CoreLogic,
which monitors a wide variety of construction
materials and labor for the building industry.
Many projects originally set for 2021 were
delayed because of construction costs and
funding drying up.
Developers are looking for federal and
municipal support to finance projects.
Currently, in order to receive financing from
lenders, condos must have sold units ( i.e.
50% condos sold = 50% loan). This hampers
development where there simply isn't the
capital stack available.
Developers are fearing legal liabilities from
owners' associations. According to the
MinnPost, until recently, condo developers
were vulnerable to lawsuits from owners'
associations who sue for poor construction.
Apartment developers are not liable for
construction issues.
Recent developments include the Carlisle Village
6th addition which became active as of 2021
offering townhomes smaller than 2,000 sq. ft. at
roughly a $300,000 price range. Stoney Brook
Village Development was recently proposed and
approved offering townhomes for $400,000.
While these units tend to be less expensive than
single-family detached homes in Monticello, they
still fall out of reach for the median household
earning $84,444. Barriers and strategies for
improving the affordability of townhomes and
condos are explored below.
Stoney Brook Village Twinhome Development
Source: Mark Elliot Homes
Purchasers of condos have limited access
to a mortgage. Unless 80% of condos or
more are sold in the development, would be
buyers are not able to receive a mortgage,
a Wisconsin State Journal article reported.
Without a guarantee that units will sell,
developers hold off.
Demand for apartments outweighs condos
and townhome. With unaffordable options for
condos, townhomes, and single-family homes,
people are substituting into apartment units
which drives up more demand for rental
units. Due to this high demand, lenders are
more than comfortable financing new rental
projects, with condo and townhome projects
falling to the wayside.
Restrictive zoning. Rules and development
standards can block condo and townhome
development from being economically viable
for developers
Local Impacts
97
98
SOLUTIONS
Adjust zoning code to allow for more condo
development. The City should consider
reducing minimum lot size for condo and
townhome units which sit at 5,500-7,000 sq.
ft. depending on unit type. Zoning districts
should be evaluated for where condo and
townhome development are allowed.
Promote change in law that gives condo
developers greater protection from lawsuits.
This law has decreased the risk that condo
developers take on and can encourage new
development to take place.
Support condo and townhome purchasers
with greater access to mortgages. Public-
private partnerships can alleviate the burden
of financing the purchase of a condo or
townhome by offering mortgage programs
for zero -interest or incentives for first time
buyers.
Provide more routes to financing for condo
developers. Collaboration between
developers, government, and finance sector
can bring about additional paths to capital
for developments.
City of Monticello
The Grove Townhomes
Source: St. Pete Rising
St. Pete, FL recently approved three
affordable townhome projects which in
completion will offer 64 homeownership
opportunities to residents. Lot sizes average
2,500 sq. ft. per unit. In a partnership
between the City and Habitat for Humanity
of Pinellas and West Paco Counties, these
projects utilize multiple programs designed to
incentivize and reduce costs for developers.
Units will be offered in a range of $219,000 to
$279,000 meets affordability limits of 80% AMI
(area median income) and above buyers.
Additionally, Habitat will offer 30 -year, 0%
interest mortgages on the 64 townhomes.
Housing Needs and Demand
ZONING
MONTICELLO'S ZONING ORDINANCE is written
to have 6 main residential districts. Counting
permitted (by -right) uses, this includes 3 low-density
single-family only districts, 1 medium density single-
family only district, 1 single -fa mily/townhome
district, and 1 town home/multi-family district. As
the City looks to update future land uses and
development patterns, it may be beneficial to
continue to proactively anticipate development
in certain districts that promotes mixes of unit
types, sizes, and structures within subdivision
development and platting to offer increased
access to residents. Other considerations may
include revisions to districts that allow more
"missing middle" housing (3+ unit) housing by -right
in certain districts, to save on developer holding
costs that increase the price of housing.
99
P = Permitted Use; C = Conditional Use
*Allowed as Permitted Use in Broadway and General CCD subarea in certain situations
** Lot averaging can be utilized in subdivision development
Data not updated in 2U23 Housing Study
Minimum Residential
-
Accessory
Size
Dwelling
AO
2 acre
200'
P
P/C
RA
14,000 sq. ft. **
90' **
P
P/C
R1
10,000 sq. ft. **
70' **
P/C
R2
10,000 sq. ft. SF
10,000 base + 4,000 /unit MF
80'
P
C*
C
P/C
Zoning
7,000 sq. ft Duplex/Att.
District
TN
7,500 sq. ft.
P/C
R3
10,980 sq. ft./unit TH
80'
C
P
P
P/C
5,124 sq. ft./unit MF
R4
30,000 sq. ft.
C
C
P/C
B1
8,000 sq. ft
C
C
P/C
P = Permitted Use; C = Conditional Use
*Allowed as Permitted Use in Broadway and General CCD subarea in certain situations
** Lot averaging can be utilized in subdivision development
Data not updated in 2U23 Housing Study
100
ZONING
BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
L_YJ Swan River
Residential Districts
Business Districts
— Low Residential Densities
B -t
- A -O
B-2
0 R -A
B-3
0 R -t
B-4
_
CCD
—Medium Residential Densities
Autumn Ridge
C T N
Industrial Districts
C R-2
BC
I
R -PUD
I-1
- 1-2
— High Residential Densities
L_YJ Swan River
- R-3
LTJ Monticello High School
LM Mills Fleet Farm
- R-4
LTJ Red Rooster
_ M -H
[Mi Spaeth Industrial Park
PUDs
Lil$J Camping World
L�IJ Affordable Storage
OTHER
Autumn Ridge
0 Water
LTJ Rivertown Suites
L3DJ Monticello RV
LTJ Deephaven
Monticello Business
Lai' J Center 8th
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
_ Performance Based Overlay District
_ Special Use Overlay District
IL _ I Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District
Q Shoreland District
Data not updated in 2023 Housing Study
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT by right within
the zoning code helps to ease planning and
construction by having clear, concise rules and
regulations so that residents and developers
understand expectations for the site. Good zoning
creates guidelines for this development while
maintaining flexibility balanced with community
health and aesthetically pleasing design.
Overall, the many districts in the City offer a range
of development opportunities for a wide variety
of housing types. There is likely opportunity to
continue to thoughtfully integrate attached -units
or small multi -unit structures into some low density
residential districts by allowing them as permitted
uses, as well as to slowly increase density (and
affordability) through further lot size reductions
(or lowering averages below the base to allow a
more natural range of housing choices).
One structure that is not explicitly listed in the
ordinance as an accessory use type are Accessory
Dwelling Units. These unit options may want to be
called out as they are in the general provisions,
providing guidance in development.
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
• � � �zin4Ml
7 � �
frf t is ✓ r I �i i �?` !f7i�`�y� r ,,, r
rYr� /r.Or%rj:r/�/�
i ' t � �F`l A� �l✓,Ipl1�p fv ��J J %/ � !l�•i
102
UNIT DEMAND
Findings &
Recommendations
103
NOTES ON UNIT DEMAND CALCULATIONS
There are multiple factors that influence demand for new housing, making accurate projections of
future demand and unit production challenging. Our approach in the following pages includes both a
low estimate and a high estimate for new households, with the expectation that the actual growth of
households and units will be somewhere between those estimates.
One important variable is the tenure type split, meaning the distribution between rental and ownership
in new unit production. The City has recently been at about 70% owner occupancy and 30% rental
occupancy, and the level of owner occupancy has dropped a few points as compared to 3 years
earlier. We would expect to see this based on the production of more rental units (including some units
that could be owner -occupied, such as townhomes). This study is not establishing what the City wants in
new unit production, but instead is an attempt to project what the market is most likely to provide. Based
on recent permit history in Monticello and a shift toward more rental housing in much of the country, we
are projecting and assuming a 50/50 split between owner and rental housing in the next few years. If the
City takes actions to incentivize new owner occupant units, and/or declines to provide incentives for new
rental units, it could influence the tenure split outcome.
The rental demand projections suggest that the market requires few or no new rental units before 2028,
at least beyond those already built and those with zoning approvals, due to the recent strong production
of units. In the low estimate for household growth the City will have more units than it needs. In the higher
estimate there is demand for a modest 211 units after all approved units are built. However, it is important
to recognize that none of the new units recently constructed are targeted to lower income residents.
Meanwhile our projections highlight the demand for units affordable to housheholds below the median
household income. There is, we believe, still unmet demand for income -qualified units even if (or because)
there are new high-end units on the market.
Unit Demand & Recommendations
104
OWNER DEMAND -LOW ESTIMATE
Growth projections for the City of Monticello indicate that current household growth rates will continue
- and may have the potential to increase. More commuters are looking to call Monticello home. More
area residents would like more options in the housing market. This demand analysis identifies a need to
increase the number of ownership units in the City - creating more opportunity for ownership that can
serve residents and newcomers alike.
There are two pages of demand analysis per housing tenure type (ownership and rental) - this is done to
illustrate the range of potential growth that the City may undergo. In general, low estimates are based on
1.7% household growth, and high estimates are based upon 2.9% household growth. Some assumptions
in each are the same - such as the need to bring vacancy back to healthy levels, and decrease the
rapid speed of cost increases on housing. Other estimates differ based on current best projections.
Final unit estimates are broken down by total projection of unit need from 2020 to 2028, projected unit
need subtracting out permitted units (units constructed or under construction), and projected unit need
subtracting out permitted units and units with land use and land division approval (anticipated units).
The low estimate should be used as a baseline - a minimum threshold for unit construction, not just plats.
New Ownership Housing D-
Demand from Household Growth Within the City
-
Household Growth from 2020 to 2028
644 additional households
New Household Ownership Rate
50%
Demand for New Construction
322 ownership units
Demand from Existing Resident Households
Current Owner Households
3,082 households
Current Owners Actively Looking for New Housing
10.0%
Increased Demand from Existing Residents
308 ownership units
Desire for New Construction
56%
Existing Resident Demand for New Construction
173 ownership units
Total Demand for New Construction Ownership Units = 495 units
Preference for SF -Detached
70%
Preference for SF -Attached
30%
347 units
148 units
Additional Need for Vacancy
54 units
Additional Need for Vacancy
23 units
Total SF -Detached Need
401 units
Total SF -Attached Need
171 units
Total Ownership Unit Need = 572 units
Total Need minus Permitted Units = 365 units
Total Need minus Permitted Units & Approved Units = 177 units
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
105
OWNER DEMAND -HIGH ESTIMATE
This high estimate should be used as a goal - a measure of units that could be constructed in the market
to provide additional housing choice - in location, type, and price point for buyers at any given point in
time. Community feedback through this process indicated the desire that there be multiple areas under
different stages of development at the same time, so that buyers who want to move to the City have
areas to choose in where to call home. This estimate would likely require multiple active subdivisions in
order to have the demand met and fully constructed by 2028.
Development interest and demand drive the housing market. Due to lending requirements and market
analyses needed for large-scale developer investment, if there is developer interest, there is also likely
demand.
Unit Demand & Recommendations
New Ownership Housing D-
Demand from Household Growth Within the City
-
Household Growth from 2020 to 2028
1,159 additional households
New Household Ownership Rate
50%
Demand for New Construction
579 ownership units
Demand from Existing Resident Households
Current Owner Households
3,082 households
Current Owners Actively Looking for New Housing
10.0%
Increased Demand from Existing Residents
308 ownership units
Desire for New Construction
56%
Existing Resident Demand for New Construction
173 ownership units
Total Demand for New Construction Ownership Units = 752 units
Preference for SF -Detached
70%
Preference for SF -Attached
30%
526 units
226 units
Additional Need for Vacancy
54 units
Additional Need for Vacancy
23 units
Total SF -Detached Need
580 units
Total SF -Attached Need
249 units
Total Ownership Unit Need = 829 units
Total Need minus Permitted Units = 622 units
Total Need minus Permitted Units & Approved Units = 434 units
Unit Demand & Recommendations
106
OWNERSHIP FINDINGS
GENERAL CONDITIONS IMPACTING THE HOUSING
MARKET:
• Average household size has remained stable
(p• 8)
• Families and home -office preferences
sustaining need for larger units (p. 8)
• Aging households are the fastest increasing
demographic since 2010 (p. 9)
• Aging households will be a significant portion
of households through 2050 (p. 12)
• Monticello residents have lower average
incomes compared to peer communities
(p. 13)
• Monticello residents have lower degrees of
educational attainment compared to the
County (p. 14)
• Common occupation groups in the City
indicate a need for affordable housing,
especially for entry-level positions (p. 16)
• Large shares of residents (48% as of 2020)
commute into metro counties daily for work.
Forty-eight percent of community survey
respondents indicated Twin Cities or a suburb
as place of employment (p. 18)
• Housing unit production has not kept pace
with new households moving to the County,
decreasing vacancy and increasing cost
(p. 19)
• Rising costs and interest rates have made the
development process more difficult (p. 97)
• Vacancy rates continue to be low in the City
and region, despite strong unit production
(p. 104)
WHAT RESIDENTS WANT:
• Increase in zero -entry, patio, and rambler
style homes
• Detached, accessory, missing middle, and
townhome units
• Affordable starter -home development in
proximity to amenities
• Areas with different development options to
build in
MAJOR OWNERSHIP MARKET FINDINGS:
• Ownership units have made up 25.3% of
planned or constructed developments since
2020, well below historic building trends (p. 6)
• Though the majority of ownership housing is
single-family detached, there are also many
attached ownership units (p. 51)
• Owners make up a smaller portion of the
overall housing market than in most regional
communities (p. 53). Now at 70% of housing
market as of 2021.
• Though affordable homes exist in the market,
residents still identified the largest negative
aspect of the market as lack of affordability,
with more than half of survey respondents
indicating that affordable housing is
becoming harder to find (p. 58)
• There are generally more affordable
ownership opportunities in the city core,
though attached ownership units are
affordable in many areas (p. 60)
• Many households are remaining in their
housing longer than the 7 -year national
average (p. 61)
• Since 2014, home costs have drastically
outpaced income growth with single-family
home value reducing affordability and
access for potential homebuyers (p. 62)
• The median single-family home value is now
greater than the median income affordability
limit (p. 62)
• The median home cost has more than
doubled since 2010 (p. 62)
• Among its peers, Monticello has the lowest -
cost entry point for a median starter home
(p. 64)
• The median starter home in the City is no
longer affordable to households earning 80%
AMI (p. 64)
• Monticello has the current highest Sales:List
price ratio among peer communities (p. 68)
• There is demand for ownership townhomes
(p. 70)
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
OWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS
For residents who already live in the City, there are several key issues. Moderate -income residents who
previously would have been able to afford homeownership are now finding themselves being outpriced in
an appreciating and competitive market. There are areas of the core city with low home values and low
improvement ratios. And the average days on market is well below one month, indicating an unhealthy
market.
CONTINUE TO PLAT AND SERVICE NEW SUBDIVISIONS
AND DEVELOPMENTS
While construction activity has been ongoing,
residents and prospective residents have
indicated a need for more choices within the
market. In order to meet the housing construction
demand outlined above, it will likely require
multiple subdivisions in various stages of build -out
at any given point. The City should Continue to
work with developers who are bringing forward
housing - at all price ranges - to serve needs of the
community.
PARTNER WITH DEVELOPERS TO DELIVER A MIX OF
HOUSING OPTIONS
While small -lot and large -lot new development is a
need, so are unit -type mixes within new subdivision
development. Integrating a mix of housing types
(attached/detached, 4-19 unit rental, etc.) within
subdivision plans allows more choices and options
in the housing market - ensuring that households of
all income can call new development home. This
can work to encourage more natural community
character, and help preserve the neighborhood
and small-town feel of the community through
personal connection.
THERE IS A MARKET FOR "LUXURY" HOUSING - BUT
THE MARKET IS LIMITED
There are households in Monticello who can
afford $450,000+ new construction homes. We
have heard through this process that large -
lot availability and acreage are reasons those
seeking higher -cost homes choose to live in the
region. While there are certainly opportunities for
development in this price range, sales would likely
be targeted to residents from the larger region -
where incomes are higher and households have
more choice in this competitive market sector.
ASSESS REQUIREMENTS, MINIMUM LOT SIZES, AND
AVERAGED MINIMUMS
The City has the ability to review parking
requirements, minimum lot sizes, and averaged
minimums to further bring down new ownership
costs that can help maintain Monticello's
affordability. Both small -lot and large -lot units have
been identified as needs. The City should actively
work to ensure developers take advantage of lot -
averaging that can offer a full scope of options for
potential homeowners in new development. This
step toward continued affordability will provide
options for both existing and prospective residents.
ACTIVELY PROMOTE REPAIR ASSISTANCE FROM
MHFA, USDA, AND WCCA
Wright County Community Action (WCCA)
provides assistance in homebuyer training,
rehabilitation, and other housing -financing issues
that can prove a stumbling block to lower-
income owners. WCCA is also prepared to assist
homeowners in securing financing through the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and
USDA Rural Development, and can guide owners
through complicated processes to improve their
homes.
KEEP IN MIND AGING HOMEOWNERS
The large share of senior persons projected
through 2050 is a national trend - and households
will need continued options. Whether promoting
accessibility programs to retrofit homes to age -
in -place, developing zoning flexibility to develop
Accessory Dwelling Units for caretakers, or tracking
the need for continued senior -living options in the
community, this demographic represents a large
share of specialized housing need moving toward
2050.
MAINTAIN DEVELOPMENT FEES, BE HELPFUL
A comparison of development fees among
Monticello and its peers for ownerships and rental
development examples shows that Monticello
has a comparable level of fees to several peer
communities. These fees are based on real costs
and the City should not be apologetic nor should
the fee be reduced (unless as part of an incentive
package to encourage new units accessible
below the median household income). The City
SHOULD be proactive and helpful throughout
the development process, making every
reasonable effort to make the approval process
understandable and predictable for developers.
Unit Demand & Recommendations
107
108
RENTAL DEMAND -
LOW ESTIMATE
Within the rental market, projections are based on projected household growth, current rates of
household tenure for demographics likely to be seeking rental housing, and then focused based on rates
of affordability to current residents who rent within the housing market. Final unit estimates are broken
down by total projection of unit need from 2020 to 2028, projected unit need subtracting out permitted
units (units constructed or under construction), and projected unit need subtracting out permitted units
and units with land use and land division approval (anticipated units).
This demand analysis indicates a shift from ownership to renter markets, consistent with changes in rates of
tenure over the past decade. Demand -driven outcomes in recent years have led to a higher percentage
of rental units created compared to ownership units than an average year.
The low estimate for rental housing needed after subtracting out permitted and approved units indicates
that the demand estimate is close to being met though this should be used as a baseline and not used as
justification to preclude development.
New - D-
-
Demand from Household Growth Within the City
Household Growth from 2023 to 2028
644 additional households
New Household Renter Rate
50%
Demand from New Construction
322 rental units
Demand from Existing Resident Households
Current Renters in Market
1,444 households
Percent of Renters Seeking New Housing
22.6%
Increased Demand from Existing Renters
326 rental units
Renters with Preference for New Construction
20%
Existing Renter Demand for New Construction
65 rental units
Total Demand for New Construction Rental Units = 387 units
Affordable Units
50%
Mid -Level Units
40%
High Market Units
10%
New Affordable
Demand
194 units
New Mid -Level
Demand
155 units
New High Market
Demand
39 units
Additional Need for
Vacancy
49 units
Additional Need for
Vacancy
39 units
Additional Need for
Vacancy
10 units
Total Affordable Need
243 units
Total Mid -Level Need
194 units
Total High Market
Need
49 units
Total Rental Unit Need = 485 units
Total Need minus Permitted Units = 337 units
Total Need minus Permitted Units & Approved Units = 0 units (excess of 46 units)
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
RENTAL DEMAND -
HIGH ESTIMATE
109
High estimates for rental demand assume continued, strong demand within the market. This suggests
continued demand for development types that have been coming forward in the City, and planning for
the trend to continue will allow the City to identify sites and areas through downtown and key corridors.
The City can balance market demand for more rental housing with small town character through smart
siting and design regulations.
This estimate of demand may come to be met if growth pressures increase further than current projections
indicate, and developments should be considered based on their own merits and demonstrated need on
an annual basis.
New - Housing Demand
i -
Demand from Household Growth Within the City
Household Growth from 2023 to 2028
1,159 additional households
New Household Renter Rate
50%
Demand from New Construction
579 rental units
Demand from Existing Resident Households
Current Renters in Market
1,444 households
Percent of Renters Seeking New Housing
22.6%
Increased Demand from Existing Renters
326 rental units
Renters with Preference for New Construction
20%
Existing Renter Demand for New Construction
65 rental units
Total Demand for New Construction Rental Units = 644 units
Affordable Units
50%
Mid -Level Units
40%
High Market Units
10%
New Affordable
Demand
322 units
New Mid -Level
Demand
258 units
New High Market
Demand
64 units
Additional Need for
Vacancy
49 units
Additional Need for
Vacancy
39 units
Additional Need for
Vacancy
10 units
Total Affordable Need
371 units
Total Mid -Level Need
297 units
Total High Market
Need
74 units
Total Rental Unit Need = 742 units
Total Need minus Permitted Units = 594 units
Total Need minus Permitted Units & Approved Units = 211 units
Unit Demand & Recommendations
110
What do we
mean by
Affordable,
Mid -Level, and
High Market
Rents ?
111
AFFORDABILITY - what a household can spend on housing cost - is relative to each individual
household. Higher -income households can afford more within the market, meaning that there
are more options that would be within their spending limit, whether they spend 10% or 30% of their
income toward housing cost. Lower-income households have fewer choices in the market due to
similar fixed -costs, but less units that generally rent at a level that would fall within a comfortable
limit. In addition to having less units available, they sometimes directly compete with higher -income
households who are "spending -down" in the market, occupying housing units that are especially
affordable.
The Affordable Housing rental production numbers outlined above are based on resident incomes
by tenure - that is the percent of renter households who rent at each income level, before deciding
to transition to the ownership market. Affordable Housing targets for these recommendations are
units priced at an affordability level of 30% - 50% of the area median income for the 13 -county
metro. This is used to maintain consistency with common funding categories, and are adjusted to
match household and bedroom size. Fifty percent of all Monticello renter households fall into this
affordability range.
Mid -Level housing indicates prices that would be affordable to a household earning between 50%
and 80% of the median income for the 13 -county metro. They are adjusted to match household/
family size, and represent consistency with MHFA and HUD guidelines. Fourty percent of all
Monticello renter households are within this affordability range.
Ideal
Monthly
$656
$703
$749
$843
$937
Affordable
Rent
Housing
Maximum
Monthly
$1,093
$1,171
$1,249
$1,405
$1,561
Rent
Mid -Level housing indicates prices that would be affordable to a household earning between 50%
and 80% of the median income for the 13 -county metro. They are adjusted to match household/
family size, and represent consistency with MHFA and HUD guidelines. Fourty percent of all
Monticello renter households are within this affordability range.
High Market Housing is the last category for recommended cost of new units - and does not
have an upper maximum. While households do rent within this category, there is a transition to
homeownership that is consistent with both increasing incomes and geographic location of the City.
Data and community input indicate that households tend to move to Monticello for affordability
and accessibility, and the same holds true for high-income earners. There is a larger share of housing
that is more affordable to these households than in the larger metro, even for households currently
living in the City that could move if they choose.
Unit Demand & Recommendations
Ideal
Monthly
$1,093
$1,171
$1,249
$1,405
$1,561
Mid -Level
Rent
Housing
Maximum
Monthly
$1,749
$1,874
$1,998
$2,248
$2,498
Rent
High Market Housing is the last category for recommended cost of new units - and does not
have an upper maximum. While households do rent within this category, there is a transition to
homeownership that is consistent with both increasing incomes and geographic location of the City.
Data and community input indicate that households tend to move to Monticello for affordability
and accessibility, and the same holds true for high-income earners. There is a larger share of housing
that is more affordable to these households than in the larger metro, even for households currently
living in the City that could move if they choose.
Unit Demand & Recommendations
112
RENTAL FINDINGS
GENERAL CONDITIONS IMPACTING THE HOUSING
MARKET:
• Average household size has remained
stable(p. 8)
• Families and home -office preferences
sustaining need for larger units (p. 8)
• Aging households are the fastest increasing
demographic since 2010 (p. 9)
• Aging households will be a significant portion
of households through 2050 (p. 12)
• Monticello residents have lower average
incomes compared to peer communities
(p. 11)
• Monticello residents have lower degrees of
educational attainment compared to the
County (p. 14)
• Common occupation groups in the City
indicate a need for affordable housing,
especially for entry-level positions (p. 16)
• Large shares of residents (48% as of 2020)
commute into metro counties daily for work.
Forty-eight percent of community survey
respondents indicated Twin Cities or a suburb
as place of employment (p. 17)
• Housing unit production has not kept pace
with new households moving to the County,
decreasing vacancy and increasing cost
(p. 19)
• Rising costs and interest rates have made the
development process more difficult (p. 96)
• Vacancy rates continue to be low in the City
and region, despite strong unit production
(p. 108)
WHAT RESIDENTS WANT:
• Housing for young adults and early -career
households
• Affordable housing for those who work in the
community, and higher -amenity options to
move up to as income increases
• Larger units for families and/or spaces to
have an office
• Ranges of housing types (structures/sizes) to
provide a range of options
City of Monticello
MAJOR RENTAL MARKET FINDINGS:
• Rental units have made up 52.3% of planned
or constructed developments since 2020, well
above historic building trends (p. 6)
• There is good geographic distribution of
rental units throughout the City (p. 28)
• Renter households have been increasing
slightly as a total percentage of City
households since 2010, currently at 30% as of
2021 (p. 31)
• Lower-income households are much more
likely to be renters (p. 31)
• Rental housing in the City is easily accessible
within the region, with good access and
amenities (p. 32)
• Rates of cost burden is much higher for renter
than owner households (p. 33)
• There are significant housing gaps at both
the top and bottom of the rental housing
market (low- and high-cost) (p. 34)
• Most renters that are housing cost burdened
pay more than 50% of their income toward
housing costs (p. 35)
• There are very few rental options in 2-4 unit
structures in the City (p. 38)
• Median rent is affordable to the median
renter, though data does not account for
new construction unit costs (p. 39)
• Monthly rental cost for a 2 -bedroom unit has
gone up 20% since 2020 (p. 40)
• New units are needed to bring the vacancy
rate back to healthy and balanced levels
(p. 41)
• 3+ bedroom units will be needed at all price
points for preference towards larger units
(p. 42)
• Fiber internet is a key rental amenity that
is attractive to households throughout the
region (p. 43)
• Housing subsidies (both local and state/
federal) will be needed to offset increasing
construction costs and ensure lower-income
households can afford rental costs (p. 47)
Housing Needs and Demand
RENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Households in the rental market, as well as local housing experts, have identified a need for middle -cost
housing options in the City. Due to a large share of older rental housing stock, there are more affordable
options than in other areas of the Metro. However, incomes of many local residents are also below high -
market housing cost. Employers are seeing that their growth and employment base needs a middle -
ground in the rental market that offers both amenities and reduced unit pricing.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR TAX
CREDIT & SUBSIDIZED DEVELOPMENT
Though referred to as "affordable housing", tax
credit developments offer new construction at
rents that fit within the limits and demand of the
community. Local employers are reporting that
their workers need a middle -option, often fitting
inside income categories for these units. These
developments that offer opportunity to increase
density in key areas, and can also be utilized for
mixed-use developments that provide amenities in
central, walkable areas. The City can also directly
encourage more affordable rental costs through
programs such as Tax Increment Financing.
THERE IS A MARKET FOR "LUXURY" HOUSING - BUT
THE MARKET IS LIMITED
Some households with the financial means to
purchase a home still prefer to rent for various
reasons, and these renters will pay for increased
amenities. The market has responded with plenty
of new, market -rate units in the past few years,
including some in the "luxury" category. Demand
for even more such units will grow with population,
but there is not a backlog of unmet demand for
such units apparent in the current market.
CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN
CENTRAL AREAS
As households continue to age, and many
wanting to age in the community, providing a
range of options that have accessibility features
and follow universal design will promote healthy
neighborhoods. This is needed throughout the
City, as well as in key walkable central areas that
increase access to amenities. Many homeowners
who downsize, as well as those with differing levels
of ability, live in private market units and prefer
walkable areas with access to amenities.
ENCOURAGE REHABILITATION, REDEVELOPMENT, AND
REINVESTMENT
Maintaining housing affordability across a range
of incomes is vital for community health - and is
one of the reasons that some households choose
to live in Monticello in the first place. However,
aging housing stock requires upkeep in order to
maintain desirability. Many rehabilitation programs
offer deferred -loan assistance to landlords of small
properties (such as MHFA's Rural Rehabilitation
Deferred Loan program). These incentivized loans
often come with income restrictions. Though not
an immediate solution, increased investment
in new unit development in key areas (e.g.
downtown), and new unit development in general
can work to relax vacancy in the market, allowing
households to select units that meet their balance
of affordability & amenity - and structures with
rehab needs will require maintenance investment
to maintain market share.
MAINTAIN A MIX OF BEDROOM SIZES IN NEW
DEVELOPMENT
Preference towards larger unit size is evident
in both ownership and rental developments.
Important to this growth is ensuring households
have access to a variety of both new and older
stock options that meet their need for family size -
and perhaps for home offices as telecommuting
becomes more common. In practice, this
means incorporating 3 -bedroom units as a
significant portion of the rental market, whether in
townhome, detached, or multi -unit construction.
Encouraging larger unit construction balanced
with small unit construction ensures needs of all
household types are served through new units.
ENCOURAGE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING
Structures with 2-19 units fill a gap that exists in
the market, providing more options for residents,
and reduced construction costs for development
compared to single -unit detached structures.
Unit design fits well among both existing and new
structures, and will fill in missing unit types.
Unit Demand & Recommendations
113
114
AGING HOUSEHOLDS
Senior households live in homes in both the rental and ownership markets, but as they continue
to age, many need more specialized care or prefer alternate options. Nationally, HUD reports
that 93% of medicare -enrollees age 65 and older are already aging in place. This vast majority
of the market is remaining in their current housing - staying in non -age restricted housing
until life events necessitate a move. Once households do move, many rental options offer
combinations of active living, independent living, assisted living, and memory care within
the same campus. Within the market, there are several options to help older households find
options that work for them:
Ensuring a Variety of Options in the Private Market
Easing access to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction, whether internal or external to
the existing primary residence, helps aging households remain in their home. Some older
households design the unit with accessibility standards in mind and look to downsize into it
themselves, while other households plan on it as a space for family or a caretaker who can
assist them with daily tasks.
Ensuring there is access to or developing non -age restricted smaller apartments in more central
locations is another method of ensuring older household options in the market. This allows
households to live in new construction that has a mix of access and privacy, while still having
friends and other households close by. One more option is small lot size development, either in
central areas or cottage court communities. These allow both rental and ownership options as
households continue to age - as long as the housing is built with aging and universal design in
mind (such as patio homes).
Active Adult Housing
Active Adult Communities are specially -designed developments with accommodations for
aging households in mind. They provide upkeep -free housing, easing maintenance burden.
They also often provide a sense of community for others who prefer neighbors their own age, as
opposed to smaller and accessible unit options in market rentals. And, they can offer a variety
of tenure choices, with many allowing residents to own or lease their housing.
Independent Living
Independent Living is designed for households who can - and want to - accomplish the
majority of daily tasks on their own, but need assistance from time to time. These facilities often
are inclusive of food and medical care, as well as other potential on-site amenities such as
cleaning, laundry, and general housekeeping. These housing units are operated most similarly
to a rental unit - and as amenities go above and beyond typical housing cost, are not subject
to the typical 30% affordability standard.
Assisted Living
Assisted Living is designed to make it easy for residents who need assistance with everyday
activities in accomplishing tasks that they would not be able to do in their own homes. This is
often provided through scheduled, regular support that runs a spectrum from cooking and
cleaning to in -unit medical visits, transportation, and medication management.
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
SENIOR UNIT TYPE DEMAND
Active Adult Housing
115
Demand for market rate, active living senior housing comes from those household that prefer this
type of unit and can afford it, either because they have sufficient current income or because
they have sufficient savings, most often in the form of home sale equity. All households in this
demand category, both current and projected, have at least one household member above
the age of 55. Many active adult housing communities are age -restricted and become available
once a household member reaches the limit (typically 55), while other are not restricted - solely
marketing themselves as active adult communities to ensure inclusivity.
Total unit need is broken down into two estimates including total estimated need for current
demand and demand by 2028 (not including units that already exist within the market) and total
unit need subtracting out permitted units (units constructed or under construction since 2020) and
units with land use and land division approval (anticipated units).
Market- Active Adult Demand
2023
2023
Number of Households with Qualifying Incomes
2028
Number of Households with Qualifying Incomes
418
562
613
Potentially Qualifying Households with Home Sale Equity
145
15%
147
Base Demand
563
New City Resident Demand
760
Unit Type Preference
7%
110 units
7%
Existing City Resident Demand
39
53
New City Resident Demand
26
35
Total Unit Need jW
65 units
88 units
Total Unit Need minus Recent Permitted Units & Approved Units
52 units
Subsidized Independent Living
Subsidized independent living refers to income -restricted independent living developments.
This offers opportunity for income -limited and fixed-income households to have access to those
services they require as they continue to age. Demand is calculated by measure of fixed- and
income -restricted households without the potential for home sale equity. This is then adjusted to
the average percentage of households who prefer or need to live in this style housing in 55+ age
categories.
ITotal unit need is broken down into two estimates including total estimated need for current
demand and demand by 2028 (not including units that already exist within the market) and total
unit need subtracting out permitted units (units constructed or under construction since 2020) and
units with land use and land division approval (anticipated units).
Subsidized Independent Living Demand
2023
2028
Number of Households with Qualifying Incomes
562
617
Base Demand
562
617
Unit Type Preference
15%
15%
Existing City Resident Demand
84
93
New City Resident Demand
25
28
Total Unit Need
110 units
120 units
Total Unit Need minus Recent Permitted Units & Approved Units
55 units
Unit Demand & Recommendations
116
SENIOR UNIT TYPE DEMAND
Market Rate Independent Living
Market Rate independent living refers to non -income restricted independent living developments.
This offers opportunity for higher -income senior households and those with potential home sale
equity to have access to required services as they continue to age.
Total unit need is broken down into two estimates including total estimated need for current
demand and demand by 2028 (not including units that already exist within the market) and total
unit need subtracting out permitted units (units constructed or under construction since 2020) and
units with land use and land division approval (anticipated units).
Market Rate Independent Living Demand
2023
2028
Number of Households with Qualifying Incomes
418
473
Potentially Qualifying Households with Home Sale Equity
145
155
Base Demand
563
682
Unit Type Preference
15%
15%
Existing City Resident Demand
84
94
New City Resident Demand
34
38
Total Unit Demand
118 units
132 units
Total Unit Need minus Recent Permitted Units & Approved Units
45 units
Market Rate Assisted Living
Market Rate assisted living refers to assisted living development for households with a higher -
income or access to potential home sale equity. Demand is calculated by measure of income -
qualified households, as well as potentially qualifying household with access to home sale equity.
This is then adjusted based on the local number of single -person senior households in Monticello,
and filtered by the estimated percent of households who can continue in-home care as opposed
to assisted living.
Total unit need is broken down into two estimates including total estimated need for current
demand and demand by 2028 (not including units that already exist within the market) and total
unit need subtracting out permitted units (units constructed or under construction since 2020) and
units with land use and land division approval (anticipated units).
Market- Assisted Living Demand
2028
Persons in Need with Potential Home Sale Equity
205
276
Percent of Households with Qualifying Incomes
43%
43%
Number of Income Qualified Households
232
232
Base Demand
319
351
Demand from Current Single Person Households
41
45
Demand from Current Two Person Households
278
306
Unit Type Preference/Need
40%
40%
Existing City Resident Demand
128
140
New City Resident Demand
51
56
Total Unit Demand
179 units
196 units
Total Unit Need minus Recent Permitted Units & Approved Units
129 units
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
Appendix A
Data Sources
Page 5: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 6-7: City of Monticello
Page 8-9: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 10-1 1 : MSA Calculation based on Monticello 2040
scenarios; U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 12: MN State Demographics Center*
Page 13-14: U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey*
Page 15: City of Monticello*
Page 16: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics*
Page 17-18: U.S. Census OnTheMap
Page 19-20: U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey
Page 21 : U.S. Census OnTheMap
Page 22-25: MSA Calculation using HUD FY 2021 Income
Limits; U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 29: MSA Calculation using HUD FY 2021 Income
Limits; U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 31 : HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy*
Page 32: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey*
Page 33: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy*
Page 34: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey*
Page 35: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy*
Page 36-37: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy*
Page 38-39: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 40: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
Zumper; Apartments.com
Page 41-43: U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey
Page 44-45: City of Monticello
Page 46: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
City of Monticello
Page 47: MSA Calculation based on Construction and Land
Cost Estimates for the Twin Cities Metro region
Page 48: MSA Calculation using HUD FY 2021 Income Limits;
U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 52: MSA Calculation using HUD FY 2021 Income Limits;
U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 53: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey*
Page 54: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy*
Page 55: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy*
Page 56-57: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy; U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey*
Page 58-59: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy*
Page 60: MSA Calculation using HUD FY 2020 Income Limits;
U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey*
Page 61 : U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
Multiple Listing Service
Page 62: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
Multiple Listing Service; HUD FY 2021 Income Limits
Page 63: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
Multiple Listing Service
Page 64: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy;
Zillow Data and Research
Page 65-68: Multiple Listing Service
Page 69: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey*
Page 70: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 71-72: U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey*
Page 75-76:: Central MN Continuum of Care*
Page 77: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Page 78: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Page 79: US Census Bureau American Community Survey; MN
Demographic Center, MSA Calculation*
Page 80: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy*
Page 83-86: City of Monticello
Page 83: City of Monticello
Page 84: City of Monticello; National Association of Home
Builders
Page 85: Wright County; MHFA
Page 86: Wright County
Page 87: Wright County
Page 88: Wright County
Page 90: Wright County
Page 91: Wright County
Page 92: City of Monticello
Page 93: City of Monticello
Page 94: City of Monticello*
Page 95-96: MSA Calculation based on municipal
development fees
Page 97: Mark Elliot Homes; MinnPost; Wisconsin
State Journal
Page 98: St. Pete Rising
Page 99: City of Monticello*
* Data from these sources not updated in 2023 Housing Study
Appendix
• CLEAR LAKE
! TOWNSHIP
1'
'+ 1► J.
P BECKER CITY
m ♦+�4f 4
CLEARWATER
TOWNSHIP
CORINNA
TOWNSHIP
ALBION
TOWNSHIP
BECKER
TOWNSHIP
ORROCK
TOWNSHIP
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
BUFFALO CITY
CHATHAM
TOWNSHIP a Lv#� 600516. A02:
:-
I
TOWNSHIP MICHAEL
CITY
�1=
�r
LIVONIA
TOWNSHIP
ELK RIVER
CITY
i
0M 0 jr
IT COUNTY i
P
OTSEGO CITY r
_E
j
' ROGERS CITY
H E N N E P I N
f
COUNTY
Regional Map
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
(fj M SA
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
0 0.5 1 Miles �
I I I \N
Park N Ride Location
�-=
Transit Routes
State Trails
Interstate
-0' .
State Road
US Highway
Rivers and Streams
FrIMonticello
FAIN
Surrounding Municipality
(fj M SA
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
0 0.5 1 Miles �
I I I \N
Residential
Properties
Total Property
Value
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
�b Water Body
Parcel Boundary
—Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Total Property Value
Less Than $50,001
$50,000 - $200,000
$200,001 - $500,001
$500,001 - $1,000,000
0 $1,000,000 - $5,000,000
0 Greater than $5,000,001
No Assessed Value
Non Residential Parcels
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J M S e 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles ON
287
212
CAMERON ST W RIVER ST,
WRIGHT COUNTY
CSAH 39
0
90TH ST NE
106
X09
9,1
.; ♦��� iii. � .. `
❑ t�
•pUI p a - •
39 �_ noon■■,■ i ■ - ► I•� `•
■'-■ III �� �I •
4LAt W,
IND�II� I'(/i.eRp a� ••� •►
101
q I,
85TH ST NE
116
H ERBU RN E
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
10
43
a
Ell4,.'
•,IID1•rt,
�
75 `�, �r� • . . 39
.1—
By
�■ Ell
nd
nm
IIq Ii „Inn■ � 1 ♦ _ n in
rq-,l �
00 BLVD
SCH105 �. ��AII��111��� �►1�1 �� �� z
111 11111►
1111111111, 11111IN 1 ■�1��1?1'H _. ��j�t011111111�� o
♦ I I-- 1 •iii II�� • p1 1/�� nxa = • C� InA: r`� 1: -II�� ►1 _ 01• ■ 1 � NINENunn
�1■
noon ■ m ■. ■ . A� — _IN■ .. dI"I ��.1�i.nnn11 111
Owner Occupied
Residential
Properties
Total Property Value
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
a M SA 10 0.1 0.5 Miles
I I 1 N
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
�1&
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
Monticello
Right of Way
Total
Property Value
Less than $100,000
$100,000 - $200,000
$200,001 - $250,000
$250,001 - $300,000
$300,001 - $350,000
$350,000 -$450,000
Greater than $450,000
No Assessed Value
Non Residential Parcels
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
a M SA 10 0.1 0.5 Miles
I I 1 N
287
212
CAMERON ST
WRIGHT COUNTY
CSAH 39
0
90TH ST NE
106
� A
♦ �Gp
`4 11
85TH ST NE
b,
116
10�
H ERBU RN E
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
ap
751 "Ift
k7 mmimooz7:-- M
18
Renter Occupied
Residential
Properties
Total Property Value
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
a M SA 10 0.25 0.5 Miles
I I I N
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
�1&
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
Monticello
Right of Way
Total
Property Value
Less Than $50,001
$50,000 - $200,000
$200,001 - $500,001
$500,001 - $1,000,000
$1,000,000 - $5,000,000
Greater than $5,000,001
No Assessed Value
Non Residential Parcels
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
a M SA 10 0.25 0.5 Miles
I I I N
1
-IL
287
212
•a one.
CAMERON ST
WRIGHT COUNTY
CSAH 39
•
90TH ST NE
100
39
85TH ST NE
I 10
I
50
I
11
•
5�
e
L �r
—-- — 10 ==
40
' / M
' U
H ERBU RN E
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
18
P Ion on■■
100
��..■
Ief
I
94
Ell
Available
Residential
Properties
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
_I Surrounding Municipality
aMonticello
ffr Residential Vacant Land
0 Single - Unit Bank Owned
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
a M SA 10 0.25 0.5 Miles ON
I I I N
'4%.■4**
4,*; I
� I
IA
` I �
r,
i
CAMERON ST
CSAH 39 gg
V
WRIGHT COUNTY
E
287
e 99
3 �
� G
m
m
2222
90TH ST NE
100
•
Lq
85TH ST NE
Lim
.� 4
1-■` +
M--.
40
�-
H ERBU RN E
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
LoIc1 ■E..!.on••M
.�",.
rL-w%l • . —V; • 39 1�1
18
•
Ell
City Owned
Properties
By Zoning
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
�i Right of Way
Monticello Zoning
04 Highway Business
Medium Density Residential
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
a M SA 10 0.25 0.5 Miles ON
I I I N
'4%.■4**
1 I
IA
` I
212 BROADWZ',.
r,
I
CAMERON ST
CSAH 39 gg
V
WRIGHT COUNTY
287
9�
�O
00
G
m
z
2222
90TH ST NE
100
•
85TH ST NE
Lm
io ' 1-1 A
M-- .
40
�-
H ERBU RN E
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
,.-0
�� • � —V; • 39 1�1
18
dp
Ell
City Owned
Properties
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Available City Owned Properties
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
a M SA 10 0.25 0.5 Miles ON
I I I N
CSAH
94
136-0
City Owned
Properties by
Zoning
Downtown Monticello
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
L Surrounding Municipality
ON Monticello
Right of Way
Monticello Zoning
Highway Business
Medium Density Residential
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
M SAO 5 1,000 Feet ON
I I I N
.A
287
II
II
I'
•♦ I
I
t I
• I
2, 2
WRIGHT COUNTY
l
Streets
n
�
•
2222
,06
4.
I
Lm
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
,7
I
I I
I_
�♦ -.`
WE 41g
N. •
14
I
�'�.��.♦� 39
h-11son
18
094
Owner Occupied
Residential
Properties
by Year Built
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
a M SA 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
I I I N
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
L _1
Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Year
Built
1850 - 1895
1896 - 1930
1931 - 1969
1970- 1991
1992- 2007
2008-2018
No Year Built Data
Non Residential Parcels
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
a M SA 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
I I I N
�'• r,lip, r,.�AN�
I�
0,•
�'• e I 50 `r
t I !
I
� I I
♦
212
♦�L♦ 11
gel IV
WRIGHT COUNTY
287
1
2222
106
-IL
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
17
I
I I
I—
/ �/• ���� ,i,7 �� ♦► 14
s.%
i
P-
s''
• 39 n
low
er�i0 , 89
f
L4
Renter Occupied
Residential
Properties
by Year Built
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
211b Water Body
Parcel Boundary
—I Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Year Built
1850 - 1895
1896 - 1930
WOMIiNEL6'Z:�1
1970- 1991
1992-2007
2008-2018
No Year Built Data
Non Residential Parcels
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
a M SA I I 0. 0.5 Miles I N
1
287
CAMERON ST
•
WO,
,o
II
■'• e, I I
1 I
I
`� I OSLO I
I
El
RIVER ST ` • j
r
WRIGHT COUNTY
CSAH 39 3g
A"
e'�
10�
E
Ire43
00/'—
HERBURNE
COUNTY
,♦ ` �� '��i BRpq�.� `• NP14 CSAH 14
_ ,� 't' �I ♦ SAYS?F4 `�\ '
a
_
it
I , ♦ 1� BRp � � J
14� on
�' ►�. 1001- .
Nq El
�CHELSEARD�
90TH ST NE
106 85TH ST NE
� 1
I ,
� 189 i
z
lo
Residential
Properties
By Number of
Units
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
EDParcel Boundary
` —� Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Number of Units
Single Unit Detached
Single Unit Attached
2
03-4
5-19
20 or More
Manufactured Home Park
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J M c^ 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles O
1
287
_ II
I�
�•L-4,%
I h5O
` I
212'`
W BROAD!-yA�s � I
El
CAMERON ST W RIVER ST , \ • j
. Ilk
♦ �. 1,
WRIGHT COUNTY - �• ���
CSAH 39 39 ■ `;�•, ����� ♦•• ••�
♦ STf�
7TH STI ♦� �',�� � S`.�v2
�kA
•
90TH ST NE
100
11
40
its,H ERBU RN E
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
1 ..
.4%
�' — • Ell
s t
SCHOOLBLVN
z
P-1 , 1
18 �.
85TH ST NE � �
� 1
r
Owner Occupied
Residential
Properties
By Number of Units
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Number of Units
Single Unit Detached
a Single Unit Attached
Manufactured Home Park
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
a M SA 10 0.25 0.5 Miles
I I I N
287
II
�•e
` • I 50
` I .
W BROAD�yq�s � I
\ `�� 11 ,
CAMERON ST
WRIGHT COUNTY
CSAH 39
•
I
90TH ST NE `J
•
100 85TH ST NE
7TH ST. ♦� ♦,,��♦L�F_q�gG 4
01
11
its,
H ERBU RN E
COUNTY
**f
=.S`HOO�LBLVD �-
14 CSAH 14
o o
f
1 t o
•
3 IM
18
•
Ell
Renter Occupied
Residential
Properties
By Number of Units
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
_I Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Number of Units
Single Unit Detached
a Single Unit Attached
a
05-19
- 20 or More
Manufactured Home Park
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
&MSA I I 0. 0.5 Miles I N
10
.,r I
` I �
212 W gRUA0
El
. CAMERON ST , W R�I�V�ER ST • U
CSAH 39 3g
WRIGHT COUNTY
E 287
r W
E A
v9
m
n� 2222
90TH ST NE
0
106 85TH ST NE
yl
OF
I � �
/� _
000�Lq
HERBURNE
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
0
Ell
z
SCHOOL BLVD _ ry �•
rIll
x
,k' 11 1
•
1
Residential
Properties
Improvement Ratio
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J MCA 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles ON
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
L —1
Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Improvement Ratio
Less than or Equal to 1.0
1.0 - 3.0
3.1 -6.0
6.1 - 10.0
10.1 - 15.0
Greater than 15.0
No Year Built Data
Non Residential Parcels
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J MCA 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles ON
212
287
CAMERON ST
90TH ST NE
CSAH 39
2222
100
e'�
10�
14 CSAH 14
85TH ST NE
0�
lig i
1 39 ff
I18
Multi - Unit
Residential
Year Built
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
nParcel Boundary
I- I Surrounding Municipality
rri Monticello
Year Built
1850- 1895
1896- 1930
1931 - 1969
1970-1991
1992-2007
2008-2018
No Year Built Data
Non Multi -Unit Residential Parcels
( Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J MSA 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles O
F2121
N%LCAMNST-_
• 'f Maio
CSAH 39 3
V
WRIGHT COUNTY
E 287
v9
0
C
m
2222
90TH ST NE
100
_ I
E
r
85TH ST NE
�
OF
4%A
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
a
Z aa
L
I
0
94
.•_
Multi - Unit
Residential
Total Value
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
l� Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Total Property Value
Less Than $50,000
$50,001 - $200,000
$200,001 - $500,001
$500,001 - $1,000,000
$1,000,000 - $5,000,000
Greater than $5,000,001
Non Multi - Unit Residential Parcels
L Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J M c^ 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles
I
1 I
• I �
I A
•" 9P
ALO
212 WgR0 DwAy 1
\ ♦`�� 11 , IEL
CAMERON ST WRIVER ST `\ • r
41
WRIGHT COUNTY
CSAH 39 3g
287
l
90TH ST NE
I
E
2222
100
85TH ST NE
r�,N f' ♦ � I
� IM
OF 0 •
/ ♦® �Bg�q
■
El
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
14 CSAH 14
rMIL" A
�,
�• N
39
18
I
■•
Owner Occupied
Residential Properties
By Type
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
L —1 Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
Residential Type
Single -Unit Home
Townhouse / Attached Unit
- Mixed Tenure Property
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J M c^ 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles O
1
lk
4
287
t
212 `
CAMERON ST
WRIGHT COUNTY
CSAH 39
90TH ST NE
85TH ST NE
I I�
I Y
I , I
I �
I BLo OF ' 43
EL
,000` J 4%A M
U
SHERBURNE
`�►��! , COUNTY
���. • ► 14 CSAH 14FM
'
am a
0060
Oft Imo._ ��
El
10
® �I
18
I
94
Ell
Residential
Properties
By Ownership
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Renter Occupied
Streets
Mixed Tenure
Interstate
'�•
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
Surrounding Municipality
ij
Monticello
Ownership
a Non Residential Parcels
= Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J M c^ 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles O
Renter Occupied
Mixed Tenure
Owner Occupied
a Non Residential Parcels
= Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J M c^ 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles O
—
' 1 10
'• ism, •,
t I
I �
•
• A9P
212 W BROAD!-yAy ` I
o
ST
`♦♦ 11 , EL
CAMERON
CAMERON ST W RIVER ST `\ • r
:. .
-., 4S4 0
WRIGHT COUNTY I %-tea
• i .
si > r
CSAH 39
►
SHERBURNE
COUNTY
-- I
F=1 -j
--
1=1-j 1
e ' 0 43
4 11
'OA
&=
IR
#4;0 �D Y,' -,`♦♦ 14 CSAH 14
I,ST , f S�•BR�gp
0a:
287
1
IL
90TH ST HE
100
�. �1 I' �q!-11 • %.
® f� �,■i■, i., ■i ■i.
CHELSEA RD
. �/ 1 • 1 /
i.
44
las ,
1 1 SCH OLBLVD
! I ■ / ♦ • \.
■ '
1 . 1
vo 1 '
18
85TH ST NE
Residential
Properties
Renter Occupied
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
Parcel Boundary
L —1 Surrounding Municipality
Monticello
0 Rental Property
0 Mixed Tenure Property
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J MSA 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles O
4ft.■-**
low
t
CAMERON ST
CSAH 39 3g
V
WRIGHT COUNTY
1
;IL
2222
90TH ST
106 85TH ST NE
e'�
10�
wr
43
HERBURNE
COUNTY
�i �� �•.
NP 14 CSAR 14 -
�,�' �S w�S�Bq
SM 0 IL
0 100
��••_�•�•-- a9
N�HELSEA,Ry.0�\ -•l �I
:i
189 i
■1 Q
Q c�
z
0
18 ry
Single - Unit
Residential
Year Built
Monticello Housing Study
Monticello, Wright County, MN
Streets
Interstate
State Road
US Highway
Water Body
13 Parcel Boundary
,_ISurrounding Municipality
f'r'l Monticello
Year Built
1850- 1895
1896- 1930
No Year Built Data
Non Single - Unit Residential Parcels
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J MSA 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles O
1931
- 1969
1970-1991
1992-2007
2008-2018
No Year Built Data
Non Single - Unit Residential Parcels
Right of Way
Data Sources:
Minnesota GIS Data
Wright County GIS & Assessor Data
J MSA 0 O.i 5 0.5 Miles O
AppendW C
Conimunity Survey
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q1 In what community is your primary place of residence?
Answered: 153 Skipped:0
Monticello
(city)
Monticello_
(town)
Otsego
ALertvillel
Buffalo (city)
Buffalo (town)
Maple Lake
(city)
Maple Lake
(town)
Big Lake
Becker
Other (pleas
enter
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Monticello (city)
71.24%
109
Monticello (town)
15.69%
24
Otsego
0.00%
0
Alertville
0.65%
1
Buffalo (city)
0.65%
1
Buffalo (town)
0.00%
0
Maple Lake (city)
0.65%
1
Maple Lake (town)
1.31%
2
Big Lake
5.23%
8
Becker
0.65%
1
Other (please enter)
3.92%
6
TOTAL
153
# OTHER (PLEASE ENTER)
DATE
1 Big Lake Township
7/14/2020 5:46 PM
2 Silver Creek Township
7/9/2020 4:16 PM
3 Silver Creek Township
7/1/2020 11:44 AM
4 Clearwater
7/1/2020 10:53 AM
5 Menahga
6/30/2020 7:54 PM
6 St. Cloud Area
6/24/2020 1:37 PM
2/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q2 If you do not live in the City of Monticello, please indicate what factors
impacted that decision (select all that apply).
N/A - I live
in the City ...�
I couldn't
■
find the...
Property taxe
are too ME
Housing price!
are too higl
To live close
to famil
To live close
to myjol
To live close
to my spouse.
Neighborhooc
Answered: 124 Skipped: 29
School District
Other (pleas
f
specify
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
3/37
80% 90% 100%
City of Monticello Housing Survey
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
N/A - I live in the City of Monticello
72.58%
1 couldn't find the housing I wanted in Monticello
9.68%
Property taxes are too high
4.84%
Housing prices are too high
2.42%
To live closer to family
2.42%
To live closer to my job
0.00%
To live closer to my spouse's job
0.00%
Neighborhood character
3.23%
School District
2.42%
Other (please specify)
12.10%
Total Respondents: 124
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
DATE
1 Moved to Monticello township to have a larger lot
7/15/2020 8:02 AM
2 Really wanted a nice big yard
7/14/2020 7:47 PM
3 Never lived here before and picked what best matched our requirements for rent
7/13/2020 1:39 PM
4 trafic. pan -handling
7/9/2020 5:18 PM
5 1 live with my parents
7/9/2020 4:16 PM
6 traffic is getting too much. (many people not from here, cutting through to get to Becker and
7/8/2020 11:54 AM
Clear Lake. ( people begging is awful -and bring in not good people)
7 Lake property
7/1/2020 8:37 PM
8 Wanted acreage
7/1/2020 8:18 PM
9 We wanted acreage
7/1/2020 2:09 PM
10 Looked at house In and out. Picked the house with a larger lot.
7/1/2020 12:42 PM
11 Wanted a little land. Just out side of city limits!
7/1/2020 11:24 AM
12 Looking for more space/land
7/1/2020 10:53 AM
13 Wanted to be further from 1-94, but still reasonable access
7/1/2020 9:17 AM
14 Needed quiet and solitude.
6/30/2020 7:54 PM
15 Immigrating Twin City crime is too high in monticello
6/30/2020 2:27 PM
4/37
90
12
6
3
3
0
0
4
3
15
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q3 In what community is your primary place of work?
Answered: 153 Skipped:0
Monticello
(city)
Monticello)
(town)
Otsego
ALertville
J
Buffalo (city)'
Buffalo (town)
Maple Lake
(city)
Maple Lake
(town)
Big Lake
Becker
Twin Cities
St. Cloud
Other(pleasj
enter
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5/37
ANSWER CHOICES
Monticello (city)
Monticello (town)
Otsego
Alertville
Buffalo (city)
Buffalo (town)
Maple Lake (city)
Maple Lake (town)
Big Lake
Becker
Twin Cities
St. Cloud
Other (please enter)
TOTAL
City of Monticello Housing Survey
6/37
RESPONSES
35.29%
1.31%
0.65%
3.92%
3.27%
0.00%
0.65%
0.00%
1.96%
0.65%
18.95%
7.84%
25.49%
54
2
1
6
5
0
1
0
3
1
29
12
39
153
City of Monticello Housing Survey
OTHER (PLEASE ENTER)
DATE
Brooklyn Center
7/17/2020 9:26 AM
Shoreview
7/15/2020 12:51 AM
Retired
7/14/2020 7:08 PM
Rogers
7/14/2020 6:07 PM
Retired
7/14/2020 5:36 PM
Maple Grove
7/14/2020 5:05 PM
Maple grove
7/14/2020 5:02 PM
Remote employee working from home
7/14/2020 3:41 PM
Elk River
7/14/2020 3:36 PM
Minneapolis
7/13/2020 1:39 PM
Mpls
7/8/2020 11:54 AM
Rockford
7/4/2020 4:19 AM
Retired
7/3/2020 6:45 PM
Robbinsdale
7/3/2020 8:29 AM
Retired
7/2/2020 6:22 PM
Retired
7/2/2020 12:04 PM
Tri-State area
7/1/2020 7:37 PM
sauk rapids
7/1/2020 6:01 PM
St Michael
7/1/2020 5:57 PM
Retired but used to work downtown Mpls.
7/1/2020 5:03 PM
Retired
7/1/2020 3:28 PM
Retired
7/1/2020 2:36 PM
St Louis Park, MN
7/1/2020 12:30 PM
St. Michael
7/1/2020 11:44 AM
Elk River
7/1/2020 10:45 AM
I work wherever I am called to. Primarily Wright and Sherburne counties.
7/1/2020 10:42 AM
Unemployed covid 19
7/1/2020 10:40 AM
Minneapolis
7/1/2020 9:54 AM
Minneapolis
7/1/2020 9:28 AM
Hennepin county
7/1/2020 9:25 AM
Maple Grove
7/1/2020 9:22 AM
Plymouth
7/1/2020 9:17 AM
Rogers
7/1/2020 9:15 AM
Elk River
7/1/2020 9:15 AM
Rogers
7/1/2020 9:08 AM
Retired
6/30/2020 7:54 PM
Rogers and Annandale
6/30/2020 5:29 PM
7/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
38 Retired so N/A
6/30/2020 4:30 PM
39 Minneapolis 6/30/2020 3:22 PM
8/37
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-84
85 and older
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q4 Please indicate your age:
Answered: 149 Skipped:4
9/37
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Under 18
0.00%
0
18-24
3.36%
5
25-34
9.40%
14
35-44
37.58%
56
45-54
25.50%
38
55-64
15.44%
23
65-84
8.72%
13
85 and older
0.00%
0
TOTAL
149
9/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q5 With which of the following racial or ethnic groups do you identify?
Please select all that apply.
Chicanx
Latinx, or..
White
European..
Black
African Descen
Middle Easter
I North Africa
Asian I Asian
Descent
Native)
American I ...
Other)
Indigenous...
Multiracial
Biracia
Other
(self -identify)
0% 10%
ANSWER CHOICES
Chicanx, Latinx, or Hispanic
White European Descent
Black I African Descent
Middle Eastern I North African
Asian Asian Descent
Native American I American Indian
Other Indigenous Peoples
Multiracial I Biracial
Other (self -identify)
Total Respondents: 149
Answered: 149 Skipped:4
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10/37
RESPONSES
2.68%
95.97%
2.01%
1.34%
1.34%
1.34%
1.34%
3.36%
2.01%
4
143
3
2
2
2
2
5
3
# OTHER (SELF -IDENTIFY)
1 No
2 Jewish
3 No thanks
City of Monticello Housing Survey
11/37
DATE
7/3/2020 8:29 AM
7/1/2020 9:25 AM
7/1/2020 12:03 AM
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q6 Do you have children under the age of 19 living in your household? If
yes, how many?
Answered: 149 Skipped:4
ANSWER CHOICES
None - 0
1
2
3
4
5 or more
TOTAL
None -0
I
2
3 ■
4
5 or morel
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
12/37
RESPONSES
42.28%
16.11%
23.49%
12.75%
4.03%
1.34%
63
24
35
19
6
2
149
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q7 Do you have any children or dependent adults over the age of 18 living
in your household? If yes, how many?
Answered: 148 Skipped:5
None -0
5ormo
ANSWER CHOICES
None - 0
1
2
3
4
5 or more
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
74.32% 110
17.57% 26
7.43% 11
0.68% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
148
13/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q8 How would you describe your living situation?
Answered: 150 Skipped:3
I live with
spouse/partn
I live with
spouse/parl
I live with my
children
I live wit
roommates or
I live with)
other family...
I live alon
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
I live with my spouse/partner
I live with my spouse/partner and children
I live with my children
I live with roommates or friends
I live with other family members
I live alone
TOTAL
14/37
RESPONSES
32.67%
49
52.00%
78
6.00%
9
0.67%
1
3.33%
5
5.33%
8
150
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q9 Please indicate your employment status.
Answered: 150 Skipped:3
Employer
Salaried
employee
Hourly err
Home
Unem
Retired E
15/37
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Employer
6.67%
10
Salaried employee
42.67%
64
Hourly employee
32.00%
48
Homemaker
4.67%
7
Unemployed
3.33%
5
Retired
10.67%
16
TOTAL
150
15/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q10 Do you feel as if you have been able to attract enough employees to
grow your business to its fullest potential?
Yes
No 0
Unsure
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Unsure
TOTAL
Answered:9 Skipped: 144
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
16/37
RESPONSES
66.67%
11.11%
22.22%
i
2
9
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q11 In the past 5 years, have housing -related issues impacted your ability
to attract quality employees?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 143
Yes ML
No
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
20.00%
80.00%
# IF YES, PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ISSUE(S) YOU'VE SEEN DATE
1 Hard to find homes 7/1/2020 8:38 PM
2 Only starter homes... need some upper scale housing. 7/1/2020 5:33 PM
17/37
2
8
10
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q12 What is your annual household income before taxes?
Answered: 143 Skipped: 10
Under $25,000
$25,000-$34,991
$35,000-$49,99
$50,000-$69,99
$70,000-$99,99
$100,000-$149,9
99
$150,000-$199,9
9
$200,0000,
greate
0% 10% 20% 30%
ANSWER CHOICES
Under $25,000
$25,000-$34,999
$35,000-$49,999
$50,000-$69,999
$70,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000-$199,999
$200,000 or greater
TOTAL
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
18/37
RESPONSES
1.40%
2.80%
6.99%
15.38%
24.48%
32.17%
9.79%
6.99%
2
4
10
22
35
46
14
10
143
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q13 What type of structure do you live in?
Answered: 145 Skipped:8
Detached F
(single-fami...
2 uni
attached..
3-4 unit
building (sm...
5-19 unit
building...
20+ unit
building...
Attache
townhouse/ro.
Rent a roorr
onl
Assiste
living/other..
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Detached (single-family) home
2 unit attached (duplex/twinhome)
3-4 unit building (small apartment complex)
5-19 unit building (medium-sized apartment complex/condo)
20+ unit building (larger apartment complex/condo)
Attached townhouse/rowhouse units (single-family homes, built side by side that share a common wall and common
look)
Rent a room only
Assisted living/other group facility
TOTAL
19/37
RESPONSES
88.97% 129
1.38% 2
0.00% 0
1.38% 2
0.69% 1
7.59% 11
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
145
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q14 How many bedrooms does your current home have?
Answered: 145 Skipped:8
Efficii
no sepa
T
Four or
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Efficiency - no separate bedroom 0.00% 0
One 0.69% 1
Two 10.34% 15
Three 33.79% 49
Four or more 55.17% 80
TOTAL 145
20/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q15 What were the important factors in deciding to live at your current
residence? (select all that apply)
Answered: 145 Skipped:8
Cost
Dwelling typ(
(type of..
Commute
Proximity t(
amenities..
School:
Quiet and saf
Neighborhooc
characte
Taxes
Other (pleas
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Cost
68.97%
100
Dwelling type (type of house/unit)
59.31%
86
Commute
36.55%
53
Proximity to amenities (grocery stores, shopping, entertainment, etc.)
37.24%
54
Schools
35.86%
52
Quiet and safe
57.93%
84
Neighborhood character
42.07%
61
Taxes
19.31%
28
Other (please specify)
15.17%
22
Total Respondents: 145
21/37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
City of Monticello Housing Survey
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
DATE
Parks and trails
7/17/2020 9:27 AM
Didnt want to be 10' from my neighbor
7/15/2020 8:04 AM
lake
7/15/2020 8:03 AM
Almost 1 acre lot in city limits
7/14/2020 9:52 PM
large yard was very important to us
7/14/2020 7:50 PM
Location close to family
7/14/2020 7:10 PM
My now husband already owned it. But it is a great location to schools, stores, parks etc and a
7/14/2020 4:59 PM
great neighborhood
My family lives in Silver Creek Towship because we wanted more acreage.
7/9/2020 4:18 PM
Traffic * moved to the country to get away from large city, now Monticello is turning into a
7/8/2020 11:57 AM
Maple Grove City- I have consider moving. We moved to Monticello, we like the "small town
feel" now their is neon lights from every store. ( we should pass a ordinance that they turn off
after 10:00 pm
Allows cats
7/3/2020 10:59 PM
Smaller city
7/3/2020 6:48 PM
River
7/2/2020 12:06 PM
being on the Mississippi
7/1/2020 10:21 PM
Acreage
7/1/2020 8:20 PM
Get out of the trailer park
7/1/2020 7:38 PM
acres of land-- the biggest reason. we are sitting on 3 acres
7/1/2020 6:05 PM
Privacy
7/1/2020 5:04 PM
Acreage to build on
7/1/2020 2:10 PM
A little more space between myself and neighbors, but still live in a neighborhood (lot sizes
7/1/2020 1:44 PM
closer to 1 acre)
My husband already owned the house
7/1/2020 12:31 PM
Movie theater
7/1/2020 11:56 AM
Amount of land, close to family
7/1/2020 9:56 AM
22/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q16 Do you rent or own your place of residence?
Answered: 144 Skipped:9
Rent
Own
ANSWER CHOICES
Rent
Own
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
23/37
RESPONSES
5.56% 8
94.44% 136
144
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q17 If you are a renter, would you consider living in an accessory dwelling
unit (ADU)/granny flat/mother-in-law suite? ADU: A smaller, independent
residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a stand-alone (i.e.,
detached) single-family home.
Answered:9 Skipped: 144
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
24/37
RESPONSES
33.33%
66.67%
3
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q18 Are you currently planning to purchase a home somewhere in the
next 2-3 years?
Answered:9 Skipped: 144
Yes
No
Unsure
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Unsure
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
25/37
RESPONSES
66.67%
22.22%
11.11%
i
2
1
9
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q19 If no, what are the main barriers to purchasing a home? Select all that
apply.
Answered:0 Skipped: 153
A No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Lack of preferred dwelling type
0.00%
Lack of downpayment
0.00%
Too much existing debt (student loans, car loans, etc.)
0.00%
Monthly payment would be too high/unaffordable
0.00%
Credit history unreliable to secure loan
0.00%
Increased commute for other household members
0.00%
Lack of access to basic need amenities (grocery stores, shopping, etc.)
0.00%
Don't want to change schools/district
0.00%
Happy where I am right now
0.00%
Total Respondents: 0
26/37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q20 What is the approximate assessed value of your home?
Answered: 136 Skipped: 17
Less than
$50,000
$50,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 to
$299,999
$300,000 t
$499,99
$500,0000 �
mor
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
ANSWER CHOICES
Less than $50,000
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $499,999
$500,000 or more
TOTAL
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
2.21%
3
0.00%
0
4.41%
6
11.76%
16
45.59%
62
33.09%
45
2.94%
4
136
27/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q21 In the past five years, have you had to forego other needs such as
food, healthcare, or childcare to ensure you could continue to pay for your
housing?
Answered: 145 Skipped:8
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
11.03%
88.97%
# COMMENT:
DATE
1 But I've neglected some upkeep, like a new roof
7/14/2020 4:30 PM
2 1 didn't live here then
7/13/2020 1:41 PM
3 1 live with my parents and so they take care of that.
7/9/2020 4:19 PM
4 pandemic
7/2/2020 6:56 AM
5 Constantly cutting corners and scraping to get by
7/2/2020 1:56 AM
6 Survive not thrive
6/30/2020 2:29 PM
28/37
16
129
145
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q22 What is the condition of your home or apartment? Consider both the
building systems (plumbing, heating, electrical) and the interior and exterior
finishes (roofing, siding, paint, flooring, counter tops, etc.).
Answered: 144 Skipped:9
Excellent -
all systems ...
Good -
systems in
Fair - syste
all functio
Poor -systems
have current...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES —
Excellent — all systems and finishes in good repair
Good - all systems in good repair, but finishes are showing some signs of age and/or wear
Fair - systems all functional but with recurring or impending repair needs, but the unit is safe; some finishes are visibly
worn or dated
Poor - systems have current or frequent repair needs, some finishes are significantly worn and unsightly, there are
building code violations and/or safety concerns
TOTAL
29/37
RESPONSES
42.36% 61
44.44% 64
11.81% 17
1.39% 2
144
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q23 If you were to move in the future, would you rather rent or own your
housing?
Answered: 143 Skipped: 10
Rent
Own
conventional.
Own - condo
ownership 01
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Rent 5.59%
Own - conventional ownership 85.31%
Own - condo ownership 9.09%
TOTAL
30/37
E3
122
13
143
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q24 If you were to move in the future, what type of structure would appeal
most to you?
constructi
Older detac
(single -fa
2
attach(
3-4 u
building (sr
5-19 u
buildin;
20+ u
buildin;
Attache
townhouse/ro.
Rent a room
only
Assisted
HVing/other..
Accessory I
dwelling...
Answered: 140 Skipped: 13
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
31/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
ANSWER CHOICES
New construction detached (single-family) house
Older detached (single-family) house
2 unit attached (duplex/twinhome)
3-4 unit building (small apartment building)
5-19 unit building (medium-sized apartment building/condo)
20+ unit building (larger apartment building/condo)
Attached townhouse/rowhouse units (single-family homes, built side by side that share a common wall and common
look)
Rent a room only
Assisted living/other group facility
Accessory dwelling unit/granny flat/mother-in-law suite
TOTAL
32/37
RESPONSES
52.86% 74
20.71% 29
5.00% 7
1.43% 2
2.86% 4
0.71% 1
10.00% 14
0.00% 0
4.29% 6
2.14% 3
140
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q25 Have you perceived changes in housing options and availability in
Monticello over the past 5 years?
Answered: 142 Skipped: 11
Yes,
hour
Yes,
hou:
aLwa
alwa
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES I I
Yes, adequate housing has gotten easier to find
Yes, adequate housing has gotten harder to find
No, it has always been difficult to find adequate housing
No, it has always been relatively easy to find adequate housing
Not sure/no opinion
TOTAL
33/37
RESPONSES
6.34%
9
28.87%
41
16.20%
23
4.23%
6
44.37%
63
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
City of Monticello Housing Survey
COMMENTS:
DATE
Very little higher end housing developments in Monticello
7/15/2020 8:07 AM
there needs to be more townhome communities. Especially for 55+
7/15/2020 8:05 AM
Homes in Monticello are not on the market for long. At least not the ones I've previously
7/14/2020 4:56 PM
looked at/been interested in.
Already see a lot of lower income housing, but there is a potential for Monticello to grow the
7/9/2020 5:54 PM
city with more higher income housing due to increased Teleworking projected for the future like
the southern metro areas or maple grove area, but still marketing and retaining the values of a
small town area where everything is safe, clean and friendly.
The housing I'm looking for (as I will be moving out of my parents house hopefully soon), is an
7/9/2020 4:24 PM
old farmhouse on a couple acres.
There is nowhere in Monticello that has big lots (like 5 acres) where you could build a step up
7/4/2020 11:59 AM
living house. This is what we are looking for and are more than likely going to move to find it.
Monticello doesn't offer many higher income housing neighborhoods with lacre lots. My
7/2/2020 4:49 PM
parents have been wanting to move to Monticello for the past 10 years but the options are
limited. They want a rambler ($350,000) without living on top of their neighbors.
There's an ample supply of starter homes and way too many split entry homes, but a limited
7/2/2020 11:59 AM
supply in the next level (I'm currently looking and have realized I will most likely have to leave
Monticello because I'm looking for a neighborhood with no split entry homes).
Prices have gone up since I purchased my home
7/2/2020 1:59 AM
There are too many townhomes, apartments being built. There is not enough executive level
7/1/2020 6:16 PM
houses available!
way too many rental properties!!!!!! from single family homes being made into multiple
7/1/2020 6:09 PM
dwellings, apartment complexes that are OLD and DATED and not kept up. awful!!!!
Affordable housing for medium/lower income
7/1/2020 6:02 PM
We love ked for 2 years for a rambler type house. Not many available.
7/1/2020 3:51 PM
Not many new developments to build in
7/1/2020 1:06 PM
Alot of appartments
7/1/2020 11:58 AM
Hard to find larger/step up housing Too many small houses and apartments
6/30/2020 9:38 PM
Nicer apartment living needs to be available
6/30/2020 6:37 PM
There's lots of new construction available in the Little Mountain boundary but we need
6/30/2020 5:23 PM
Pinewood boundary.
I've casually looked in the past. Nothing serious at this time.
6/30/2020 2:35 PM
Monticello Should Consider Allowing a Development with Large Acreage size Lots.
6/30/2020 1:56 PM
34/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
Q26 In your opinion, what are the greatest unmet housing needs in
Monticello right now? (select up to 3)
Answered: 143 Skipped: 10
Housing/shelte
for persons.
som
Affordabl
home ownersh..
Housingfo
persons with.
Housingfor
seniors
Housin
rehabilitati.
Housing foi
larger famil..
I'm not sure
Other (please
specify):
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Housing/shelter for persons experiencing homelessness
19.58%
Affordable home ownership opportunities
45.45%
Housing for persons with disabilities/special needs
9.09%
Housing for seniors
18.88%
Housing rehabilitation (poor quality of housing)
12.59%
Housing for larger families (5+ person households)
23.08%
I'm not sure
16.78%
Other (please specify):
22.38%
Total Respondents: 143
35/37
28
65
13
27
18
33
24
32
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
City of Monticello Housing Survey
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY):
DATE
Starter homes
7/17/2020 9:29 AM
Affordable rental
7/15/2020 5:53 AM
Land available with 2 or more acres
7/14/2020 8:52 PM
Moved here 24 yrs ago for our twinhone complex and plan to age in place.
7/14/2020 7:16 PM
Step up homes. Higher value homes. There are too few options for people wanting to upgrade
7/14/2020 6:55 PM
Housing with more than half an acre lots
7/14/2020 6:04 PM
Single level living... no stairs.
7/14/2020 5:01 PM
Neighborhoods with larger single family homes sitting on an acre of land.
7/14/2020 3:30 PM
Monticello has the potential to grow itself in value by positioning and marketing itself as a great
7/9/2020 5:54 PM
alternative to the outer metro suburbs, that is safe place to raise a family, growing the
population gradually without moving to fast to loose the existing small town appeal.
I think there are a lack of 100+ year old farmhouses in the area and with more being torn down
7/9/2020 4:24 PM
every year it makes even less farmhouses available for purchase.
Taxes have gotten out of hand. Million dollar ball fields, Tax man comes around every single
7/8/2020 12:02 PM
year, to see if we did anything, and then increases property taxes . despite laws that state
should come every 7 years. ** with schools closed all these months, should we not get a tax
break? ** do we really want to bring in lower housing, which brings in crime? *** does
Monticello really want to lose the small town feel?
Affordable housing for students. Young adults just starting careers can't find affordable housing
7/7/2020 9:23 AM
here.
High end executive housing options
7/6/2020 1:26 PM
Rental housing that allows pets without requiring declawing
7/3/2020 11:01 PM
Over 55 townhouse community
7/3/2020 8:00 AM
New Homes in the 275-350K range
7/1/2020 9:53 PM
Housing for vets
7/1/2020 7:40 PM
Higher end townhomes.
7/1/2020 7:39 PM
High end housing. Good God. There is very little over 500k
7/1/2020 6:09 PM
For those with less money
7/1/2020 6:02 PM
Affordable homes, condos, and apartments. Prices seem currently to be inching toward what
7/1/2020 5:11 PM
you would pay in the twin cities which is too high.
Single level homes or townhomes with no stairs. Walkability to stores.
7/1/2020 5:07 PM
Single home housing for seniors.
7/1/2020 2:35 PM
Upscale, single family homes with high end character features. We don't need more homes
7/1/2020 1:42 PM
with the exact same floor plans/track housing with slightly different exteriors.
Difficult to find newer better quality built home.
7/1/2020 10:29 AM
Larger/step up housing
6/30/2020 9:38 PM
Smaller affordable new modest homes with some property.
6/30/2020 5:34 PM
New homes in Pinewood schools are not available
6/30/2020 5:23 PM
There are not enough affordable housing options other than split level housing
6/30/2020 5:13 PM
We prefer Monticello to stay its current size to keep the appeal of the community. If it gets
6/30/2020 4:58 PM
bigger, it will lose that appeal and we will likely move to another smaller community.
I am in that pocket of having too much money for help yet not enough to get an affordable
6/30/2020 2:35 PM
36/37
City of Monticello Housing Survey
option that isn't ghetto.
32 Higher End Housing. Monticello is perfectly situated to allow larger 1-5 Acre Homesites. If we 6/30/2020 1:56 PM
did this you would see high six and seven figure houses go up, those taxes would be very
beneficial vs. more town and starter homes.
37/37
Appendix D
Development Fee Comparison Table
*= outside Wright County
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Stormwater
Sanitary Sewer Access
Water Access Charge
Land
Cash -in -Lieu
City Admin & Planning
City Legal
City Engineering
Grading, Street, &
Public Improvements
Landscaping
Erosion Sediment Control Escrow
Grading Permit
Plan Review
Inspection
Lot Escrows
Planner
Engineer
Construction
COMMUNITY
Charge (SAC)
(WAC)
Utilities
Inspector
New SF Res: $150/permit + restoration surety
$2,000 residential building escrow (held for completion of as -built survey, blvd trees, turf establishment. Secures
Residential
$1,182/unit
$1,641/unit
$4,555/unit (SF Res)
$2,010/equivalent
1/0 o of estimated public
1/0 0 of estimated public
3/ 0 of estimated site
4/0 o of esti mated public
Letter of credit or cash
Letter of credit or cash based in
bond
106% of 1997 State
street sweeping, lot erosion control, & any damage to public improvements if all items not complete/ satisfied at
$4,396/acre +
residential unit
Equivalent to 11% gross
11% of fair market value of
improvement cost or
improvement cost or
grading cost or $2,000
improvement cost or
based on statement of
statement of value of landscaping x
$300 x weeks of construction (sites
$3,000/acre; $3,000 minimum escrow
recommended
$60/hr ($15 for 15
certificate of occupancy. All must be complete prior to release.)
$223/hr
$128/hr
Monticello
alternate ponding fee
(Follows MET Council
platted land area, or by
the raw land
$2,000 min.
$2,000 min.
minimum (whichever
$2,000 minimum
construction cost of
125% (held for one full year or two
disturbing 1 acre or more w/ NPDES
schedule + State
minutes or less)
$191/hr
(maximum)
(maximum)
+ stormwater utility
$4,555/unit (ALL
Rates/ Procedure)
specific study
(whichever is greater)
(whichever is greater)
is greater)
(whichever is greater)
improvement x 125%
growing seasons)
construction stormwater permit)
MF, Comm, &Ind:
mandated surcharge
Non -Residential
$2,954/acre
$4,115/acre
OTHERS per unit
$350/permit + restoration security bond
fee
Not Publicaly Available
equivalent)
$3,000 for 1st acre, + $1,500 each addtl acre
Valuation -based
Residential
$7,961
$1,894
Building Permit
(applies to both residential and non-residential)
$2,900 per SF unit
Minimum fee: $25
$2,007.00/acre (less
$1,894.00/acre (less
$5,800 per duplex
Valuation:
dedicated ROW, parks,
dedicated ROW, parks,
$350/acre
1 acre for every 75
$1,050 per unit for apts,
$600-$2,000
$26.55 for 1st $600, + $3.05 for each additional $100 (or fraction, thereof)
Buffalo
outlots, and
outlots, and
(management fee)
persons at the rate of 3.5
townhouses, condos, and
Actual charges and fees above base escrow will be billed and due from applicants
Equivalents not publicly available
65% of permit fee
$2,001 to $25k
$69.25 for 1st $2k, + $14.00 for each additional $1,000 (or fraction, thereof)
2x loaded labor rate
stormwater holdingstormwater
holding
g
$7,962/unit
$1,894/unit
persons/household
other dwelling units plus
$25,001 to $50k
$391.25 for 1st $25k, + $10.10 for each additional $1,000 (or fraction, thereof)
Non -Residential
ponds)
ponds)
(Comm/Ind)
(Comm/Ind)
$525 per bedroom above
$50,001 to $100k
$643.75 for 1st $50k, + $7.00 for each additional $1,000 (or fraction, thereof)
the first bedroom
$100,001 to $500k
$993.75 for 1st $100k, + $5.60 for each additional $1,000 (or fraction, thereof)
$500,001 to $1 mil
$3,233.75 for 1st $500k, + $4.75 for each additional $1,000 (or fraction, thereof)
$1,000,001+
$5,608.75 for 1st $1 mil, + $3.65 for each additional $1,000 (or fraction, thereof)
$5,183/acre (1-3
$3,200 (SF, duplex,
$2,382 (SF, duplex,
Residential
unit/acre)
townhome, quad
townhome, quad
10% dedication of land
$1,250/dwelling unit
Valuation -based
Building Permit
(applies to both residential and non-residential)
$6,339/acre N
home)
home)
Minimum fee: $23.50
unit/acre)
$1,400 (apt bldg)
$1,041.95 (apt bldg)
Valuation:
$350.00 + $1,000
Becker*
$2,746/acre
$3,322/acre
escrow (+$65/hr for
es and fees above base escrow will be billed and due from
Actual charges
Equivalents not publicly available
65% of permit fee
$501-$2,000
$23.50 for 1st $500, + $3.05 for each additional $100 (rounded to nearest $100)
2x loaded labor rate
inspection)
applicants
$2,001 to $25k
$69.25 for 1st $2k, + $14.00 for each additional $1,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000)
Non -Residential
$9,895/acre
$4,000
$2,977
5% land
$1.64/sq ft
$25,001 to $50k
$391.25 for 1st $25k, + $10.10 for each additional $1,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000)
$50,001 to $100k
$643.75 for 1st $50k, + $7.00 for each additional $1,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000)
$100,001 to $500k
$993.75 for 1st $100k, + $5.60 for each additional $1,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000)
$500,001 to $1 mil
$3,233.75 for 1st $500k, + $4.75 for each additional $1,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000)
$1,000,001+,$5,608.75
for 1st $1 mil, + $3.65 for each additional $1,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000)
$5,325/unit (SF to 3
$3,585/unit (SF up to 3
Valuation -based
Residential
units)
units)
10% of net area to be
$2,500/unit
Building Permit
(applies to both residential and non-residential)
$3,235/unit (4+ units)
$2,200/unit (4+ units)
subdivided
Minimum fee: 25
$300 fee + $1,000 escrow (subdivisions) or
Valuation:
Big Lake *
$1,650/acre
$5,330/acre
Determined by City
$300 fee + $2,000 escrow (site plan review)
Equivalent not publicly
$100 fee + $1900 escrow
$50 fee + $2950 escrow
Based on building permit valuation
o
65/0 of permit fee
$1.00 to $1,100
$1,101 to $2k
$50
$28 for 1st $500, plus $3.70 for each addtl $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2k
$65/hr
$115/hr
$75/hr
(Buildings &
Engineer
Determined by City
Determined by City
4% of the area to be
or
$300 fee +plat escrow $5k prelim, $3k final
availably
$2,001 to $25k
$83.50 for 1st $2,000, plus $16.55 for each addtl $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $25k
Inspections)
Non -Residential
4% of value of land
$25,001 to $50k
$464.15 for 1st $25,000, plus $12 for each addtl $1,000. or fraction thereof, to and including $50k
Engineer
Engineer
developed
$50,001 to $100k
$764.15 for 1st $50,000, plus $8.45 for each addtl $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100k
$100,001 to $500k
$1,186.65 for 1st $100,000, plus $6.75 for each addtl $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500k
$500,001 to $1mill
$3,886.65 for 1st $500,000, plus $5.50 for each addtl $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1mill
$1,000,001+
$6.636.65 for 1st $1,000,000, plus $4.50 for each addtl $1,000, or fraction thereof
All per residential
All per residential
All per residential
equivalent unit:
equivalent unit:
equivalent unit:
SF $1,224
SF $2,828
SF $2,989
Res/Institutional
Res/Institutional
$3,200/unit
Valuation -based
Residential
Twin Home $1,124
Twin Home $2,828
Twin Home $2,840
$2,952/unit
$5,952/unit
15% of land
($1,600/senior apt unit)
Building Permit
(applies to both residential and non-residential)
Town Home $1,124
Town Home $2,758
Town Home $1,611
$2,781/senior apt
$4,761/senior apt
Minimum fee: 25
Apt $900
Apt $2,547
Apt $620
Senior $900
Senior $2,547
Senior $371
Application:
Letter of credit of
St. Michael
cash escrow TBD for
Not publically available
Construction:
$1,000/acre ($3,000 min) for erosion control +
125% estimated
$2,500 for landscape and final grade
$1,000
$350 + $50/acre beyond 1 acre
65% of permit fee
Equivalents not publicly availably
Valuation:
wetland, stormwater,
5% estimated site improvement costs
construction cost for
$1.00-$500
$23.00
$2,526/unit
$2,976/unit
traffic, & other reviews
public improvements
$501-$2,000
$23.50 for 1st $500, + $3.05 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2k
$1,224 / residential
$2,828 / residential
(MET Council SAC
(MET Council SAC
$2,001 to $25k
$69.25 for 1st $2k, + $14.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $25k
Non -Residential
$0.13/SF of land
5% of land
$1,000/acre
$25,001 to $50k
$391.25 for 1st $25k, + $10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50k
equivalent unit
equivalent unit
Manual for unit
Manual for unit
$50,001 to $100k
$643.75 for 1st $50k, + $7.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100k
numbers)
numbers)
$100,001 to $500k
$993.75 for 1st $100k, + $5.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500k
$500,001 to $1 mil
$3,233.75 for 1st $500k, + $4.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1mill
$1,000,001+1$5,608.75
for 1st $1 mil, + $3.65 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
*= outside Wright County
OM
June 8, 2023
Jim Thares, Economic Development Manager
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: 2023 Housing Study Update
Dear Jim,
1702 Pankratz St.
Madison, VVI 53704
P: (608) 242-7779
TF: (800) 446-0679
Thank you for the invitation to consider again housing market conditions in Monticello. As we've
discussed, the local market is lively. You have multiple large-scale multifamily developments approved
and interest from other developers for even more. Meanwhile, single family ownership housing continues
to lag. An updated study is desired to consider the impact of the recent and pending construction and
estimate the City's capacity for more units of all types. With this information the City can decide how best
to promote development opportunities and guide the speed of development and phasing at Monticello
Lakes.
Our proposal, in brief, is to update and augment the 2020 study with more current data, to understand
recent market dynamics and revise demand projections for the next 5 years. Our intent is to collect
critical data, including fresh interviews of local housing experts and then to update the majority of the
sections in the plan. The attached scope describes which sections we propose to update (and a few
which don't likely need an update at this time). Also included are a few optional tasks that you
requested. These are identified in parentheses in the scope and as specific add-on costs in the contract.
We estimate a cost of $21,200 for this update, plus any of the additional tasks.
Please contact me with any questions you may have about this proposal.
Sincerely,
MSA Professional Services, Inc.
F v
Jason Valerius, AICP
Senior Team Leader
0valerius(a)msa-ps.com 1608-242-6629
Professional Services Agreement
MSA Project Number: 13731006
This AGREEMENT (Agreement) is made effective June 8, 2023 by and between
MSA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC (MSA)
Address: 1702 Pankratz St., Madison, WI 53704
Phone: 608.242.6629
Representative: Jason Valerius Email: jvalerius@msa-ps.com
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MN
Address: 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN 5536
Phone: 763.271.3254
Representative: Jim Thares, Economic Development Manager
Email: Jim.Thares@ci.monticello.mn.us
Project Name: City of Monticello Housing Study Update
The scope of the work authorized is: See Attachment A: Scope of Services
The schedule to perform the work is: Approximate Start Date: June 15, 2023
Approximate Completion Date: August 13, 2023
The lump sum fee for the work is: $21,200
Additional services identified in Attachment A City Initials
Development Fees Comparative Review $2,500
Townhome Demand Evaluation $1,200
SF Construction Trends and Factors Review $1,500
Total
All services shall be performed in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions of
MSA, which is attached and made part of this Agreement. Any attachments or exhibits
referenced in this Agreement are made part of this Agreement. Payment for these
services will be on a lump sum basis.
Approval: Authorization to proceed is acknowledged by signatures of the parties to this
Agreement.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Jim Thares
Economic Development Manager
Date:
MSA PROFES IONAL SERVICES, INC.
- �_
Ja on Valerius
Senior Team Leader
Date: June 8, 2023
Page 1 of 9
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Mont ice Ilo Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
MSA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. (MSA)
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICES (PUBLIC)
1. Scope and Fee. The scope of Owner's Project (the "Project"), scope of MSA's services (the "Work"),
and quoted fees for those services are defined in Attachment A. The scope and fee constitute a good faith
estimate of the tasks and associated fees required to perform the services defined in Attachment A. This
agreement upon execution by both parties hereto, can be amended only by written instrument signed by both
parties. For those projects involving conceptual or process development service or involve renovation of an
existing building or structure, activities often cannot be fully defined during initial planning. As the Project
progresses, facts uncovered may reveal a change in direction which may alter the Work. MSA will promptly
inform the OWNER in writing of such situations so that changes in this agreement can be made as required.
2. Owner's Responsibilities.
(a) Proiect Scope and Budget
The OWNER shall define the scope and budget of the Project and, when applicable, periodically update the
Project budget, including that portion allocated for the cost of the Work. The Project budget shall include
contingencies for design, development, and, when required by the scope of the Project, construction of the
Project. The OWNER shall not significantly increase or decrease the overall Project scope or schedule, the
portion of the budget allocated for the cost of the Work, or contingencies included in the overall budget or a
portion of the budget, without the agreement of MSA to a corresponding change in the Project scope, quality,
schedule, and compensation of MSA.
(b) Designated Owner Representative
The OWNER shall identify a Designated Representative who shall be authorized to act on behalf of the OWNER
with respect to the Project. OWNER's Designated Representative shall render related decisions in a timely
manner so as to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of MSA's services. MSA shall
not be liable for any error or omission made by OWNER, OWNER's Designated Representative, or OWNER's
consultant.
(c) Tests, Inspections, and Reports
When required by the scope of the Project, the OWNER shall furnish tests, inspections, and reports required by
law or the Contract Documents, such as planning studies; preliminary designs; structural, mechanical, or
chemical tests; tests for air, water, or soil pollution; and tests for hazardous materials.
(d) Additional Consultants
MSA's consultants shall be identified in Attachment A. The OWNER shall furnish the services of other
consultants other than those designated in Attachment 1, including such legal, financial, accounting, and
insurance counseling services as may be required for the Project.
(e) OWNER Provided Services and Information
MSA shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of services and information furnished by the
OWNER, Designated OWNER Representative, or Consultant. MSA shall use reasonable efforts to provide
prompt written notice to the OWNER if MSA becomes aware of any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in such
services or information.
3. Billing. MSA will bill the OWNER monthly with net payment due upon receipt. Balances due past thirty
(30) days shall be subject to an interest charge at a rate of 12% per year from said thirtieth day. In addition,
MSA may, after giving seven days written notice, suspend service under any agreement until the OWNER has
paid in full all amounts due for services rendered and expenses incurred, including the interest charge on past
due invoices.
4. Costs and Schedules. Costs (including MSA's fees and reimbursable expenses) and schedule
commitments shall be subject to change for delays caused by the OWNER's failure to provide specified facilities
or information or for delays caused by unpredictable occurrences including, without limitation, fires, floods, riots,
strikes, unavailability of labor or materials, delays or defaults, by suppliers of materials or services, process
shutdowns, pandemics, acts of God or the public enemy, or acts of regulations of any governmental agency.
Temporary delays of services caused by any of the above which result in additional costs beyond those outlined
may require renegotiation of this agreement.
5. Access to Site. Owner shall furnish right -of -entry on the Project site for MSA and, if the site is not owned
by Owner, warrants that permission has been granted to make planned explorations pursuant to the scope of
services. MSA will take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the site from use of equipment, but has
not included costs for restoration of damage that may result and shall not be responsible for such costs.
Page 2 of 9
(General Terms & Conditions - Public)
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Monticello Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
6. Location of Utilities. Owner shall supply MSA with the location of all pre-existent utilities and MSA has
the right to reasonably rely on all Owner supplied information. In those instances where the scope of services
require MSA to locate any buried utilities, MSA shall use reasonable means to identify the location of buried
utilities in the areas of subsurface exploration and shall take reasonable precautions to avoid any damage to the
utilities noted. However, Owner agrees to indemnify and defend MSA in the event of damage or injury arising
from damage to or interference with subsurface structures or utilities which result from inaccuracies in information
of instructions which have been furnished to MSA by others.
7. Professional Representative. MSA intends to serve as the OWNER's professional representative for
those services as defined in this agreement, and to provide advice and consultation to the OWNER as a
professional. Any opinions of probable project costs, reviews and observations, and other recommendations
made by MSA for the OWNER are rendered on the basis of experience and qualifications and represents the
professional judgment of MSA. However, MSA cannot and does not warrant or represent that proposals, bid or
actual project or construction costs will not vary from the opinion of probable cost prepared by it.
8. Construction. When applicable to the scope of the Project, the OWNER shall contract with a licensed
and qualified Contractor for implementation of construction work utilizing a construction contract based on an
EJCDC construction contract and general conditions appropriate for the scope of the Project and for the delivery
method. In the construction contract, the OWNER shall use reasonable commercial efforts to require the
Contractor to (1) obtain Commercial General Liability Insurance with contractual liability coverage insuring the
obligation of the Contractor, and name the OWNER, MSA and its employees and consultants as additionally
insureds of that policy; (2) indemnify and hold harmless the OWNER, MSA and its employees and consultants
from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses ("Claims"), including but not limited to
reasonable attorney's fees and economic or consequential damages arising in whole or in part out of the
negligent act or omission of the contractor, and Subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any
of them. This agreement shall not be construed as giving MSA, the responsibility or authority to direct or
supervise construction means, methods, techniques, sequence, or procedures of construction selected by the
contractors or subcontractors or the safety precautions and programs incident to the work, the same being the
sole and exclusive responsibility of the contractors or subcontractors.
9. Standard of Care. In conducting the services, MSA will apply present professional, engineering and/or
scientific judgment, which is known as the "standard of care". The standard of care is defined as that level of
skill and care ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession practicing at the same point in time and
in the same or similar locality under similar circumstances in performing the Services. The OWNER
acknowledges that "current professional standards" shall mean the standard for professional services, measured
as of the time those services are rendered, and not according to later standards, if such later standards purport
to impose a higher degree of care upon MSA.
MSA does not make any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, nor have any agreement or contract
for services subject to the provisions of any uniform commercial code. Similarly, MSA will not accept those terms
and conditions offered by the OWNER in its purchase order, requisition, or notice of authorization to proceed,
except as set forth herein or expressly agreed to in writing. Written acknowledgement of receipt, or the actual
performance of services subsequent to receipt of such purchase order, requisition, or notice of authorization to
proceed is specifically deemed not to constitute acceptance of any terms or conditions contrary to those set forth
herein.
10. Municipal Advisor. MSA Professional Services, Inc. is not acting as a `Municipal Advisor' to the owner
pursuant to Section 15B of the Exchange Act. For financial advice related to the corresponding project, the client
is encouraged to discuss their finances with internal and/or external advisors and experts before making
decisions incurring debt and/or supporting those obligations. MSA desires to serve each client well by providing
the best information publicly available and is providing information as part of its engineering responsibilities to
inform client options. The information is not intended to provide financial advice or recommendations and is not
bound by the formal Municipal Advisor fiduciary duty.
11. Conduct Expectations. Owner and MSA understand their respective obligations to provide a safe,
respectful work environment for their employees. Both parties agree that harassment on the job (unwelcome
verbal, physical or other behavior that is related to sex, race, age, or protected class status) will not be tolerated
and will be addressed timely and in compliance with anti -harassment laws.
12. Electronic Documents and Transmittals. Owner and MSA agree to transmit and accept project
related correspondence, documents, text, data, drawings and the like in digital format in accordance with MSA's
Page 3 of 9
(General Terms & Conditions - Public)
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Monticello Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
Electronic Data Transmittal policy. Each party is responsible for its own cybersecurity, and both parties waive
the right to pursue liability against the other for any damages that occur as a direct result of electronic data
sharing.
13. Building Information Modelling (BIM). For any projects, and not limited to building projects, utilizing
BIM, OWNER and MSA shall agree on the appropriate level of modelling required by the project, as well as the
degree to which the BIM files may be made available to any party using the Electronic Document Transmittal
provisions of section 10 of this Agreement.
14. Construction Site Visits. If the scope of services includes services during the Construction Phase,
MSA shall make visits to the site as specified in Attachment A— Scope of Services. MSA shall not, during such
visits or as a result of such observations of Contractor's work in progress, supervise, direct or have control over
Contractor's work nor shall MSA have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques,
sequences or procedures of construction selected by Contractor, for safety precautions and programs incident
to the work of Contractor or for any failure of Contractor to comply with laws, rules, regulations, ordinances,
codes or orders applicable to Contractor's furnishing and performing the work. Accordingly, MSA neither
guarantees the performance of any Contractor nor assumes responsibility for any Contractor's failure to furnish
and perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
15. Termination. This Agreement shall commence upon execution and shall remain in effect until terminated
by either party, at such party's discretion, on not less than thirty (30) days' advance written notice. The effective
date of the termination is the thirtieth day after the non -terminating party's receipt of the notice of termination. If
MSA terminates the Agreement, the OWNER may, at its option, extend the terms of this Agreement to the extent
necessary for MSA to complete any services that were ordered prior to the effective date of termination. If
OWNER terminates this Agreement, OWNER shall pay MSA for all services performed prior to MSA's receipt of
the notice of termination and for all work performed and/or expenses incurred by MSA in terminating Services
begun after MSA's receipt of the termination notice. Termination hereunder shall operate to discharge only those
obligations which are executory by either party on and after the effective date of termination. These General
Terms and Conditions shall survive the completion of the services performed hereunder or the Termination of
this Agreement for any cause.
This agreement cannot be changed or terminated orally. No waiver of compliance with any provision or
condition hereof should be effective unless agreed in writing and duly executed by the parties hereto.
16. Betterment. If, due to MSA's error, any required or necessary item or component of the Project is omitted
from the construction documents, MSA's liability shall be limited to the reasonable costs of correction of the
construction, less what OWNER'S cost of including the omitted item or component in the original construction
would have been had the item or component not been omitted. It is intended by this provision that MSA will not
be responsible for any cost or expense that provides betterment, upgrade, or enhancement of the Project.
17. Hazardous Substances. OWNER acknowledges and agrees that MSA has had no role in identifying,
generating, treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous substances or materials which may be present at the
Project site, and MSA has not benefited from the processes that produced such hazardous substances or
materials. Any hazardous substances or materials encountered by or associated with Services provided by MSA
on the Project shall at no time be or become the property of MSA. MSA shall not be deemed to possess or
control any hazardous substance or material at any time; arrangements for the treatment, storage, transport, or
disposal of any hazardous substances or materials, which shall be made by MSA, are made solely and
exclusively on OWNER's behalf for OWNER's benefit and at OWNER's direction. Nothing contained within this
Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as requiring MSA to assume the status of a generator, storer,
treater, or disposal facility as defined in any federal, state, or local statute, regulation, or rule governing treatment,
storage, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous substances or materials.
All samples of hazardous substances, materials or contaminants are the property and responsibility of
OWNER and shall be returned to OWNER at the end of a project for proper disposal. Alternate arrangements
to ship such samples directly to a licensed disposal facility may be made at OWNER's request and expense and
subject to this subparagraph.
18. Insurance. MSA will maintain insurance coverage for: Worker's Compensation, General Liability, and
Professional Liability. MSA will provide information as to specific limits upon written request. If the OWNER
requires coverages or limits in addition to those in effect as of the date of the agreement, premiums for additional
insurance shall be paid by the OWNER. The liability of MSA to the OWNER for any indemnity commitments, or
Page 4 of 9
(General Terms & Conditions - Public)
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Monticello Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
for any damages arising in any way out of performance of this contract is limited to such insurance coverages
and amount which MSA has in effect.
19. Reuse of Documents. Reuse of any documents and/or services pertaining to this Project by the
OWNER or extensions of this Project or on any other project shall be at the OWNER's sole risk. The OWNER
agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless MSA for all claims, damages, and expenses including attorneys'
fees and costs arising out of such reuse of the documents and/or services by the OWNER or by others acting
through the OWNER.
20. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, MSA shall indemnify and hold harmless,
OWNER, and OWNER's officers, directors, members, partners, consultants, and employees (hereinafter
"OWNER") from reasonable claims, costs, losses, and damages arising out of or relating to the PROJECT,
provided that any such claim, cost, loss, or damage is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death,
or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than the Work itself) including the loss of use resulting
therefrom but only to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission of MSA or MSA's officers, directors,
members, partners, employees, or Consultants (hereinafter "MSA"). In no event shall this indemnity agreement
apply to claims between the OWNER and MSA. This indemnity agreement applies solely to claims of third
parties. Furthermore, in no event shall this indemnity agreement apply to claims that MSA is responsible for
attorneys' fees. This agreement does not give rise to any duty on the part of MSA to defend the OWNER on any
claim arising under this agreement.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, OWNER shall indemnify and hold harmless, MSA, and MSA's officers,
directors, members, partners, consultants, and employees (hereinafter "MSA") from reasonable claims, costs,
losses, and damages arising out of or relating to the PROJECT, provided that any such claim, cost, loss, or
damage is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible
property (other than the Work itself) including the loss of use resulting therefrom but only to the extent caused
by any negligent act or omission of the OWNER or the OWNER's officers, directors, members, partners,
employees, or Consultants (hereinafter "OWNER"). In no event shall this indemnity agreement apply to claims
between MSA and the OWNER. This indemnity agreement applies solely to claims of third parties. Furthermore,
in no event shall this indemnity agreement apply to claims that the OWNER is responsible for attorneys' fees.
This agreement does not give rise to any duty on the part of the OWNER to defend MSA on any claim arising
under this agreement.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, MSA's total liability to OWNER and anyone claiming by, through, or
under OWNER for any cost, loss or damages caused in part or by the negligence of MSA and in part by the
negligence of OWNER or any other negligent entity or individual, shall not exceed the percentage share that
MSA's negligence bears to the total negligence of OWNER, MSA, and all other negligent entities and individuals.
21. Accrual of Claims. To the fullest extent permitted by Laws and Regulations, all causes of action arising
under this Agreement will be deemed to have accrued, and all statutory periods of limitation will commence, no
later than the date of Substantial Completion; or, if Engineer's services do not include Construction Phase
services, or the Project is not completed, then no later than the date of Owner's last payment to Engineer.
22. Dispute Resolution. OWNER and MSA desire to resolve any disputes or areas of disagreement
involving the subject matter of this Agreement by a mechanism that facilitates resolution of disputes by
negotiation rather than by litigation. OWNER and MSA also acknowledge that issues and problems may arise
after execution of this Agreement which were not anticipated or are not resolved by specific provisions in this
Agreement. Accordingly, both OWNER and MSA will endeavor to settle all controversies, claims, counterclaims,
disputes, and other matters in accordance with the Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the American
Arbitration Association currently in effect, unless OWNER and MSA mutually agree otherwise. Demand for
mediation shall be filed in writing with the other party to this Agreement. A demand for mediation shall be made
within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the
demand for mediation be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such
claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Neither
demand for mediation nor any term of this Dispute Resolution clause shall prevent the filing of a legal action
where failing to do so may bar the action because of the applicable statute of limitations. If despite the good
faith efforts of OWNER and MSA any controversy, claim, counterclaim, dispute, or other matter is not resolved
through negotiation or mediation, OWNER and MSA agree and consent that such matter may be resolved
through legal action in the court having jurisdiction as specified in section 29 of this Agreement.
Page 5 of 9
(General Terms & Conditions - Public)
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Monticello Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
23. Exclusion of Special, Indirect, Consequential and Liquidated Damages. MSA shall not be liable, in
contract or tort or otherwise, for any special, indirect, consequential, or liquidated damages including specifically,
but without limitation, loss of profit or revenue, loss of capital, delay damages, loss of goodwill, claim of third
parties, or similar damages arising out of or connected in any way to the Project or this contract.
24. Limitation of Liability. Neither MSA, its Consultants (if any), nor their employees shall be jointly,
severally, or individually liable to the OWNER in excess of the amount of the insurance proceeds available.
25. Successors and Assigns. The successors, executors, administrators, and legal representatives of
Owner and Engineer are hereby bound to the other party to this Agreement and to the successors, executors,
administrators and legal representatives (and said assigns) of such other party, in respect of all covenants,
agreements, and obligations of this Agreement. Neither party may assign, sublet, or transfer any rights under
or interest (including, but without limitation, claims arising out of this Agreement or money that is due or may
become due) in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonable
withheld, except to the extent that any assignment, subletting, or transfer is mandated by law.
26. Notices. Any notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, and delivered: in person (by
commercial courier or otherwise); by registered or certified mail; or by e-mail to the recipient, with the words
"Formal Notice" or similar in the e-mail's subject line. All such notices are effective upon the date of receipt.
27. Survival. Subject to applicable Laws and Regulations, all express representations, waivers,
indemnifications, and limitations of liability included in this Agreement will survive its completion or termination
for any reason.
28. Severability. Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any Laws
or Regulations will be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions will continue to be valid and binding upon
Owner and MSA.
29. No Waiver. A party's non -enforcement of any provision will not constitute a waiver of that provision,
nor will it affect the enforceability of that provision or of the remainder of this Agreement.
30. State Law. This agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State
of Wisconsin.
31. Jurisdiction. OWNER hereby irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the state courts of the State of
Wisconsin for the purpose of any suit, action or other proceeding arising out of or based upon this Agreement.
OWNER further consents that the venue for any legal proceedings related to this Agreement shall be Sauk
County, Wisconsin.
32. Understanding. This agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties on the subject
matter hereof and no representations. Inducements, promises or agreements not embodied herein (unless
agreed in writing duly executed) shall be of any force or effect, and this agreement supersedes any other prior
understanding entered into between the parties on the subject matter hereto.
Page 6 of 9
(General Terms & Conditions - Public)
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Monticello Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
ATTACHMENT A:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
HOUSING STUDY UPDATE TASKS
The following tasks will be included in the 2023 update to the 2020 Housing Needs and Market Demand Study.
S'FAKEHC)LDEP, ENGAGEMENT
Interviews — we will conduct interviews with up to 6 individuals or small groups to understand current conditions and
trends in the local market.
• Developers
• Property managers
• Other City staff or officials
Staff working meetings — 3 meetings with Economic Development Staff (remote)
• A kickoff discussion about data, interviews, and schedule details
• A preliminary review of findings (tentatively the week of July 24)
• A review of the final document (tentatively the week of August 28)
Economic Development Authority — 1 results presentation (remote)
Review of findings and recommendations (tentatively August 9)
CONTENT UPDATES
We will be updating and augmenting the 2020 Study document as follows.-
ABOUT
ollows:
ABOUT
Study Process — update as appropriate to add the 2023 activities
• Community Basics — NO UPDATE
• Market Activity Overview (NEW) — a concise narrative of housing development activity (proposal, approvals,
constructed units) from January 2020 to June 2023
• Population, Households, Age Cohorts — update to most current available ACS data
• Population and Household Projections — update to incorporate and adjust for the most current available ACS
data
• Age Cohort Projections, Income Trends, Employment Indicators, Local Employment, Occupational
affordability — add a note to indicate NO UPDATES
• Commuting Trends — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Regional Growth — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Affordable Housing — update income categories with current HUD data
• Workforce Housing — update affordability limits tables
RENTAL MARKET
• Affordability Limits — update with current HUD data
• Tenure — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Rental Housing Stress — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Rental Unit Consumption — update with most recent available HUD data
• Rental Unit Types — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Affordability Trends — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Rental Housing Cost — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Vacancy Rate — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Rental Housing Size — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Rental Units and Buildings — update to incorporate recent construction
Page 7 of 9
(Attachment A: Project Scope)
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Monticello Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
• Multi -Unit Rental Age — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Examples — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
OWNERSHIP MARKET
Affordability Limits — update with current HUD data
• Tenure - update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Owner Housing Stress - update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Owner Unit Consumption — update with most recent available HUD data
• Spatial Affordability — update with current assessment data
UPDATES
• Affordability Trends — update with current MLS data
• Entry Level Affordability — update with current MLS data
• House Availability — update with current MLS data
• House Sales — update with current MLS data
• Mortgage Status — add a note to indicate NO UPDATES
• Ownership Unit Types — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Ownership Housing Size — add a note to indicate NO UPDATES
OTHER MARKET SECTORS
• Homelessness — add a note to indicate NO UPDATES
• Aging Populations — update to incorporate the most current available ACS data
• Disability, Accessibility — add a note to indicate NO UPDATES
LOCAL IMPACTS
• New Construction — update to incorporate current City data
• New Unit Affordability — update to incorporate current City data
• Valuation, Improvement Value Ratio, Available Lots, Residential Platted Lots — add a note to indicate NO
UPDATES
• Development Fees, (optional service — review of development fees compared to nearby communities)
• Zoning — add a note to indicate NO UPDATES
UNIT DEMAND
• Owner Demand estimates — update, with commentary about changes from the projections made in 2020
(additional service - evaluation of townhome demand) (additional service — interest rate and construction
cost trends and impacts on SF construction)
• Ownership findings and recommendations — update and draw attention to 2023 findings
• Rental Demand estimates — update, with consideration of the pending approved units, with commentary
about changes from the projections made in 2020
• Rental findings and recommendations — update and draw attention to 2023 findings
• Senior Unit Demand — update, plus focus on demand for continuum of care, with commentary about
changes from the projections made in 2020
ROLE OF CITY STAFF
MSA asks the following of Monticello City staff during this process:
• Help identify and recruit interview participants and provide contact information for each (email and phone).
• Assist with promotion and notifications for the Zoom public meeting arrangements.
• Assist in data collection including MLS reports, county and municipal data, etc.
Page 8 of 9
(Attachment A: Project Scope)
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Monticello Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
• Review and feedback on draft survey
• Review of draft report and recommendations.
We value local perspective, knowledge, and leadership, and we see staff as critical stakeholders. Working knowledge of
current conditions and other stakeholder needs is your daily work — and we see your input as vital to project success. As
such, we are open to continual dialogue and project refinement in order to ensure the highest quality and most effective
plan possible.
Page 9of9
(Attachment A: Project Scope)
\\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\13\13731\13731006\Contract\Monticello Housing Study Contract 060823.docx
EDA Agenda: 10/25/2023
4B. Consideration of Authorizing a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for Outlot
A, Great River Second Addition, 14.16 acres along 7th Street West by WSB & Associates
in the amount of $4,800
Prepared by:
Meeting Date:
Nx Regular Agenda Item
Economic Development Manager
10/25/2023
❑ Consent Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Community Development
City Administrator
Director, Community & Economic
Development Coordinator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to authorize a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for Outlot A, Great River
Second Addition, 14.16 acres along 7th Street West by WSB & Associates in the amount of
$4,800.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
In anticipation of the EDA's upcoming consideration of acquisition of a vacant 14.16 -acre
commercial parcel of land along 7th Street West from Riverwood Bank, staff is asking the EDA to
consider authorizing a Phase I ESA to get an understanding of the environmental status of the
site. In an effort to be prudent and address environmental questions about the site, staff
reached out to consulting firm WSB describing the request and the relatively short time frame
in which the Phase I ESA report is needed. WSB staff responded that they would be able to
complete the work in approximately 30 days +/- and provided the attached proposal and quote
for the work. WSB is the City's designated Environmental Review consultant. The Phase I ESA
proposal for Outlot A, Great River Second Addition parcel is attached to this report as Exhibit A.
Budget Impact: The budget impact from the review and acceptance of authorizing the
Phase I ESA is $4,800. The EDA has sufficient funds available in its Professional Services
line item to cover the cost of completing the Phase I ESA.
II. Staff Workload Impact: City staff workload related to the proposed Phase I ESA is
minimal and involved discussing the site and the environmental investigation process
with the consultant and preparing the EDA staff report. Staff involved in the efforts
include the Community Development Director, and the Economic Development
Manager.
EDA Agenda: 10/25/2023
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A — Risk management step related to land acquisition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommend the EDA authorize the Phase I ESA by WSB. Completing the Phase I ESA is
a prudent risk management step related to land acquisitions in general. The Phase I ESA will
provide information about the environmental status of the 14.16 -acre parcel and allow the EDA
to determine if the purchase consideration of the site should move forward or move forward
with contingent conditions. Staff are confident in WSB & Associates' capability to complete the
scope of work outlined in their proposal, which they have demonstrated in the previously
completed Phase I ESA's in Block 34 and Block 52.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. WSB & Associates Phase I ESA Proposal— Executive Summary
B. Outlot A, Great River Second Addition Plat; 09-25-23 Approval
C. Wright County Beacon Property Information
2
0
0
0.
Z
W
M
U)
0
0
00M
a
Z
J
0
IL
a
LU
Z
Z
0
M
W
D
W
D
Z
W
a
a
Z
W
x
0
wsb
October 19, 2023
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Scope of Work and Cost — Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Wright County Parcel 155226000020
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Ms. Schumann:
As requested, outlined below is a scope of work and cost estimate to complete a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at Wright County Parcel 155226000020, located at the
southeast quadrant of Elm Street and 7t" Street West in Monticello, Minnesota (Subject Property).
WSB understands the Subject Property is currently vacant, totals 20.17 acres, and is owned by
Riverwood Bank. WSB understands the Phase I ESA report will be used by the City of Monticello
(City) for Subject Property acquisition / purchase purposes.
The Phase I ESA will be performed in general compliance with the ASTM E1527-21 Standard
Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. The following items will be performed as part of
the Phase I ESA:
HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW
WSB will obtain federal and state regulatory database information for the Subject Property from a
commercial regulatory vendor to evaluate for potential environmental conditions. This review will
not include a detailed review of all listings identified in the regulatory database search, but rather
will focus on listings which have the potential to result in a recognized environmental condition
(REC). The following historical records will be reviewed:
• Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
• Historical Aerial Photographs
• City Directories
• Historical Topographic Maps
• Federal EPA -listed sites including NPL, CERCLIS, RCRA, and ERNS
• State databases including UST, LUST, spills, hazardous material releases, landfills, and
others
• Regulatory file reviews will be conducted per ASTM E 1527-21
INTERVIEWS
WSB will conduct interviews with Subject Property representatives (via phone, in person, or
questionnaire) regarding past and current Subject Property use activities. Any entity relying on
the Phase I ESA will complete a User Questionnaire provided by WSB. The following
representatives will be contacted and interviewed (if available):
• Current or past Subject Property owners
• Current Subject Property management or maintenance staff
• City building and inspection department
• City fire department
Ms. Angela Schumann
October 19, 2023
Page 2
SITE RECONNAISSANCE
WSB will make a direct visual inspection of the Subject Property and adjoining properties. All
Subject Property areas, including the interior of buildings and storage structures, will be accessed
as part of the site reconnaissance. The adjoining properties will be viewed from the public right-
of-way areas. The site reconnaissance will include observation and documentation of the
following:
• Location of visible aboveground or underground storage tanks
• Location of chemical or hazardous material storage
• Location of water bodies (if present)
• Condition of vegetation and exposed soils
• General parcel topography
• Photographic documentation
• Evidence of Methamphetamine manufacturing labs
REPORTING
WSB will summarize the results of the Phase I ESA for the Subject Property in a final
documentation report. This task does not include those items considered non -scope by ASTM
Standard E1527-21 including asbestos, lead-based paint, radon, lead in drinking water, wetlands,
regulatory compliance, cultural/historic resources, industrial hygiene, indoor air quality, biological
agents, or mold sampling and analysis. The report will be completed in accordance with the
ASTM E1527-21 Standard and shall include the following:
• Supporting documentation upon which the findings and opinions are based
• Scope of services performed
• A "findings" section which will detail any RECs identified by the assessment
• The opinion of the environmental professional
• Any conclusions drawn from the assessment
ASSUMPTIONS
The following items are assumed for this scope of work:
• Subject Property access will be facilitated by the City.
• Based on readily available information, two regulatory file reviews will be required:
o Leak Site LS0001951, 3939 Chelsea Road West (south adjoining property)
o Brownfields Site PB3485, 3887 Chelsea Road West (south adjoining property)
• If additional regulatory files are identified during the completion of the Phase I ESA, then
those files can be reviewed at an additional cost of $300 per file.
• Previous environmental investigation reports completed for the Subject Property (if
available), will be reviewed as part of this assessment.
• An Environmental Lien and AUL search will not be completed by WSB.
• The City will provide one review/comment of the Phase I ESA report.
TOTAL COST
The cost to perform the above-described Phase I ESA is a lump sum fee of $4,800. If additional
work is required beyond the scope outlined above, WSB will receive authorization from the City
prior to completing extra work.
Ms. Angela Schumann
October 19, 2023
Page 3
ACCEPTANCE
This proposal represents our understanding of the project scope. All work completed through this
proposal will be governed by the enclosed General Contract Provisions. If the scope and fee are
acceptable, please sign on the space provided and return one copy to WSB. We are available to
begin work once we receive signed authorization.
WSB appreciates the opportunity of being considered for this project and we look forward to
providing our professional services to you. If you have any questions about this proposal, please
feel free to contact Ryan Spencer at 612-723-3644 or rspencer(D-wsbeng.com.
Sincerely,
WSB
Ryan Spencer, CHMM
Ben Fehr
Director of EIR
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
WSB 2023 Rate Schedule
WSB General Contract Provisions
SIGNATURE
I hereby authorize the above scope of work, schedule, and cost.
Name (Print)
Signature
Date
2023 Rate Schedule
ws b
Costs associated with word processing, cell phones and reproduction of common correspondence are included in the above hourly
rates. Vehicle mileage is included in our billing rates [excluding geotechnical and construction materials testing (CMT) service
rates]. Mileage can be charged separately, if specifically outlined by contract. I Reimbursable expenses include costs associated
with plan, specification, and report reproduction; permit fees; delivery costs; etc. I Multiple rates illustrate the varying levels of
experience within each category. I Rate Schedule is adjusted annually.
WSBENG.COM
Billing Rate/Hour
SR. PRINCIPAL I SR. ASSOCIATE
$235
PRINCIPAL I ASSOCIATE
$173—$223
SR. PROJECT MANAGER I SR. PROJECT ENGINEER
$173—$223
PROJECT MANAGER
$152—$170
PROJECT ENGINEER I GRADUATE ENGINEER
$102—$169
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN I ENGINEERING SPECIALIST
$68—$167
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT I SR. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
$78—$162
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST I SR. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
$68—$160
PLANNER I SR. PLANNER
$80—$167
GIS SPECIALIST I SR. GIS SPECIALIST
$78—$167
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVER
$104—$135
SURVEY
One -Person Crew
$175
Two -Person Crew
$235
OFFICE TECHNICIAN
$60—$102
Costs associated with word processing, cell phones and reproduction of common correspondence are included in the above hourly
rates. Vehicle mileage is included in our billing rates [excluding geotechnical and construction materials testing (CMT) service
rates]. Mileage can be charged separately, if specifically outlined by contract. I Reimbursable expenses include costs associated
with plan, specification, and report reproduction; permit fees; delivery costs; etc. I Multiple rates illustrate the varying levels of
experience within each category. I Rate Schedule is adjusted annually.
WSBENG.COM
WSB LLC
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION, REMEDIATION OR
ASSESSMENT
ARTICLE 1 — PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK
Consultant shall perform the services under this Agreement in accordance with the care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of Consultant's profession practicing under similar circumstances at the same time
and in the same locality. Consultant makes no warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or
otherwise, in connection with its services.
ARTICLE 2 — ADDITIONAL SERVICES
If the Client requests that the Consultant perform any services which are beyond the scope as set forth in
the Agreement, or if changed or unforeseen conditions require the Consultant to perform services outside
of the original scope, then, Consultant shall promptly notify the Client of cause and nature of the additional
services required. Upon notification, Consultant shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment in both
compensation and time to perform.
ARTICLE 3 — SCHEDULE
Unless specific periods of time or dates for providing services are specified in a separate Exhibit,
Consultant's obligation to render services hereunder will be for a period which may reasonably be required
for the completion of said services. The Client agrees that Consultant is not responsible for damages
arising directly or indirectly from any delays for causes beyond Consultant's control. For purposes of this
Agreement, such causes include, but are not limited to, strikes or other labor disputes; severe weather
disruptions, or other natural disasters or acts of God; fires, riots, war or other emergencies; any action or
failure to act in a timely manner by any government agency; actions or failure to act by the Client or the
Client's contractor or consultants; or discovery of any hazardous substance or differing site conditions. If
the delays outside of Consultant's control increase the cost or the time required by Consultant to perform
its services in accordance with professional skill and care, then Consultant shall be entitled to a reasonable
adjustment in schedule and compensation.
ARTICLE 4 — JOBSITE SAFETY
Neither the professional activities of the Consultant, nor the presence of the Consultant or its employees
and subconsultants at a construction/project site, shall impose any duty on the Consultant, nor relieve the
general contractor of its obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction
means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending and
coordinating the work in accordance with the contract documents and any health or safety precautions
required by any regulatory agencies. The Consultant and its personnel have no authority to exercise any
control over any construction contractor or its employees in connection with their work or any health or
safety programs or procedures. The Client agrees that the general contractor shall be solely responsible
for jobsite and worker safety and warrants that this intent shall be carried out in the Client's contract with
the general contractor.
ARTICLE 5 — OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST
Opinions, if any, of probable cost, construction cost, financial evaluations, feasibility studies, economic
analyses of alternate solutions and utilitarian considerations of operations and maintenance costs,
collectively referred to as "Cost Estimates," provided for are made or to be made on the basis of the
Consultant's experience and qualifications and represent the Consultant's bestjudgment as an experienced
and qualified professional design firm. The parties acknowledge, however, that the Consultant does not
have control over the cost of labor, material, equipment or services furnished by others or over market
conditions or contractor's methods of determining their prices, and any evaluation of any facility to be
constructed or acquired, or work to be performed must, of necessity, be viewed as simply preliminary.
Accordingly, the Consultant and Client agree that the proposals, bids or actual costs may vary from
opinions, evaluations or studies submitted by the Consultant and that Consultant assumes no responsibility
for the accuracy of opinions of Cost Estimates and Client expressly waives any claims related to the
Exhibit A — GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION, REMEDIATION OR ASSESSMENT 02.12.20 - MN
Page 1
accuracy of opinions of Cost Estimates. If Client wishes greater assurance as to Cost Estimates, Client
shall employ an independent cost estimator as part of its Project responsibilities.
ARTICLE 6 — REUSE AND DISPOSITION OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
All documents, including reports, drawings, calculations, specifications, CADD materials, computers
software or hardware or other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are
Consultant's Instruments of Service and Consultant retains all ownership interests in Instruments of
Service, including copyrights. The Instruments of Service are not intended or represented to be suitable
for reuse by the Client or others on extensions of the Project or on any other project. Copies of documents
that may be relied upon by Client are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that are
signed or sealed by Consultant. Files in electronic format furnished to Client are only for convenience of
Client. Any conclusion or information obtained or derived from such electronic files will be at the user's sole
risk. Consultant makes no representations as to long term compatibility, usability or readability of electronic
files.
If requested, at the time of completion or termination of the work, the Consultant may make available to the
Client the Instruments of Service upon (i) payment of amounts due and owing for work performed and
expenses incurred to the date and time of termination, and (ii) fulfillment of the Client's obligations under
this Agreement. Any use or re -use of such Instruments of Service by the Client or others without written
consent, verification or adaptation by the Consultant except for the specific purpose intended will be at the
Client's risk and full legal responsibility and Client expressly releases all claims against Consultant arising
from re -use of the Instruments of Service without Consultant's written consent, verification or adaptation.
The Client will, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify and hold the Consultant harmless from any
claim, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees, and defense costs) arising or allegedly arising
out of any unauthorized reuse or modification of these Instruments of Service by the Client or any person
or entity that acquires or obtains the reports, plans and specifications from or through the Client without the
written authorization of the Consultant. Under no circumstances shall transfer of Instruments of Service be
deemed a sale by Consultant, and Consultant makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, of
merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for any
consent, verification or adaption of the Instruments of Service for extensions of the Project or any other
project.
ARTICLE 7 — PAYMENTS
Payment to Consultant shall be on a lump sum or hourly basis as set out in the Agreement. Consultant is
entitled to payment of amounts due plus reimbursable expenses. Client will pay the balance stated on the
invoice unless Client notifies Consultant in writing of any disputed items within fifteen (15) days from the
date of invoice. In the event of any dispute, Client will pay all undisputed amounts in the ordinary course,
and the Parties will endeavor to resolve all disputed items. All accounts unpaid after thirty (30) days from
the date of original invoice shall be subject to a service charge of 1-1/2% per month, or the maximum
amount authorized by law, whichever is less. Consultant reserves the right to retain instruments of service
until all invoices are paid in full. Consultant will not be liable for any claims of loss, delay, or damage by
Client for reason of withholding services or instruments of service until all invoices are paid in full. Consultant
shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney fees,
incurred in connection with collecting amounts owed by Client. In addition, Consultant may, after giving
seven (7) days' written notice to Client, suspend services under this Agreement until it receives full payment
for all amounts then due for services, expenses and charges.
ARTICLE 8 — SUBMITTALS AND PAY APPLICATIONS
If the Scope of Work includes the Consultant reviewing and certifying the amounts due the Contractor, the
Consultant's certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the Client, that to the best of the
Consultant's knowledge, information and belief, the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that
the quality of the Work is in general accordance with the Documents issued by the Consultant. The issuance
of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Consultant has (1) made exhaustive or
continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction
means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from
Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by the Client to substantiate the
Exhibit A — GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION, REMEDIATION OR ASSESSMENT 02.12.20 - MN
Page 2
Contractor's right to payment, or (4) ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used money
previously paid on account of the Contract Sum. Contractor shall remain exclusively responsible for its
Work.
If the Scope of Work includes Consultant's review and approval of submittals from the Contractor, such
review shall be for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with the information given and the
design concept. The review of submittals is not intended to determine the accuracy of all components, the
accuracy of the quantities or dimensions, or the safety procedures, means or methods to be used in
construction, and those responsibilities remain exclusively with the Client's contractor.
ARTICLE 9 — HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Notwithstanding the Scope of Services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement, it is understood and
agreed that Consultant is not a user, handler, generator, operator, treater, arranger, Storer, transporter, or
disposer of hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants or contaminants as any of the foregoing items are
defined by Federal, State and/or local law, rules or regulations, now existing or hereafter amended, and
which may be found or identified on any Project which is undertaken by Consultant.
The Client agrees to indemnify Consultant and its officers, subconsultant(s), employees and agents from
and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liability and costs, including but not limited to costs of
defense, arising out of or in any way connected with, the presence, discharge, release, or escape of
hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants or contaminants of any kind, except that this clause shall not
apply to such liability as may arise out of Consultant's sole negligence in the performance of services under
this Agreement arising from or relating to hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants, or contaminants
specifically identified by the Client and included within Consultant's services to be provided under this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 10 — INSURANCE
Consultant has procured general and professional liability insurance. On request, Consultant will furnish
client with a certificate of insurance detailing the precise nature and type of insurance, along with applicable
policy limits.
ARTICLE 11 —TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION
If Consultant's services are delayed or suspended in whole or in part by Client, or if Consultant's services
are delayed by actions or inactions of others for more than sixty (60) days through no fault of Consultant,
Consultant shall be entitled to either terminate its agreement upon seven (7) days written notice or, at its
option, accept an equitable adjustment of rates and amounts of compensation provided for elsewhere in
this Agreement to reflect reasonable costs incurred by Consultant in connection with, among other things,
such delay or suspension and reactivation and the fact that the time for performance under this Agreement
has been revised.
This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days written notice should the other
party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the
termination. In the event of termination Consultant shall be compensated for services performed prior to
termination date, including charges for expenses and equipment costs then due and all termination
expenses.
This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice without cause.
Consultant shall upon termination only be entitled to payment for the work performed up to the Date of
termination. In the event of termination, copies of plans, reports, specifications, electronic drawing/data
files (CADD), field data, notes, and other documents whether written, printed or recorded on any medium
whatsoever, finished or unfinished, prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement and pertaining
to the work or to the Project, (hereinafter "Instruments of Service"), shall be made available to the Client
upon payment of all amounts due as of the date of termination. All provisions of this Agreement allocating
responsibility or liability between the Client and Consultant shall survive the completion of the services
hereunder and/or the termination of this Agreement.
Exhibit A — GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION, REMEDIATION OR ASSESSMENT 02.12.20 - MN
Page 3
ARTICLE 12 — INDEMNIFICATION
The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold the Client harmless from any damage, liability or cost to the
extent caused by the Consultant's negligence or willful misconduct.
The Client agrees to indemnify and hold the Consultant harmless from any damage, liability or cost to the
extent caused by the Client's negligence or willful misconduct.
ARTICLE 13 — WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, neither
the Client nor the Consultant, their respective officers, directors, partners, employees, contractors or
subconsultants shall be liable to the other or shall make any claim for any incidental, indirect or
consequential damages arising out of or connected in any way to the Project or to this Agreement. This
mutual waiver of consequential damages shall include, but is not limited to, loss of use, loss of profit, loss
of business, loss of income, loss of reputation and any other consequential damages that either party may
have incurred from any cause of action including negligence, strict liability, breach of contract and breach
of strict or implied warranty. Both the Client and the Consultant shall require similar waivers of consequential
damages protecting all the entities or persons named herein in all contracts and subcontracts with others
involved in this project. This mutual waiver shall apply even if the damages were foreseeable and regardless
of the theory of recovery plead or asserted.
ARTICLE 14 — WAIVER OF CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL LIABILITY
It is intended by the parties to this Agreement that Consultant's services shall not subject Consultant's
employees, officers or directors to any personal legal exposure for the risks associated with this Agreement.
Therefore, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Client agrees that as the
Client's sole and exclusive remedy, any claim, demand or suit shall be directed and/or asserted only against
Consultant, and not against any of Consultant's individual employees, officers or directors.
ARTICLE 15 —ASSIGNMENT
Neither Party to this Agreement shall assign its interest in this agreement, any proceeds due under the
Agreement nor any claims that may arise from services or payments due under the Agreement without the
written consent of the other Party. Any assignment in violation of this provision shall be null and void.
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor
of a third party against either the Consultant or Client. This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of
Consultant and Client and there are no other intended beneficiaries of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 16 — CONFLICT RESOLUTION
In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during the design or construction of the project or following
the completion of the project, the Client and Consultant agree that all disputes between them arising out of
or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation as a precondition to any formal
legal proceedings.
ARTICLE 17 — CONFIDENTIALITY
The Consultant agrees to keep confidential and not to disclose to any person or entity, other than the
Consultant's employees, subconsultants and the general contractor and subcontractors, if appropriate, any
data and information furnished to the Consultant and marked CONFIDENTIAL by the Client. These
provisions shall not apply to information in whatever form that comes into the public domain, nor shall it
restrict the Consultant from giving notices required by law or complying with an order to provide information
or data when such order is issued by a court, administrative agency or other authority with proper
jurisdiction, or if it is reasonably necessary for the Consultant to complete services under the Agreement or
defend itself from any suit or claim.
ARTICLE 18 — LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
To the fullest extent permitted by law, and not withstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the total
liability, in the aggregate, of the Consultant and the Consultant's officers, directors, partners, employees
and subconsultants, and any of them, to the Client and anyone claiming by or through the Client, for any
and all claims, losses, costs or damages, including attorneys' fees and costs and expert -witness fees and
costs of any nature whatsoever or claims expenses resulting from or in any way related to the project or
Exhibit A — GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION, REMEDIATION OR ASSESSMENT 02.12.20 - MN
Page 4
the Agreement from any cause or causes shall not exceed $20,000. It is intended that this limitation apply
to any and all liability or cause of action, including without limitation active and passive negligence however
alleged or arising, unless otherwise prohibited by law. In no event shall the Consultant's liability exceed the
amount of available insurance proceeds.
ARTICLE 19 — CONTROLLING LAW
This Agreement is to be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Any controversy or claim arising
out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, including but not limited to claims for negligence
or breach of warranty, that is not settled by nonbinding mediation shall be settled by the law of the State of
Minnesota.
ARTICLE 20 — LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS
Where requested by Client, Consultant will perform customary research to assist Client in locating and
identifying subterranean structures or utilities. However, Consultant may reasonably rely on information from
the Client and information provided by local utilities related to structures or utilities and will not be liable for
damages incurred where Consultant has complied with the standard of care and acted in reliance on that
information. The Client agrees to waive all claims and causes of action against the Consultant for claims
by Client or its contractors relating to the identification, removal, relocation, or restoration of utilities, or
damages to underground improvements resulting from subsurface penetration locations established by the
Consultant.
ARTICLE 21 — ACCESS TO SITE
Client shall arrange and provide such access to the site as is necessary for Consultant to perform the work.
ARTICLE 22 - SAMPLE DISPOSAL
All environmental samples ("Samples") collected by Consultant are sent to and analyzed by a third -party
laboratory, and all such Samples shall be disposed of according to the third -party laboratory's policies.
ARTICLE 23 — EXPERT WITNESS AND SUBPOENA FEES
Consultant shall not be retained as an expert witness except by separate, written agreement. The Client
agrees to pay Consultant's costs to respond to any subpoena related to the work performed under this
Agreement, including attorneys' fees and administrative costs.
Article 24 — FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
Client agrees that this neither Agreement nor the services Consultant is providing under this Agreement
creates a fiduciary relationship between Consultant and Client.
Exhibit A — GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION, REMEDIATION OR ASSESSMENT 02.12.20 - MN
Page 5
L Craig A. Wwamam, as hwebr ..rt1f, that tele plat esu prepared b, m. er under m, direct .ap.rrhbn: that I am .dory ( A--------
Ilamsad lead 8urwycr m the Slab d IRanaaof4 that this plat b a correct reprosntatlen of the boundary eerrayk that aR
oothmatlat data end Iabeis ave cor»vtt, domignated ou tela plat, that an rem—enta deplatad ou fhb t have been, er e1D ha N I / ��/ hat NOT TO SCALE
rnou, eat .item una ,ear.
:at w water boundaries and .ret land.. r d4dmed m Ifmna.ota 8tefutes howaom. Subs 9. w of the 7S / I/ adis R+y rs r.e n .ea we .aper kat iat Rnwdab of this aerU6.ab axe .be— sod labeled ou this plat: and .0 pabU. ways ave ahcan wad labeled on thl. plat.L 7(}pK,t\ .w.. poser Yat.ba pe pat
Craig A. Wenmsn, Land &¢.a,or /� Y' . / `
Mnn OA tAcacw No. 474.11
/F,•/ / � \ \ N dle8lT IF
COUNTY or . /,• ' � T
The foregoing Sorw,W. CorWb.te was acknowledged before mm this da, of
20 by Craig A. Rehman lend Sormyor, Ifi.nseob gimmes Number 4744111. / / j Pt• AS.t Arlo Eeewrra7r _ •:'j �, -<!
ALOrfA3s) t deg a \
/ /i C Plryj :a r
/ d
41, Ilk— ho', iX
L&2m
• Oeatw %.M Yar rrreaer.lI
• Denelw leg Yrdi N YNh Yen
acted to b. we 0th(. ave yea
.f pbtth deb
® Dater +Meed set Yen moMwrlwt
lPK peak. More PK .0
LS NMI Dewtw DoM Thep, LS
IS IM57 Denotes PMA Thep. LS
LS 448M Denotes KIM KY.ea, L9
LS rM3 Den.tw Dennis T y e, LS
------ Denotes—t
— — Da`.tw eebt-9 adj*—
Notary Public Connly. mm e.ota :;�� / /// IIA +4M°pe ? ,' - . ./fit
leg cemmimam Eaptrw � `\' , 10�! Block 1 ~� ' ; � \ �tt� g/ \ \ �K , t • •, •_, .. .._ JI� �_ — —
(Printed Nm)
CRY OF YORTTCEIla PLANNM 00110113sm
Do It t.— that L ..ling b.ld ler, way of 6
Eo the Pi onlas Comaabd.:%t tb. Cit, of YcnUsno, lmnwat.. did hareb, .c'4b' Lot 1
renew ami approve thi. plat of GREAT RIM SECOND ADDITION� .4!edd
44M
'
CITY COURM CITY OF KONSICALO, HINNEe0TA
` `e
This plat of GREAT RISA{ MMND ADDITION Wes d as epted by th. City Council of the Cil, of i\
Montioello, Ihane.ob, at regular ma.tmg theked held this of
80 d said Plat L In compliance with the prawtsf•® of Inune.ota Statutes, Section 906.05, Entad. Z
oyer _ Qty clerk
WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYOR
I bareby certify that in e000rdans with Nanweta Statutes. Section 906.063, Sobel 11, this plat has been r.rlaw.d and approved Ude
day of 20
WrightCounty Surmw
WAGRt COUNTY HIGHWAY AICHImt
This plat esu rwrt—d and ra ..dad for appro al this day of 20
Wright County hagto—
WRR1lR COUNTY IMO RECORDS
Arrauaat to lunnesefa Sbtates. 9-U— 606.061. Subd. 9. tam payable far the year 90 ou the lend haalab.fore d.amibed have been paid. Also, pureuaet to
Innaeata Sbtutw. Section 872.16. thew are no delinquent tales Rod transfer ante ad this day of 20
Wright Cotmty fend Records AdrnmkaWbr
WRIOIR COUNTY ltd
I Mrery partly Leta m
that .troment eve filed m the Olfls cor
of the County R der for record un thib day of SOat
a. look _JL
and area daily recorded In Cablaat No. Ell— ae Occurrent No.
Wright County Recorder
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
VICINITY MAP
Sac 10 g 11. Twp. 171. Rag. 75
Wright Cou.ty, NN
' \ i —, Lieav ,hen
y
ech
' N
t. at waYase ave �jaw--
cE` ,1 �A.11W
! � faD1b £.weer( '�7irle' 8 N 7E A{50e E\ I� Ma I L�i7+Ca' i v y
Al iola, S evzrMe E JUDAW 8.707.31
•' 44aoe ---off----------------I•IF- 'er1
era Yr 1r v yl I i �.tr• • Ywk �' I
y 44etW M60pMyk i K 00-
- L Ii�.vwr)yy
Outlot A 1 Fid
w
A001n
,I`I
• w v_K �` I i r•��
GREAT RIVER
SECOND ADDITION
KNOW ALL PAL90N9 RT THERE PRESENTS: That BIW Companies. LIE..
County of Wright, State of viameotc to wit:
lfioneeota Minded liability Company, atoer of the (fleeing described property situated to the
Oudot R. GREAT RIM 1001 M, Wright County, Ifinesaota
Rare awned the am to be wirewyed and platted as GREAT RRIIt SECOND ADDITION, and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use the dramy wad utility
ee.ement. w eresbd by the plat
m wM.— wberae( .aid Rryp Camp.nfr, LLC, . Mic—la Uvulae liability Company, has -used thew present. to be .(pad by Its proper officer
this day .t 20
Patrick Briryp. Chid Officer
CTS OF YDGIESOTA
COuNrY of
t� O
(SCALE IN FEET)
This matrut—t esu aa�oal.dEM Mon me this day of
Officer.
ISO— by by Patriot Itrlgp. ChM
SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET
Re�pa board e. ter Ook of GREAT ftvol
ADOtRbll. ie hepv M 9u. qct the Earl
less a Ordbl R rpaw. — th bee sera o
Nolry Ihrbn.,
Caveat,. Ihaaswh
e.Ws a .Yeriw OS eeowre. Nest
My Comm4alon 6.rpires
(Printed Nm)
Dr.aap vel Dmty Ece— ee
elewr eau
L Craig A. Wwamam, as hwebr ..rt1f, that tele plat esu prepared b, m. er under m, direct .ap.rrhbn: that I am .dory ( A--------
Ilamsad lead 8urwycr m the Slab d IRanaaof4 that this plat b a correct reprosntatlen of the boundary eerrayk that aR
oothmatlat data end Iabeis ave cor»vtt, domignated ou tela plat, that an rem—enta deplatad ou fhb t have been, er e1D ha N I / ��/ hat NOT TO SCALE
rnou, eat .item una ,ear.
:at w water boundaries and .ret land.. r d4dmed m Ifmna.ota 8tefutes howaom. Subs 9. w of the 7S / I/ adis R+y rs r.e n .ea we .aper kat iat Rnwdab of this aerU6.ab axe .be— sod labeled ou this plat: and .0 pabU. ways ave ahcan wad labeled on thl. plat.L 7(}pK,t\ .w.. poser Yat.ba pe pat
Craig A. Wenmsn, Land &¢.a,or /� Y' . / `
Mnn OA tAcacw No. 474.11
/F,•/ / � \ \ N dle8lT IF
COUNTY or . /,• ' � T
The foregoing Sorw,W. CorWb.te was acknowledged before mm this da, of
20 by Craig A. Rehman lend Sormyor, Ifi.nseob gimmes Number 4744111. / / j Pt• AS.t Arlo Eeewrra7r _ •:'j �, -<!
ALOrfA3s) t deg a \
/ /i C Plryj :a r
/ d
41, Ilk— ho', iX
L&2m
• Oeatw %.M Yar rrreaer.lI
• Denelw leg Yrdi N YNh Yen
acted to b. we 0th(. ave yea
.f pbtth deb
® Dater +Meed set Yen moMwrlwt
lPK peak. More PK .0
LS NMI Dewtw DoM Thep, LS
IS IM57 Denotes PMA Thep. LS
LS 448M Denotes KIM KY.ea, L9
LS rM3 Den.tw Dennis T y e, LS
------ Denotes—t
— — Da`.tw eebt-9 adj*—
Notary Public Connly. mm e.ota :;�� / /// IIA +4M°pe ? ,' - . ./fit
leg cemmimam Eaptrw � `\' , 10�! Block 1 ~� ' ; � \ �tt� g/ \ \ �K , t • •, •_, .. .._ JI� �_ — —
(Printed Nm)
CRY OF YORTTCEIla PLANNM 00110113sm
Do It t.— that L ..ling b.ld ler, way of 6
Eo the Pi onlas Comaabd.:%t tb. Cit, of YcnUsno, lmnwat.. did hareb, .c'4b' Lot 1
renew ami approve thi. plat of GREAT RIM SECOND ADDITION� .4!edd
44M
'
CITY COURM CITY OF KONSICALO, HINNEe0TA
` `e
This plat of GREAT RISA{ MMND ADDITION Wes d as epted by th. City Council of the Cil, of i\
Montioello, Ihane.ob, at regular ma.tmg theked held this of
80 d said Plat L In compliance with the prawtsf•® of Inune.ota Statutes, Section 906.05, Entad. Z
oyer _ Qty clerk
WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYOR
I bareby certify that in e000rdans with Nanweta Statutes. Section 906.063, Sobel 11, this plat has been r.rlaw.d and approved Ude
day of 20
WrightCounty Surmw
WAGRt COUNTY HIGHWAY AICHImt
This plat esu rwrt—d and ra ..dad for appro al this day of 20
Wright County hagto—
WRR1lR COUNTY IMO RECORDS
Arrauaat to lunnesefa Sbtates. 9-U— 606.061. Subd. 9. tam payable far the year 90 ou the lend haalab.fore d.amibed have been paid. Also, pureuaet to
Innaeata Sbtutw. Section 872.16. thew are no delinquent tales Rod transfer ante ad this day of 20
Wright Cotmty fend Records AdrnmkaWbr
WRIOIR COUNTY ltd
I Mrery partly Leta m
that .troment eve filed m the Olfls cor
of the County R der for record un thib day of SOat
a. look _JL
and area daily recorded In Cablaat No. Ell— ae Occurrent No.
Wright County Recorder
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
VICINITY MAP
Sac 10 g 11. Twp. 171. Rag. 75
Wright Cou.ty, NN
' \ i —, Lieav ,hen
y
ech
' N
t. at waYase ave �jaw--
cE` ,1 �A.11W
! � faD1b £.weer( '�7irle' 8 N 7E A{50e E\ I� Ma I L�i7+Ca' i v y
Al iola, S evzrMe E JUDAW 8.707.31
•' 44aoe ---off----------------I•IF- 'er1
era Yr 1r v yl I i �.tr• • Ywk �' I
y 44etW M60pMyk i K 00-
- L Ii�.vwr)yy
Outlot A 1 Fid
w
A001n
,I`I
• w v_K �` I i r•��
Wright County, MN
Summary
Parcel ID
155226000020
Property Address
2021 Assessment
Sec/Twp/Rng
11-121-025
Brief Tax Description
SECT-11TWP-121 RANGE -025 GREAT RIVERADDITION OUTLOT B
$2,429,200
(Note: Not to be used on legal documents)
Class
233-3A COMMERCIAL LAND AND BUILDING
District
(1101) CITY OF MONTICELLO-0882
School District
0882
$0
(Note: Class refers to Assessor's Classification Used For Property Tax Purposes)
Valuation
Taxation
2023 Assessment
2022 Assessment
2021 Assessment
2020 Assessment
2019 Assessment
+ Estimated Land Value
$3,123,300
$2,429,200
$2,429,200
$2,428,100
$1,800,400
+ Estimated Building Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
+ Estimated Machinery Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
= Total Estimated Market Value
$3,123,300
$2,429,200
$2,429,200
$2,428,100
$1,800,400
Taxation
Taxes Paid
Receipt#
2022 Payable
2021 Payable
2020 Payable
2019 Payable
Estimated Market Value
$2,429,200
$2,428,100
$1,800,400
$1,800,400
Excluded Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
Homestead Exclusion
$0
$0
$0
$0
= Taxable Market Value
$2,429,200
$2,428,100
$1,800,400
$1,800,400
Net Taxes Due
$67,550.00
$67,248.00
$50,652.00
$52,356.00
+ Special Assessments
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
= Total Taxes Due
$67,550.00
$67,248.00
$50,652.00
$52,356.00
Change
0.45%
32.76%
-3.25%
0.00%
Taxes Paid
Receipt#
Receipt Print Date
Bill Pay Year
AmtAdj
Amt Write Off
Amt Charge
Amt Payment
1802711
10/14/2022
2022
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($33,775.00)
1763862
5/11/2022
2022
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($33,775.00)
1736040
10/19/2021
2021
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($33,624.00)
1693477
5/11/2021
2021
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($33,624.00)
1655121
10/15/2020
2020
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($25,326.00)
1609924
5/7/2020
2020
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($25,326.00)
1578689
10/15/2019
2019
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($26,178.00)
1546094
5/15/2019
2019
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($26,178.00)
1498076
10/12/2018
2018
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($24,948.00)
1467460
5/16/2018
2018
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($24,948.00)
1422861
10/16/2017
2017
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($18,433.00)
1373149
5/9/2017
2017
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($18,433.00)
1322576
10/11/2016
2016
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($19,353.00)
1291557
5/16/2016
2016
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($19,353.00)
Map
No data available for the following modules: Sales, Sketches.
The information provided on this site is intended for reference purposes only. The information is not suitable for legal, engineering, or Contact Us Developed by
surveying purposes. Wright County does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained herein. CqjSchneider
User Privacy Policy GDPR Privacy Notice G E O S PAT I A L
Last Data Upload: 10/17/2023,10:26:37 AM
EDA Agenda: 10/25/2023
5A. Economic Development Manager's Report
Prepared by:
Meeting Date:
N Other Business
Economic Development Manager
10/25/2023
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
N/A
N/A
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
1. The Manufacturers Appreciation Breakfast honoring local manufacturing firms and the
large economic impacts that they have on the community was held on Thursday October
12, 2023, at 7:00 a.m. There were approximately 70 attendees at the Breakfast event. A
tour of Suburban Manufacturing Group's OCBP facilities, including the new 21,400 square
foot expansion area, took place after the Breakfast. A total of 13 people participated in
the tour which allowed for a questions and answers format as well.
2. On Friday October 13, 2023, the Economic Development Manager in collaboration with
the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director and Wright County Economic Development
Partnership Executive Director presented information about economic development
goals, tools, and projects to several business and marketing classes at Monticello High
School. The students listened intently and interacted with presenters identifying several
new businesses that they would like to see open up in Monticello.
They are: Chipotle Restaurant, Starbuck Coffee Store, Air Zone Trampoline Store, Dicks
Sporting Goods, Shoe Store, Clothing Store, Panera Bread. They do not believe there is a
need for another Car Wash business in Monticello.
3. The closing transaction of the EDA purchase 216 Pine Street (Finders Keepers property) is
scheduled for 11:15 a.m. on October 31, 2023, at Preferred Title. City staff will do a pre-
closing walk through of the property during the week of October 23 through October 27,
2023.
4. Staff will attend the MN -DEED sponsored Redevelopment Conference in Bloomington,
MN on Wednesday October 25, 2023 (afternoon only) and all -day Thursday, October 26,
2023, and Friday October 27, 2023 (conference ends at 12:30 p.m.). The Conference
Agenda is attached (Exhibit A) for review. Staff will share information learned at the
Conference with the EDA at a future meeting.
5. Prospect List Update: See attached Exhibit B.
EMPLOYMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2023 Minnesota Redevelopment Conference
C BROWNFIELDS
(rte' AND BEYOND:
SAVE THE DATE
Thursday, October 26 — Friday, October 27,2023
DoubleTree by Hilton Bloomington
Registration opens .Monday, August 21, 2:023
L t� CMPLOYMENT AND
ren.gov/deed/eV'@'nts/br�}`Wnfields ECONOMIC 0EYE►CIPMENT
The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) is hosting a 11/2
day redevelopment conference focused on brownfield and redevelopment topics and projects.
Thursday, October 26, 2023
Time Activity and Description
7:30 a.m. Registration Opens
7:30 - 8:30 a.m. 'Breakfast Buffet and Networking
8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Welcome Address
8:45 - 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Address
9:00 - 10:15 a.m. PLENARY
10.15 - 10:30 a.m.
10:30 - 11:45 a.m.
Malls to Multi -Use: Rethinking Old Malls and Big Box Spaces
huttered and underutilized malls and big box spaces present a unique challenge to
ommunities seeking to create and/or reinvigorate vibrant development. In this session,
xpert panelist from across the public and private sectors will discuss how they have
rought together local government, community stakeholders, and private investment to
imagine and redevelop struggling retail spaces.
Networking Break
CONCURRENT BREAKOUT SESSION 1.1
Brownfields 101: Intro to Planning, Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment
n introductory session in the field of Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment.
Participants will learn the stages of planning, cleanup, and redevelopment of
brownfields and the principles of site reuse assessment, along with tools and resources.
Participants will also learn about the creation of the EPA Brownfields program and how
site prioritization, assessment, remediation, and a development plan are essential to
receiving funding from State, the EPA, and other funders.
0:30 - 11:45 a.m. CONCURRENT BREAKOUT SESSION 1.2
The Ultimate Brownfield: Exploring Soil Vapors, PFAs, and Agricultural Chemicals
Take part in an interactive discussion revolving around the investigation and response
action planning of the "ultimate brownfield." A panel of your colleagues will lead a
collaborative effort to assess a fictional site contaminated with PFAS, agricultural
chemicals, soil vapors and who knows what else!
1:45 a.m. - 12:45 `Lunch Buffet and Networking
.m.
2:45 - 2:00 p.m. IPLENARY SESSION
:00 - 2:15 p.m.
:15 - 3:15 p.m.
ight Side of the Tracks: The Bemidji Rail Corridor Brownfields Case Study
The City of Bemidji has partnered with other local units of government, community
leaders, environmental consultants, and other stakeholders to redevelop one of its most
challenging sites, the Rail Corridor. In this session, leaders on this project will share how
the set realistic goals, communicated with the Community, brought along City
Leadership, and created economic opportunities during this ongoing cleanup and
redevelopment project.
king Break
NCURRENT BREAKOUT SESSION 2.1
eanup Funding Roundtable
oin an interactive discussion group to explore the DEED Cleanup Grant Program. Since
he program is nearing its 30th Birthday, let's have a candid discussion about what's
vorking, what isn't, and brainstorm possible enhancements to the program or ideas for
ew programs.
:15 - 3:15 p.m. (CONCURRENT BREAKOUT SESSION 2.2
o with the Flow: Navigating Stormwater
edevelopment of Brownfield sites can be further complicated by stormwater
hallenges. This session will give participants a basic understanding of stormwater
ianagement at contaminated sites and how to navigate the necessary interaction
mong civil design firms, watershed engineers, local building officials, and multiple State
�gulators.
3:15 - 3:30 p.m. 'Networking Break
3:30 - 4:30 p.m. (PLENARY SESSION
Delano Granite Works Redevelopment
The Granite Works site in Delano has long been a focal point of the community, situated
along the river in downtown. This session will talk about the site's historical significance,
he identification of the site as a key redevelopment site and the process of
redevelopment while building community support.
4:30 - 4:35 p.m. Day 1 Wrap Up
5:00 - 7:00 p.m. Thursday Evening Reception
Hosted by: Inland Development Partners and Braun Intertec
Friday, October 27, 2023
Time Activity and Description
:00 - 8:45 a.m. Breakfast Buffet and Networking
:45 - 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Recap of Day 1
:00 - 10:15 a.m. ;PLENARY SESSION
Development Tax Incentives: What's Old, What's New, What's Changed?
This session will discuss existing tax credits such as Historic Tax Credits, Low Income
Housing Tax Credits and New Markets Tax Credits. The panel will also be discussing new
ax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act for clean and renewable energy used in
development. There will also be examples of how these incentives have been used and
.could be used on projects in your community.
10:15 - 10:30 a.m.
Networking Break
10:30 - 11:45 a.m.
PLENARY SESSION
Think Inside the Box: Modular Building in Brownfield Redevelopment
Learn from a panel of experts on Modular buildings, what they are and why developers
4
are choosing off-site building as a viable option.
11:45 a.m. - 12:00
Closing
p.m.
Speaker Bios
David Bade
Westwood Professional Services
Director
Commercial Market
Having worked as an owner, developer, and consultant, David brings his clients unique insight and value on
every project. David brings 27 years of proven success and leadership in development, design, and
construction management for over 10 million SF of industrial, office, and retail projects: leading cross -
functional teams of owners, consultants, and contractors. He has exceptional qualifications in driving
development processes and timetables, governmental relations and negotiations, and solving the most
challenging engineering and stormwater management problems. David is a registered Professional Civil
Engineer and LEED Accredited Professional, as well as a Shareholder of the company.
Dean Dovolis
DJR
Principal, CEO, Founder
Dean worked with several firms in the Twin Cities and Boston prior to founding DJR Architecture in 1985.
Dean's vast range of experience brings diversity of projects and designs to DJR including urban design & master
planning, residential planning, commercial & retail design, and public project initiatives. He has worked
extensively with public agencies, non-profit neighborhood groups, and private developers. His expertise at
quickly recognizing significant planning opportunities and helping clients to effectively focus their energy has
proven to be invaluable.
Travis Fristed
Braun Intertec Corporation
Group Manager/Principal Scientist
Mr. Fristed is a consultant with 18 years of experience in environmental compliance and natural resources. His
clients include private developers and public entities throughout the US, with a focus on stormwater
management, best management practices, and permit compliance.
Beth Grigsby
Kansas State University, TAB Program
KSU TAB Regional Manager for EPA Region 5
Beth is a Geologist with over 30 years of experience providing environmental technical assistance to local
government agencies, regional entities, non -profits, and private stakeholders with specialization in the
acquisition, disposition, and redevelopment of contaminated properties. She serves as the KSU TAB Regional
Manager for EPA Region 5. She draws upon her past local government experience, private consulting, and TAB
experience to provide technical assistance. As an expert in the brownfields industry, she has provided
assistance to communities and nonprofits tackling all phases of brownfield redevelopment. She is accustomed
to collaborating with diverse audiences and stakeholders and has assisted numerous communities throughout
the Midwest with EPA Brownfields grant writing strategies and the identification of other resources to revitalize
their community brownfields.
Amy Hadiaris
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Supervisor
Amy Hadiaris has been the supervisor of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Voluntary Investigation and
Cleanup (VIC) Program since 2019. Prior to becoming supervisor, she worked for 20 years as a hydrogeologist in
the VIC program. Amy holds a B.S. in Natural Resources Policy and Management from the University of
Michigan and a M.S. in Hydrogeology from the University of Nevada. She is a licensed professional geologist in
Minnesota.
Elissa Hansen
Northspan Group, Inc.
President & CEO
Elissa Hansen leads Northspan with more than 20 years of experience in business, community, organizational,
and economic development across Minnesota and Wisconsin. She invests her time creatively advancing others'
capabilities. In Elissa's role at Northspan, she engages with and elevates every client by facilitating tough
conversations and moving organizations forward with action -oriented strategic methods. She works to create a
setting for meaningful communications that respects diverse perspectives, creates joint resolve, and inspires
individual and group action.
Dave Hengel
Greater Bemidji
Executive Director
Bemidji Rail Corridor
Dave Hengel has a 35 -year history of economic development work in northern Minnesota. He is currently the
Executive Director of Greater Bemidji. In that role, he leads north -central Minnesota's economic and
community development efforts.
Greater Bemidji has been a driving force to Bemidji's emergence as a regional center. Among the innovative
strategies launched under Dave's leadership at Greater Bemidji include the LaunchPad - a co -working space
and one -stop -shop for emerging entrepreneurs, 218 Relocate — an initiative to attract remote workers to the
greater Bemidji region, and Minnesota Innovation Initiative — which provides training and recruitment for
companies throughout northern Minnesota.
Dave is a strong advocate for an expanded vision of economic development, one that focuses on building
talent, supporting entrepreneurship and innovation, and developing signature placemaking amenities. Dave is
recipient of the State of Minnesota's Vision Award, has received two National Association of Development
Organization's Innovation Awards and was a past recipient of Minnesota's "Ten Outstanding Young
Minnesotan" recognition.
Dave is a proud product of St. Cloud and graduated from St. Cloud State University. He and his wife Kelley have
seven children and seven grandchildren. His best days are spent at the cabin up north with family and friends.
Eric Hesse
American Engineering Testing, Inc.
Environmental Division Manager
Ultimate Brownfields Project
Eric is a principal civil/environmental engineer with over 33 years of experience in environmental engineering
and consulting. He has focused his practice mainly in the areas of environmental due diligence, Brownfields
investigation and remediation, solid waste management, general environmental compliance and NEPA
document preparation. Eric works with residential, commercial and industrial clientele covering both the public
and private sectors. Eric currently sits on the board of Minnesota Brownfields.
Steve Jansen
Braun Intertec
Vice President
Investigation and Remediation
Mr. Jansen is a Principal Scientist and Vice President at Braun Intertec, and registered professional geologist
who has been working in environmental consulting since the late 1980s. He specializes in design and
implementation of voluntary investigations and cleanups for brownfields redevelopment sites. Mr. Jansen also
has experience evaluating with environmental cost estimating, remediation construction management and,
and environmental grant writing and management.
Phil Kern
City of Delano
City Administrator
Delano Granite Works Redevelopment
Phil has been the City Administrator in Delano for the past 23 years and has been part of the City's efforts to
revitalize its historic downtown. Working with the Delano team, Phil led the process to redevelop the former
Granite Works site and continues to work on related economic development projects in the downtown district.
Chuck Krueger
M PCA
Hydrologist
Chuck Krueger is a hydrogeologist for the Petroleum Brownfield Program at the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. In this role, he reviews investigation reports and response action plans for brownfield redevelopment
projects. Before joining the MPCA in 2019, Chuck worked for environmental consulting companies based in
Pennsylvania and New York. Chuck has an M.S. in Geology from Idaho State University.
Derrick La Point
Downtown Moorhead
President/CEO
In February 2018 Derrick La Point was named the first President/CEO of Downtown Moorhead Inc. (DMI). DMI
brings extensive knowledge of downtown development and revitalization. DMI is a leader, a relationship
builder, an educator, and an advocate for all things downtown Moorhead! In September 2018 the City of
Moorhead and DMI entered into a contract to provide economic development services city-wide. This public-
private partnership has been crucial to the resurgence of Moorhead development.
La Point is a former University of North Dakota and professional hockey player. After retiring from his hockey
career La Point earned a master's degree in Geography with an emphasis in Urban Planning and Community
Development from his alma mater the University of North Dakota. For the last several years, Derrick has been
living and working in the Fargo -Moorhead area. Prior to his role with DMI, LaPoint was working as a Planner
with the City of Fargo managing development in downtown Fargo.
With the help of a strong Board, Derrick has built DMI from scratch, while working alongside community
members and businesses to further a strategic plan for the future of Moorhead!
Marshall Nguyen
Wyn Group
Founder & CEO
Marshall Nguyen is the Founder and CEO of Wyn Group, a Commercial Real Estate Investments and Brokerage
firm in the Twin Cities, MN. In addition to his work with Wyn Group, Marshall serves as a strategic Partner at
Pacifica Square USA, which focuses on the acquisition and development of properties in high-density and
growing Asian markets across the United States, with an emphasis on transforming big -box retailers and
regional malls into open-air, Asian Lifestyle Shopping Centers.
Born in Vietnam, Marshall is deeply committed to advocating for and serving minority communities. He is also
dedicated to facilitating cross-border investment opportunities, aiming to bridge the gap between future
investors in Asia and the United States.
Outside of business, Marshall enjoys spending time and traveling with his Wife & Son, family, and friends.
Sara Peterson
Parkway Law LLC
Owner
Sara has been advising and representing clients on regulatory compliance issues and environmental and
regulatory aspects of transactions for over twenty years. She founded her own law firm, Parkway Law, in 2011
and has been recognized as a Minnesota "Super Lawyer" each year 2015-2023 for her environmental law
practice. Sara represents and provides counsel to clients on topics such as:
• cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated property
• chemical regulation of products and manufacturing processes
• managing legacy environmental liabilities.
Kristin Prososki
SEH
Community Development Specialist
Kristin has more than eighteen years of experience working at both the state and local level on community and
economic development projects and has a particular passion for brownfield redevelopment. Kristin began her
career as a city planner before joining the Brownfields and Redevelopment Unit at DEED, where she had the
opportunity to assist many communities across Minnesota with overcoming challenging redevelopment sites.
She returned to local government, working for the City of Mankato for nearly a decade in the Community
Development Department on both economic development and affordable housing initiatives, including the
redevelopment of more than a few particularly challenging sites. Kristin recently joined SEH as a Community
Development Specialist and continues to help communities and developers achieve their goals by assisting
with engagement, planning, project funding, and implementation strategies. Kristin is a Board Member of
Minnesota Brownfields, a non-profit with a mission to promote, through education, research, and
partnerships, the efficient cleanup and reuse of contaminated land as a means of generating economic growth,
strengthening communities and enabling sustainable land use and development. Kristin also serves as the
Minnesota State Point of Contact for Kansas State University's Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB)
program.
Jennifer Pusch
Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
Tax Attorney
Jenny provides tax advice to developers, owners, and operators of clean energy projects, including advising on
federal tax credits and state and local taxation. She also represents clients in all types of tax disputes and
controversy, including federal and state audits, administrative appeals, and litigation.
Narayanan Raghupathi
WSP
Vice President
Narayanan Raghupathi, PE is a Vice President within WSP's Minneapolis office in the Environmental
Sciences/Remediation division and is an active member of WSP's per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances
(PFAS) Working Group. Narayanan has over 20 years of experience successfully managing and conducting civil
and environmental projects across the United States in the government, industrial and transportation sectors.
Focused on closure strategy development and implementation, Mr. Raghupathi's experience includes providing
support for emerging contaminants such as PFAS, site characterization, development of pre -design
investigations, remedial alternative analysis/feasibility studies and remedial systems design.
Kristen Schimpke
Barr Engineering Co.
Senior Environmental Engineer
Kristen has 16 years of experience in the environmental consulting field managing projects involving the
environmental assessment, investigation, remediation, and redevelopment of contaminated Brownfield and
Superfund sites. She has assisted public and private sector clients on small and large-scale projects throughout
Minnesota. Kristen has experience working with regulatory agencies, owners, developers, attorneys, and
teaming with other consultants to develop creative solutions that integrate redevelopment plans, reduce
cleanup costs, and consider future environmental liability.
Trent Senske
Mahoney I CPAs and Advisors
Partner
Trent has been providing tax, accounting and advisory services to clients in the real estate industry for over 10
years. His primary areas of practice are real estate development projects financed with low-income housing,
historic rehabilitation and renewable energy tax credits.
Jeff Shopek, PE, fNSPE
Loucks
Principal Engineer
Jeff Shopek has 43 years of experience and is a principal engineer at Loucks, a premier multidisciplinary
consulting firm. Jeff is an industry leader and high -integrity resource, helping owners, developers and project
teams make the best use of their land.
Since 2000, much of Jeff's work has focused on brownfield redevelopments and related demolition work,
including Beacon Bluff, Total Tool, Globe Asphalt Shingle Plant, and Allianz Field, home of Minnesota United FC.
His specific areas of expertise include grading plans, soil analysis, earthwork, site development, agency
permitting approvals, stormwater treatment and conveyance systems, deconstruction, condemnations, and
construction management.
Jeff's involvement in the Allianz Field project helped to redefine engineering thinking related to contaminated
soils management to minimize off-site landfill disposal. The construction of Allianz Field required the
excavation of more than 160,000 cubic yards of soil. Jeff collaborated with Mortenson and Braun Intertec to
implement a comprehensive soil management strategy which maximized on-site reuse of materials and
minimized the amount of excavated soil disposed of at offsite landfills.
Jeff is well-recognized by his clients and peers for his extensive knowledge, experience, and contributions to
the industry. He is a recipient of the Charles W. Britzius Distinguished Engineer Award, and was named a
designated Fellow Member of the National Society of Professional Engineers for "exemplary service to the
profession, NSPE, and the community."
Shalene Thomas
WSP
SVP, Global Emerging
Ms. Shalene Thomas, SVP, is the Emerging Contaminant Program Manager and PFAS Work Group lead for WSP.
She has more than 25 years of experience in environmental consulting that includes 15 years of experience
with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) evaluations. She has supported several clients with PFAS
screening assessments and the development of organization -wide PFAS strategic plans across the industrial,
government, and oil & gas sectors. She has extensive program and project management, human health risk
assessment, and data management experience. She has supported PFAS projects in 32 different states in 9 of
the 10 USEPA regions as well as in Australia, Canada, Europe, and South America. For the Interstate Technology
Regulatory Council (ITRC), she leads the AFFF sub -team and is a risk communication trainer for the PFAS Team,
and sub -team leader for the Contaminants of Concern (CEC) Team.
Christopher Thompson
Braun Intertec
Vice President/Principal Engineer
Mr. Thompson is a consulting civil engineer and has been designing solutions for contaminated sites
undergoing re -development since 1987. His clients include private developers and public entities. The
intersection of contaminated sites and stormwater permitting has become a roadblock for a number of
projects and requires an industry -wide discussion.
FAMI
Date of
Contact
/22/201
/29/20
128/201
/9/201'
t16/203
(20/202
30-22
2/16/2021
3/19/2021
2/28/2022
6/16/2021
6/30/2021
7/29/2021
10/28/2021
2/7/2022
Company Name
Business Category
Project Description
IL
Karlsburger Foods
Food Products Mfg.
Facilty Expansion
Project Blitzen
Precision Machining
Exist Bldg or New Const.
Project Nutt
Co -Working Space
Existing Building
Project FSJP
Light Mfg -Res. Lab
New Construction
Project Jaguar
Office
New Construction
Project Panda v3
Service -Child Care
New Construction
Project TDBBST Industrial New Construction
Project Cold Industrial -Warehouse -Di New Construction
stri
Project Orion Warehouse-Distributi New Construction
on
Project Emma II Light Ind -Assembly New Construction
Project UBAA Child Care Services New Construction or Exist
Project Ecosphere Industrial Tech Mfg. New Construction
Project BA710 Lt Assem-Distribute
IProject Stallion Technology Service
Project Shepherd Lt Assembly Distribution
III
10/20/2023
0
9
$1,850,000
Concept Stage
Building -Facility
i
Retained lobs New lobs
Total Investment
Project Status
80,000 sq. ft.
0
21
$12,000,000
20,000 sq. ft. +/-
42
10 to
$4,500,000
On Hold
Active Search
20,000 sq. ff.
20
4
$1,350,000
12,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
10
$1,200,000
Concept Stage
?
?
?
?
Concept Stage
20,000 sq. ft.
0
20+/-
$1,400,000
Active Search
22,000 sq. ft.
22
4
$2,700,000
Active Search
10,500 sq. ft.
0
21
$4,100,000
Active Search
10,000 to 15,000 sq.
0
9
$1,850,000
Concept Stage
ft.
80,000 sq. ft.
0
21
$12,000,000
Concept Stage
832,500 sq. ft.
0
500
$125,000,000
Active Search
20,000 sq. ff.
0
4
$1,350,000
Active Search
5,000 sq. ft.
0
14 to 19
$2,000,000
Act Search
1,000,000 sq. ft.
0
1122
$85,000,000
Act Search
New Construction 6,500 to 7,000 sq. ft 0 10
New Construction 42,000 sq. ft. 40
New Construction 75,000 sq. ft.
75
$650,000
Active Search
$3,600,000
Active Search
$10,500,000
Active Search
PROSPECT LIST 10/20/2023
Date of
Contact
Company Name Business Category Project Description Building -Facility Retained lobs New lobs Total Investment Project Status
4/28/2022
Project Cougar Precision Machining -Mfg. New Construction 35,000 to 45,000 sq. ft. 38 $4,700,000 Active Search
8/11/2022
Project Sing Precision Machining New Construction 400,000 sq. ft. 0 500 $90,000,000 Active Search
10/28/2022
Project IAG Mfg. New Construction 300,000 sq. ft.? 0 50? $70 to $80,000,000 Active Search
11/9/2022
Project Tea
Mfg
New Construction
25,000 sq. ft.
55
20
$5,800,000
Active Search
12/13/2022
Project Love
Mfg
New Construction
250,000
130
$24,000,000
Active Search
4/20/2023
Project Lodge DH1
Lodging -Service
New Construction
?
?
?
$9,500,000 to
$12,500,000
Active Search
4/20/2023
Project Lodge RS2
Lodging Service
New Construction
?
?
?
$9,500,000 to
$12,500,000
Active Search
4/26/2023
Project Lodge DC3
Lodging Service
New Construction
?
?
?
$9,500,000 to
$12,500,000
Active Search
5/30/2023
Project Flower -M
&M
Commercial
Concept Expansion
?
?
?
?
Concept
6/9/2023
Project Pez
low_
New Construction
6,000 to 8,500 sq. ft.
12
2
$1.300,000
Active Search
7/1/2023
Project V
Mfg
New Construction
150,000+sq. ft.
?
$16,000,000
Active Search
8/16/2023
Project Lodge RT4
Lodging-Hopsitality
New Construction
?
N/A
?
$11,500,000 to
$14,500,000
Active Search
8/31/2023
Project Enclave-
W300
Industrial - Warehouse-
Distr
New Construction
300,000 sq. ft.
N/A
?
$30,000,000 to
$34,000,000
Active Search
PROSPECT LIST 10/20/2023
Date of
Contact
Company Name Business Category Project Description Building -Facility Retained lobs New lobs Total Investment Project Status
9/19/2023
Project Panda #4
SZ
Childcare Facility
New Construction
?
N/A
?
$2,000,000 +/-
Active Search
10/12/2023
Project Fun
Entertainment
Expansion
2,400 sq. ft.
N/A
4
$200,000
Concept
Contacts: M
=01 YTD=
24