IDC Agenda 04-16-1998• AGENDA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, Apri116, 1998 - 7:00 a.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chair Dick Van Allen, Vice Chair Tom Lindquist, Secretary Tom Ollig, Shelly
Johnson, Don Smith, Ken Maus, Kevin Doty, Bill Tapper, Bob Mosford, and
Chamber President Bob Grabinski.
COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Bill Fair
STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Ollie Koropchak.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MARCH 19 AND APRII, 3, 1998 IDC
MINUTES.
3. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:
a) BRE Visits -Mayor Fair
. b) Prospects -Ollie Koropchak
c) Chamber Industrial Breakfast -Thursday, April 23, 1998, 7:30 a.m., Riverwood
'- Conference Center. Hav~..you contacted your mdustnes?
d) Marketing Committee -Don Smith
4. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW AND ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ENCLOSED
MEMO FROM MAYOR FAIR.
5. CONSIDERATION TO DISCUSS THE LAND USE RATIO INFORMATION AS
PROVIDED BY THE CITY PLANNING CONSULTANT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SOUTH AND WEST
CORRIDOR. (Ratios to be submitted at the IDC meeting)
a) What is Monticello's current residential and commerciaUindustrial balance?
b) Is this a good balance? If not, what is a recommended balance?
c) If necessary, determine who and the strategy for a recommended balance
presentation to the Planning Commission on May 5, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
•
• Monticello Industrial Development Committee
Minutes of the March 19a', 1998 Meeting
Members Present: Dick Van Allen, Tom Lindquist, Shelly Johnson, Don Smith, Tom
Ollig, Ken Maus, Bill Tapper, Bob Mosford.
Others Present: Mayor Bill Fair, City Staff Ollie Koropchak, Jeff O'Neill and Fred
Patch, also present John Chadwick and Richard Bloom of The
Chadwick Group, Inc.
Members Absent: Kevin Doty, Bob Grabinski.
1. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dick Van Allen.
2. Minutes of the February 19~', 1998 meeting were approved, motioned by Johnson
seconded by Lindquist, unanimously approved.
3. Discussed future BRE visits by the Mayor.
Ollie discussed prospects,
a. Midwest Graphics -looking to start expansion soon.
b. Clear Flow - on hold.
c. Diversa Foam - 60 jobs, looking around, Ollie talking with.
d. Reminder about the IDC/Chamber Breakfast on the 23`x°
Kitty sending out invitations from Chamber.
4. Consideration of an update relating to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
south and west comdor.
Planning Commission discussed with the City Council, entire item was tabled because
local land owners wanted to be a part of the discussion on the the use of the land. Mr.
John Chadwick a land owner/developer discussed with the IDC the proposed use of
the property. Following the presentation by Mr. Chadwick there was much discussion
on the use of the property. IDC imput will be forwarded to the City Council via a
special meeting on April 3`d at 7:00 a.m.
5. Mr. Tapper reported his findings as a result of an IDC request from it's February
meeting. "What are other communities doing to attract industry".
Anoka - Ramsey - Buffalo
All using a combination of ,contributions of free land, local financing,
help from City staff, no tax for 5 years.
6. Discussion on the direction of the IDC.
IDC vision is clouded because other committees (HRA) looking at same issues.
Discussion will continue at future IDC meetings or the IDC should look into
setting up asub-committee to address the question.
7. Next meeting April 16, 1998, meeting adjourned, unanimously approved.
APR-15-1998 11 27 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02i03
•
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
,N~~ COMMUNITY PLANN~NO DE910N MARKET RE6 EARGN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Monticello 1DC
Stephen Grittman
April 15, 1998
Monticello -Industrial Land Ratios
191.06 - 98.05
• On the following page we have prepared a summary of land use in Monticello, broken
down by general category, and showing some trend over time. For purposes of this
analysis, we have separated the NSP land from other industrially zoned land so as to be
able to distinguish land which is available for, or being put to, industrial development. Also
presented is a summary of Twin Cities urbanized land, excluding lakes and streams.
As the Monticello table shows, both the actual total and the percentage of industrial land
have grown over the past twenty years. From 1985 to 1995, the total acxeage grew from
254 acres to 455 acres, while the City grew in size from 3,007 acres to 3,901 acres. The
percentage of industrial land increased from 8.4% to 11.7% during that time.
The addition of the OAA territory would add 707 acres of industrial land and increase the
percentage again to 13.6°~ of the urbanized land. For purposes of projection, the "Other"
category was maintained at 23.3°~, the same as the 1995 inventory. The Other category
includes publicly owned land, such as parks and schools, as well as street and highway
rights-of--way.
The numbers reflect a ratio of residential to industrial land in Monticello of about 3.6:1.
While the percentage of urbanized land in the Twin Cities metropolitan area used for
residential is higher than Monticello's, the industrial land percentage is much smaller.
Therefore, the Twin Cities' ratio of residential to industrial is about 6.5:1.
~~
APR-15-1998 11 27 NAC
612 595 9837 P.03i03
• The following table illustratzs the trends in the percentage of land zoned for Industrial,
commercial and residential uses over the past 20 years. The 1978 figure represents the
first inventory following the ccnstruction of the interstate and the development of the NSP
plant. The 1985 figure was an update prepared as a part of the 1985 Comprehensive
Plan. The 1995 figure represants the inventory listed in the Comprehensive Plan update
adopted in 1996. The final figure represents the land use plan calculations integrating the
Orderly Annexation Area and the assumptions used in the proposed Southwest Area Land
Use Plan.
Mentieello Land Use as Zoned/P/anned
dustrial Commercial Residential Other Total Ciht
1978 acreage 21 (460) 254 1,164 847 2,746
of total 0.8°!° (16.8) 9.2°i6 42.4°/. 30.8°~6 100°i6
1985 acreage 254 (460) 306 1,249 738 3,007
of total 8.4% (15.3) 10.1°~6 41.5% 24.5°~G 100%
1995 acreage 466 (~0) S32 1,547 907 3,901
of total 11.7°!0 (11.8) 13.6% 39.7% 23.3% 100%
`98 OAA acreage 1+162 (4601 747 4,185 1,991 8,545
Of total 13.6% (5A) 8.7% 48.9% 23.3% 100%
The calculations are based on the amount of land zoned for the list®d use, but attempts
to exclude public lands, such as rights-of way (streets, highways, and I-94), parks (City and
County), schools, or other land not available for development. The figures include lands
which may have development constraints, such as wetlands or poor soils. It is assumed
that these constraints balance out between areas.
Twin Cities UrbanFred Area Land Use
st ' Cs~rrarr,~r~ia! Residential Other Urban Total
Acreage 47,862 24,044 310,154 167,780 650,099
°~ of total 8.796 4.4% 56.4°~6 30.5°,6 100°~
For contrast, the table above provides a breakdown of the Twin Cities seven county area
land use. As a relatively discrete economic unit, the Twin Citi®s provides a general
expectation of the ratio of land use for a healthy economy. The primary variation to this
model would be the fact that some labor supply is provided by residential development in
adjacent counties to the Twin Cities. However, this variation exists in Monticello as well.
Thus, while the comparison is not perfect, it should provide a reasonable representation.
TOTAL P.03
•
•
~~
H
--~
WU
r'Q
H
O
QUQ
F~
E"~
W
z
0
H
W
W~
a
O L ~; ~
~ pa QI '7 [~ ~ N
h
i
p
p M ~ O
NO
~
M
M '"'~
~
F
1 i
fr fA
~ b'0
~
~O 00
rl
~d N ~ , ~ ~ z
0
wo
0
0
Q
~i ~ ~--~ Or ~ ~ M
O
.~ N ~ N ~
e 0
H O
~-i O M B
-~
- ~
~ v: ~. d.
. .
'
i ~ eY .-i N
0
In 7..
0o a ~'
s°'.~o
r~~
o00
~o
0
~--~ C~ C~ M M M ~--~ !1' .-~ ~ tt l~ M
o
;
.
r oq
0 0 N M A N N O ~ M
O
~ ~
v
i ~
~~
~ r ~
CL i
V ti M et r r
~--~ e~ e~ N N et .-r M ~ .-~ er M N
O p .n V]
v _
~ A" U y v w' ~ '~
V
~ "Cy
.
w
p 'G O
C"r v O v~ ~ vi
a
U N y
b
"
~zaH ~ ~ ~
~ o o ~
i o ~' .~'
aUU ~ u '~
~
F
a
w UC7r
~ ° e
a
0
a~
v
.a
~.
a
O
~.
a
F.
~i
O Op
O h
O ~~
O O
~ O
y N
b ~
b .a
~ y
y
d
a
b
N ~"
M w
W
O vii
~ O
'b
L q
y ..r
RC
~ O
~--~ '~+
L. M "C7
`~ °~ ~
~ ~ d
y ~
~ ~ ~
R "d ~O
a
~ ~ o
b ~V.
O O +.+
1.i
~ ~ O
z~~
..
~~ .
•
TO: IDC Members
FROM: Bill Fair
RE: Developing an Industrial Friendly City
DATE: April 7, 1998
Development of an industrial friendly community as noted in the resolution recently adopted by the City is
an important goal for our municipality. I thought I would take a moment to inventory the work recently
completed toward this objective.
Recent efforts to assure sufficient industrial land through land use planning. Southwest area study.
• Response form provided to prospects to provide opportunities for feed-back on service.
• Hired a Building Official with specific experience with industrial development and an advocate for
commercial and industry. We have improved application materials and paper flow, thus reducing
oppartunities for surprises through development of apre-planning worksheet outlining
development fees and simplifying the process.
Development of trunk storm sewer fee program incorporating IDC input.
• Business retention visits to each industry by the Mayor and Economic Development Director.
• $80,000 per year contribution of City Funds and $80,000/year contribution of HRA funds toward
developing industrial land.
• Development impact fees allowing the city to recover trunk utility expenses associated with
residential development.
• Regular site plan review meetings ensuring good staff communication on project development and
status.
• • Regular participation in IDC meetings by Community Development Staff members in addition to
the Economic Development Director.
C ~SANDY~WORDVEFF~IDCPR.WPD
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box l 147, Monticello, MN 55362-9245 • (612) 295-2711 • Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 • (612) 295-3]70 • Fax: (612) 271-3272
MONTICELLO
Developing a Industrial Friendly City Memo
Page 2
• $35,000 placed in the budget for marketing purposes.
• Amendments to BC zoning district changing name and reduction in site design requirements.
• Ordinance amendments softening curb cut and curb requirements.
• Continued support for a full time Economic Development Director.
• Continued support for the Industrial Development Revolving Loan Fund.
• Continued support for use of Tax Increment Financing.
• Support for "life cycle" housing providing for the housing needs of employees from entry level
worker to executive.
The list above is just a start. On behalf of City Staff, we look forward to working with you in the
continual process of developing and implementing new ideas that will make Monticello and attractive
place for industrial development.
c c.
•
~~ ~v~«~
C \CANDI'~WORDVEFF~IDCPR.WPD