IEDC Agenda 03-05-2013
AGENDA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 5th, 2013
7:00 a.m., Mississippi Room
MEMBERS: Chair Joni Pawelk, Vice Chair Wayne Elam, Rich Harris, Patrick Thompson, Bill Tapper, Dick
Van Allen, Dan Olson, Zona Gutzwiller, Jim Johnson, Don Roberts, Mary Barger
LIASIONS: Sandy Suchy, Chamber
Clint Herbst, Mayor
Glen Posusta, City Council
1. Call to Order
2. Approve Minutes:
a. February 5th, 2013
3. Consideration of adding items to the Agenda
4. Reports:
a. Economic Development Report
b. City Council
c. Chamber of Commerce and Industry
d. TAC
5. Comprehensive Plan Update
6. Adjournment. (8:30am)
IEDC Agenda: 03/05/13
1
4. Economic Development Report/TAC Report
IEDC Members in the News
Genereux and Standard Iron recently popped up in the news. See attached articles.
Workforce Development
The Central Minnesota Workforce Investment Board has invited the City to attend a Partners
in Workforce Development Forum. The event is designed to encourage interaction between
regional Chambers and Economic Development officials and create a dialogue regarding local
and regional workforce needs.
A member of City staff will be attending this session. We would also invite a representative
from the IEDC to attend, as well. Information on the April 12th forum is attached.
STEM Tour – Monticello High School
Staff and Superintendent Jim Johnson are working on coordination of an April tour of the
high school’s STEM programs, including their new robotics course. More information to
follow soon on a date and time.
Final IEDC Workplan
A copy of the final 2013 IEDC workplan, including the newly adopted mission statement, is
attached for reference.
IEDC Membership Update
Unfortunately, staff has not had an opportunity to follow up on the four businesses contacted
for possible IEDC membership since the time of our last meeting. Staff received no return
calls and will attempt follow-up within the next week.
Economic Development Position
Verbal update to be provided at the meeting.
Bertram – Phase IV Acquisition & Grant Awards
Wright County and the City of Monticello have both committed to matching funds for a Phase
IV acquisition at the park in 2013. The purchase agreement and shared use agreement (with
YMCA) have also been approved by the City and County and it is hoped that the purchase
will be completed this spring. The Phase IV purchase is approximately 140 land and water
acres. The acquisition of this acreage puts the regional park at almost 640 acres, or over half
of the total planned park area.
In addition to this pending acquisition, the City and County had received grant award letters
IEDC Agenda: 03/05/13
2
for acquisitions of the first piece of the area planned for the athletic complex, as well as the
north areas of both Bertram and Long Lakes, including the existing beach. The grants total
over $2.2 million.
A map of the planned 2013/2014 acquisitions is attached.
ReSTOREing Downtown/Embracing Downtown
The ReSTOREing Downtown steering committee met on February 27th and provided the City
with valuable input on in terms of their perspective on the proposed economic development
position. Key points:
1. Commitment of all parties to a clear vision and process for each project and the larger
plan – consistency, collaboration and communication are critical.
2. Develop a strong marketing platform (leads, materials, etc.) for the new sales person as a
means to more effective execution.
The steering committee will also be organizing a larger full membership ReSTOREing
meeting in the near future. The meeting will be focused on generating ideas on business
prospects for the downtown. From there, the group will pair those ideas with the market and
economic data prepared as part of the McCombs study. This will be an interactive
opportunity for downtown business and property owners to reengage in the redevelopment
process.
Finally, the ReSTOREing downtown group has offered to send a liaison to City pre-design
meetings whenever they involve a downtown opportunity.
EDA Block 34 Workshop
It is anticipated that the EDA will hold a workshop on March 13th, their regular meeting date,
for the purpose of discussing Block 34 redevelopment opportunities. Topics will include:
1. Status of relocations
2. Transportation improvement funding update – TH 25/CSAH 75
3. Development
a. Developable area/ROW
b. Acquisitions
c. Options for use of TIF
d. Timing
Planning Commission Agenda
The Planning Commission’s February agenda is attached for reference.
IEDC Agenda: 03/05/13
3
TAC/TRANSPORTATION UPDATES
TH 25 & CSAH 75 Intersection Improvements project funding update
On January 11th staff applied for $1,320,000 in federal funding for state fiscal year (SFY)
2017 through the Local Surface Transportation Program (STP) for the proposed TH 25 &
CSAH 75 intersection improvements. This is the third consecutive year the City submitted a
federal STP funding application.
On February 11th the Region 7 West Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) voted
unanimously to recommend approving $1,200,000 in federal STP funding for the TH 25 &
CSAH 75 intersection improvements to the Region 7 West Transportation Policy Board
(TPB). The recommended funding amount was reduced $120,000 to offset the City’s local
match amount of $330,000 since Mn/DOT recently committed $450,000 through their Local
Initiative program for the improvements proposed to TH 25 with this project. In addition,
Wright County recently committed to funding a portion of the improvements on CSAH 75 in
an amount equal to the cost required to mill and overlay the improved pavement area.
On February 15th the TPB accepted the TAC’s recommendation and authorized federal
funding in the amount of $1,200,000 for the intersection improvements.
Staff has also confirmed with Mn/DOT that the $450,000 in Local Initiative funding for SFY
2015 that was recently committed to the TH 25 improvements can be moved to SFY 2017 to
match the federal funding timelines. Staff also continues to work with Wright County to
secure funding from them for the associated improvements to CSAH 75.
The City therefore now has a minimum of $1.65M in federal, state, and county funding to
spend on intersection improvements at TH 25 & CSAH 75 starting in July of 2016.
TH 25 yellow flashing left-turn arrows update
Per Council direction, staff contacted Mn/DOT to discuss the potential installation of yellow
flashing left-turn arrows with existing signalized intersections along TH 25. Mn/DOT’s
response was as follows: “We do not currently have any plans for installing flashing yellow
arrows on TH 25. There may be some merit for the signals south of the interstate, but signal
controllers and possible cabinet modification may be also needed. As for the signals north of
the interstate, I think the traffic is too heavy for permitted left turns and sight distance may be
an issue. I think safety would decrease if a permitted left turn was allowed on the signals
north of the interstate.”
Staff will continue discussions with Mn/DOT and will report back to Council as more
information is made available.
Great River Trail System
The City Council approved plans and specification and authorized bids for the Great River
Trails project, which consists of constructing a trailhead and four trail segments that connect
to the existing pedestrian underpass constructed in 2011 during the realignment of CSAH 75.
A project map is attached for reference.
IEDC Agenda: 03/05/13
4
This project will provide bicyclists and pedestrians with a safe, grade-separated means to
cross CSAH 75 when traveling between residential neighborhoods and city and county park
facilities, including Montissippi Regional Park and the City/Xcel ball fields. The project will
also connect to regional trail systems including the Mississippi River Trail and a future
regional trail system along CSAH 75 between Monticello and Clearwater as identified in the
Wright County Trail and Bikeway Plan. The project is also intended to enhance access to
existing natural areas and to provide opportunities for recreational bicycling and walking.
The proposed trailhead, located adjacent to the access road to Montissippi Park, will include a
gravel parking area for approximately 20 vehicles, along with trail and drive aisle
connections. The trailhead will also include a kiosk to provide trail users with information
about the Mississippi River Trail, the Great River Road Scenic Byway, and local and county
parks and recreational facilities.
The City has received DNR Local and Regional Trail grant funds and federal funding through
the Transportation Enhancement program for all four trail segments and the trailhead in an
amount sufficient to cover 100% of the estimated construction costs, which at the time of the
grant application submittals totaled approximately $281,000.
Pending bid outcome and award of project, the trails will be constructed in May and June of
2013.
INDUSTRIAL&ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE
2013WORKPLAN
MissionStatement:TheMonticelloIEDCwilladvocateforindustrialandeconomicgrowth
withintheCityofMonticellobypromotingawarenessandcommunicationeffortsonbehalfof
thebusinesscommunity.
Objective:
TheIEDCisdedicatedtobeingpro-activeinfollowingtheguidelinesestablishedinthe
MonticelloComprehensivePlan.ItistheintentionoftheIEDCtoworkwithintheareas
identifiedbelowassupportingactionsandobjectives:
LandUse:
a.ProvideassistanceintheupdatingoftheEconomicDevelopmentsectionof
ComprehensivePlan
Transportation:
a.ContinuetoleadtheCityinmovingforwardkeytransportationprojectsby
participatingintheTransportationAdvisoryCommittee.
EconomicDevelopment:
a.OngoingEfforts
i.ConciergeProgram–Breakfastw/Mayor&Administrator
ii.GrowMNVisitsandBusinessTour
iii.BusinessRecognition–IndustryoftheYear
b.FocusedProjects
i.IEDCNetworking/Prospecting
ii.SupportRestoreingDowntown
iii.SupportBertramChainofLakes
c.Communications
i.EconomicDevelopmentWebsite
ii.Enews
iii.CityAdmin/CommunityDevelopmentE-correspondence
O t t e r C r e e k
Forestry
Project
Concession
Stand
Big Woods
Reclamation
Project
AreaPrimitive Back Pack
Camping
(3 Sites)
Scenic
Overlook
Connection
to City Trail
Connection
to Residential Trail
Long
Bertram
Mud
Wright County GIS
Office of the County Surveyor
September, 2012
Recreation Site Plan
Bertram
Chain of Lakes
Acquisition
Phase VI
Item #6
01,400700
Feet
Legend
Future Facilities
Owned byOwned by
City of MonticelloCity of Monticello
RuralRural
ResidentialResidential
ResidentialResidential
Agricultural/Agricultural/
CommercialCommercial ResidentialResidential
Boat Access
Camping
Fishing Pier
Camp Ground
Parking Lot
Trail
Day Use
AgriculturalAgricultural
AgriculturalAgricultural
Wright County
Parks
Department
Created for:
Park Office
Rental Chalet
Beach
Amphitheater
Park Road
Trail
Canoe Access
City of Monticello
Proposed Boundary
Existing (496 Acres)
(324.55 Acres)
Phase VII
(124.13 Acres)
Phase VI
(62.15 Acres)
Phase IV
REGULAR MEETING
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 5th, 2013
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Chairman William Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte
Gabler, Grant Sala
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller,
1. Call to order
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes.
a. Regular Meeting of February 5th, 2013
3. Citizen Comments
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to approve the Official Zoning Map for the
City of Monticello
Applicant: City of Monticello
6. Consideration to approve Community Development Director’s Report
7. Adjourn.
IEDC Agenda: 03/05/13
5. Comprehensive Plan Update – Economic Development Chapter (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The IEDC is asked to make a recommendation on the draft amendments to the
Economic Development chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
The Monticello Comprehensive Plan is the City’s guiding document for land use
policy. The Comprehensive Plan is a statutorily required planning document,
providing the underpinning for all City land-use decisions. The plan includes
goals and strategies as related to overall land use, transportation, economic
development and parks. It is intended to guide development within the City and
its growth area for the next 20 years.
Monticello’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for an annual review to
ensure that it remains a relevant planning document for Monticello’s growth
policies. The Planning Commission has completed these annual reviews,
focusing on Chapter 3, the Land Use Plan. However, for 2013, staff had
recommended that Chapter 2 (the Community Context section) of the plan be
updated to include more recent data, including 2010 census info. This data
provides an important perspective on the complexion of the community and sets a
frame of reference for land use policy.
Also, as the Parks, Transportation and Land Use chapters have been updated with
recently adopted plans, the Commission also asked for a more focused review of
the Economic Development Chapter, as we reach the 5-year mark for the plan.
For a more inclusive review process, two members of the Planning Commission
have been joined by two members of the IEDC and one member of the EDA.
The City Council has also been invited to participate.
Summary of Small Group Review
Chapter 3 – Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan provides for where the City
will seek to establish new industrial land uses (designated “Places to Work”) and
describes the importance of this land use to the City’s overall growth objectives.
The Places to Work section notes that “It is critical that Monticello preserve
sufficient land for Places to Work for the next twenty-five years.” The Land Use
chapter then lays out five overall land use policies for Places to Work, as follows:
1. Designate and preserve land for Places to Work
2. Provide land use controls to encourage development of Places to Work sites
consistent with the City’s vision for “step-up” development
3. Provide for “business campus” development area
4. Provide for “general industrial” development area
5. Provide for areas for businesses which support both types of industrial
development
2
With these overall goals in mind, the small group used its first meeting to review
the location and amount of land areas guided as “Places to Work”, as well as an
inventory of currently available industrial land. In subsequent small group
discussions, it was determined that the City had an adequate existing and planned
inventory of land guided for Places to Work.
With the land use goals and areas for Places to Work” set in Chapter 3, the small
group then focused their work on Chapters 2 and 4.
The group spent some time reviewing the new data prepared for inclusion in
Chapter 2 – Community Context and provided feedback on clarifications which
would help make the data more usable and relevant to decision-making. Data
from the 2010 Census, 5-year American Community Survey and other sources
was included as part of the update to Community Context, which previously
relied on 2000 Census data.
The group then turned their attention to the Economic Development Chapter.
The small group directed the inclusion of references to the Embracing Downtown
study (which was adopted as a whole into the Land Use chapter previously) and
the Business Retention & Expansion study. These two documents provide
additional economic development background and strategy for the City. Their
direct reference within this chapter was viewed as a support for their continued
application.
The small group then confirmed the City’s four overall economic development
goals, with only slight modification:
Attract & Retain Jobs
Expand the Tax Base
Enhance the Downtown
Encourage Redevelopment
The group’s final task was to determine whether the development strategies in
Chapter 4 adequately reflected the City’s current and intended methods for the
accomplishment of the goals above.
As the IEDC will note, the proposed amendments to the eight strategy statements
indicate that there will be less attention on specifically attracting bioscience
industries, with more focus on attracting businesses which are synergistic to
existing businesses and services. The proposed amendments also suggest a more
dedicated effort in the near future on determining the utility and transportation
improvements needed to support the development of new “Places to Work” in
3
guided areas. There are minor changes in the Land Use chapter that correspond to
the revisions to the strategies in Chapter 4.
At this time, the IEDC is asked to review the proposed amendments as developed
by the small group and make a formal recommendation to the Planning
Commission. The IEDC may wish to suggest revisions to the draft document,
which may be considered as part of the Planning Commission’s consideration.
Pending IEDC and EDA recommendations, the Commission will review the
amendments during a public hearing to be held in April.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend the adoption of the proposed amendments to
Chapter 4 – Economic Development of the 2008 Monticello
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendments. While the majority of
the City’s overall economic development goals remain the same, over the last five
years, minor adjustments to the strategies employed to achieve these goals have
shifted slightly. The proposed amendments reflect those shifts and provide a
roadmap for directing the City’s economic development activities.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Monticello Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development (Proposed
Amendments)
B. Monticello Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development (Existing)
C. Monticello Comprehensive Plan – Community Context
D. Places to Work – Chapter 3 Guide Plan
Economic Development | 4-12008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Ideally, the Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Development
chapter. The Land Use Plan would be sufficient to channel market forces
to meet the development objectives of the community. In reality, certain
development needs cannot be met without public intervention. The
Economic Development chapter of the Plan focuses on the aspects of
Monticello’s future that require particular attention and action by the City.
These actions include:
f Attracting and retaining jobs
f Expanding the tax base
f Enhancing the economic vitality of Downtown
f Facilitating redevelopment
Attracting and Retaining Jobs
The creation and retention of jobs is one of the most important objectives
for Monticello. Jobs, particularly jobs with income levels capable of
supporting a family, are key to achieving many elements of Monticello’s
vision for the future.
f Jobs attract residents to the community. Jobs will pay a critical role in
creating the type of “move up” housing sought by the City.
f Jobs provide the income needed to support local business and
government services.
f Retention of businesses promote community stability by keeping jobs
and residents in Monticello
The Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains a
section on Employment. This section contains data about employment in
Monticello and of its residents. Among the key findings in this section are:
f While the community added nearly 5,000 people between 2000 and
2010 according to the U.S. Census, it only added 1,430 jobs according
to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). In 2010,
the community had 6,992 jobs according to the QCEW but 7,093
people in the labor force according to the Census.
4Economic Development
Chapter Contents
Attracting Jobs ............................4-1
Expanding the Tax Base ............4-3
Enhancing Downtown ...............4-5
Facilitating Redevelopment .....4-7
Development Strategies ...........4-7
4-2 | Economic Development City of Monticello
f The U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic
Studies’ OntheMap website shows that in 2010
4,597 people leave the community each day to
work, while 3,849 people come into the community
to work. Only 835 both live and work in the
community.
f Approximately 15% of residents in 2010 are
employed within the community. This has dropped
from 18% in 2002.
f As shown in Figure 4.1, 2012 data from the
Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) on their
mnprospector.com website shows that Monticello
is made up of a wide range of small to medium
sized employers. Only 10 employers have more
than 100 employees. Over half have fewer than
four (4) employees.
f Workers for Monticello businesses come primarily
from Monticello and the surrounding region.
Nearly 75% of people working in Monticello live in
Monticello, adjacent townships, or other places in
Wright and Sherburne counties (2010 OntheMap).
f Nearly 40% of Monticello residents work in
Hennepin County, with the largest percentage in
Minneapolis, Plymouth and Maple Grove. Another
15% work elsewhere in Wright County, including
Buffalo and St. Michael.
f The 2007-2011 American Community Survey
(ACS) Census reported a mean travel time to work
of 28.5 minutes. This is up from the 2000 Census
travel time of 24 minutes. The mean travel time in
the 2007-2011 ACS was 29.7 minutes for Wright
County and 24.5 minutes for the region overall.
Background Reports
The City of Monticello conducts studies and assessments
as needed to help guide its economic development
efforts. The findings and recommendations of these
studies are summarized below with the most recent
provided first.
2010 Business Retention and Expansion Research (BR&E)
Report
Monticello’s Business Retention and Expansion (BR&E)
program was initiated by the City of Monticello, the
Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
DEED, and the University of Minnesota Extension. It
was also sponsored by over a dozen local businesses.
Through the BR&E program, 60 businesses were visited.
Findings from the visits and data analysis found:
f 78% of the visited businesses were locally owned
and operated.
f 20% of businesses were in manufacturing, 18% in
retail trade, and 13% in other services.
f The businesses employed over 1,600 full-time and
975 part-time employees, with a trimmed average
(an average where the low and high were discarded
to prevent skewing) of 15.38 full-time employees,
slightly down from 15.52 three years ago. The firms
also had a trimmed average of 7.76, up from 6.96
three years ago.
f Most full-time employees are in manufacturing,
food and beverage, retail trade and medical, while
part-time employees are in medical, retail trade,
and tourism/recreational services.
f Survey results indicated that the medical industry
is the highest employer in Monticello, followed by
retail trade and manufacturing.
f Businesses in the community are fairly stable with
about half expecting some type of change.
The BR&E identified four strategies aimed at helping
businesses become more profitable. Each strategy
was accompanied by a list of potential projects
intended to be ideas for the community to explore.
The implementation of the projects is intended to be
a collaborative effort among the various sectors of the
community. The four strategies identified included:
Number of
Establishments by SizeNumberPercent
1-4 Employees 25452.05
5-9 Employees 9719.88
10-19 Employees 6413.11
20-49 Employees 428.61
50-99 Employees 214.30
100-249 Employees 71.43
250-499 Employees 20.41
500-999 Employees 10.20
Figure 4-1: 2012 Total Establishments by Size
Economic Development | 4-32008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
f Improve Business Retention and Expansion
Through Technical and Development Assistance.
f Improve Labor Force Availability and Productivity.
f Improve Infrastructure to Help Move Goods,
Customers, and the Labor Force More Efficiently.
f Improve and Promote the Quality of Life in
Monticello.
During the 2013 comprehensive plan economic
development update process, it was noted that the 2010
Business Retention and Expansion Research strategies
were similar to the 2008 Development Strategies. The
review process identified the need to continue similar
strategies into the future.
Preceding the development of the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan an assessment was conducted by St. Cloud State
University to determine whether a bioscience park
should be established in Monticello. At that time the
bioscience industry was an economic development
focus statewide. While the attraction of a bioscience
business is not a particular focus of Monticello today,
there are findings of that study that can be useful to
consider in the overall development of economic
development strategies for the community.
Some of the Monticello’s strengths for attracting
businesses included:
f Land availability (compared to Metro Area).
f Access to major highways (I-94, U.S. 10 and STH
25).
f Regional growth of employment base.
f Development of local fiber optic system.
f Proximity to universities.
f Overall location.
f Expansive park system.
f Monticello Community Center.
Recommended business development activities that
apply to the attraction and retention of all businesses
include ensuring that there are sites suitable and
attractive to potential businesses available and ready
for development. The community should continue to
explore and establish partnerships with a variety of
stakeholders that can work together to support business
attraction and retention. This includes the identification
of funding sources which may be an incentive for
businesses locating in Monticello. When available the
City should participate in special tax zones that have
been made available at the state and federal level to
support business development and retention.
Expanding the Tax Base
A traditional objective of local economic development
planning is the expansion of the property tax base.
Under the current system of local government finance,
property taxes are the largest source of city revenue.
For this reason, it is an important aspect of economic
development planning in Monticello.
Understanding the Property Tax System
Effective strategies to promote the growth of the tax
base require a clear understanding of the property tax
system.
Property Valuation
There are three forms of property valuation. The
foundation of the property tax system is Estimated
Market Value. This amount is the value of a parcel
of property as set by the County Assessor. In some
circumstances, the State Legislature limits the amount
of Estimated Market Value that can be used for taxation.
These adjustments result in the Taxable Market Value.
The value used to calculate property taxes is Tax
Capacity. Tax Capacity Value is a percentage of Taxable
Market Value. The percentage factors are set by the
State Legislature and vary by class of property.
Changes in the Tax System
Traditional economic development theory seeks
commercial and industrial development as a means of
building tax base. Historically, the system supported
this approach. A dollar of estimated market value of
commercial-industrial property carried a higher tax
capacity value than residential property. Over the past
twelve years, tax “reforms” by the State Legislature have
changed this situation.
4-4 | Economic Development City of Monticello
Industrial Retail Office Single Townhome Apt
Acres 10 10 10 10 10 10
Coverage 30%30%30%3 6 12
Development (SF or Units)130,680 130,680 130,680 30 60 120
EMV per SF or Unit 65 80 100 400,000 250,000 150,000
EMV 8,494,200 10,454,400 13,068,000 12,000,000 15,000,000 18,000,000
Tax Capacity 169,134 208,338 260,610 120,000 150,000 225,000
Figure 4-3: Tax Capacity Comparison
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,00
1997 19981999200020012002 to 2012
Ta
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
Figure 4-2: Changes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial/Industrial
Economic Development | 4-52008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
The chart in Figure 4-2 shows how legislative changes
have reduced the tax base created by commercial-
industrial development. This chart is based on the
tax capacity value for $3,000,000 of Taxable Market
Value. The legislative changes in the rates used to set
tax capacity mean that this property produced 56% less
tax base in 2012 than in 1997.
This trend takes on additional meaning when compared
to other classifications of property. Figure 4-3
compares the tax capacity value for the primary forms
of development in Monticello. The valuations in this
chart are based on assumptions about the density
of development and estimated market value of new
development. Changes in these assumptions will alter
the results.
This chart clearly illustrates the current reality for
economic development strategies. All forms of
development contribute tax base to the community.
It is risky placing too much weight on one type of
development for tax base growth. In addition, cities
do not control the critical elements of the tax system.
Changes in the system lead to unanticipated results at
the local level.
Tax base growth has implications that are unique
to Monticello. The chart in Figure 4-4 shows the
distribution of taxes payable in 2011. Utilities, likely
largely Xcel Energy, contributes about one-third of
the City’s taxes, while both commercial/industrial and
residential uses contribute 28% each.
Enhancing Downtown
Maintaining a successful Downtown is an important
element of the economic development plan for
Monticello. Downtown is a key business district
providing goods, services and jobs for the community.
Downtown is unlike any other business district because
of its unique role in Monticello’s identity and heritage.
The Land Use chapter describes plans, policies and
strategies related to Downtown Monticello. Downtown
is part of the Economic Development chapter because
of the likelihood that city actions and investments
will be needed to achieve community objectives for
Downtown. This intervention may include:
f Public improvements to provide services or to
enhance the Downtown environment.
f Provision of adequate parking supply.
f Acquisition of land.
f Preparation of sites for development.
f Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement or other finance tools available
to the City.
In 2011 the City of Monticello conducted a retail market
study for Downtown Monticello. The report, Embracing
Downtown Monticello, has been incorporated in the
Comprehensive Plan as an appendix and serves as a
resource for the implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. The study included many components including
an identification and analysis of existing businesses,
evaluation of shopping areas that are competition for
Downtown, a survey of customers, delineation of the
trade area, and the establishment of market demand
for various businesses.
Figure 4-4: Distribution of 2011 Taxes Payable
Public Utility
5,910,074
34%
Residential
Homestead
4,886,235
28%
Commercial/Industrial
4,846,152
28%
All Other
1,757,819
10%
4-6 | Economic Development City of Monticello
Some findings of the study included:
f Downtown Monticello enjoys a strategic location
between the Mississippi River and I-94. This
focuses traffic on TH-25 resulting in traffic counts
higher than south of I-94
f Due to physical barriers created by the Mississippi
River and I-94, about one-third of Downtown and
secondary trade area shoppers must pass through
Downtown Monticello to reach the shopping areas
south of I-94.
f Downtown has the largest concentration of
shopping goods stores and restaurants.
f Downtown’s trade area population was estimated at
93,500 in 2010 and is projected to have an annual
growth rate of 2.2%.
f Monticello’s large anchor stores (Cub Foods,
SuperTarget, Walmart and Home Depot) create
a secondary trade area. The population of the
combined Downtown and secondary trade areas
was 127,190 in 2010.
f CentraCare Health System, with 25 beds and 600
employees has established Monticello as a regional
medical center.
f Increased residential development stimulates
increased commercial development. The recent
economic conditions have slowed residential
development, thus resulting in reduced tenant
demand for retail space.
f Additional retail space in Downtown Monticello
can be supported by the trade area population. A
range of store types can be considered including
shopping goods, convenience goods, and food
establishments. Downtown’s existing wide variety
of services limits potential future opportunities.
However, market research indicates that Monticello
could support additional medical practices.
Figure 4-5: Embracing Downtown Monticello Primary and Secondary Trade Areas
Economic Development | 4-72008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Facilitating Redevelopment
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create a place where
land use plans, policies and controls work together with
private investment to properly maintain all properties
in Monticello. It is recognized that this approach may
not succeed in all locations. Despite the best plans
and intentions, properties may become physically
deteriorated and/or economically inviable. In such
places, city intervention may be need to facilitate
redevelopment and prevent the spread of blight. This
intervention may include:
f Acquisition of land.
f Preparation of sites for development.
f Construction or reconstruction of public
improvements.
f Provision of adequate parking supply.
f Remediation of polluted land as needed.
f Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement or other finance tools available
to the City.
Development Strategies
The following strategies will be used to implement
the Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic
Development:
1. The City must use the Comprehensive Plan
to provide adequate locations for future job-
producing development (Places to Work).
2. The City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan
to encourage stable business setting and promote
investment and expansion of facilities.
3. The City should coordinate utility planning
and manage other development to ensure that
expansion areas are capable of supporting new
development in a timely manner.
4. The City will continue to work with existing
businesses to maintain an excellent business
environment, retain jobs and facilitate expansions.
5. In addition to assisting business seeking to locate
in Monticello, the City should actively target and
market to businesses which will be a supplier,
customer or collaborative partner to existing
businesses within the community.
6. The City should target and market to businesses
which would benefit from Monticello’s utility and
communications infrastructure.
7. The City will work with the CentraCare Health
System to ensure the retention and to promote the
expansion of health care services in Monticello.
8. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
maintain and enhance the quality of life in
Monticello as a tool for attracting businesses and
jobs.
Economic Development | 4-12008 Comprehensive Plan
Ideally, the Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Develop-
ment chapter. Th e Land Use Plan would be suffi cient to channel market
forces to meet the development objectives of the community. In reality,
certain development needs cannot be met without public intervention.
Th e Economic Development chapter of the Plan focuses on the aspects
of Monticello’s future that require particular attention and action by the
City. Th ese actions include:
Attracting jobs
Expanding the tax base
Enhancing the economic vitality of Downtown
Facilitating redevelopment
Attracting Jobs
Th e creation and retention of jobs is one of the most important objec-
tives for Monticello. Jobs, particularly jobs with income levels capable of
supporting a family, are key to achieving many elements of Monticello’s
vision for the future.
Jobs attract residents to the community. Jobs will pay a critical role in
creating the type of “move up” housing sought by the City.
Jobs provide the income needed to support local business and govern-
ment services.
Retention of businesses promote community stability by keeping jobs
and residents in Monticello
Th e Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains a
section on Employment. Th is section contains data about employment
in Monticello and of its residents. Among the key fi ndings in this section
are:
Monticello has been a net importer of employment - there are more
jobs in Monticello than workers living in the community. According
to the 2000 Census, 5,111 people reported working in Monticello while
4,262 Monticello residents were part of the civilian labor force.
4
Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Develop-
er. Th e Land Use Plan would be suffi cient to channel market
eet the development objectives of the community. In reality,
elopmentneedscannotbemetwithoutpublicintervention
Economic Development
Chapter Contents
Attracting Jobs ............................4-1
Expanding the Tax Base ............4-2
Enhancing Downtown ...............4-5
Facilitating Redevelopment .....4-5
Development Strategies ...........4-5
4-2 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello
Th e job base in Monticello is made up of a wide
range of small to medium sized employers. In 2007,
Only fi ve employers report more than 100 employ-
ees, Monticello Public Schools, Xcel Energy, Cargill
Kitchen Solutions, Monticello-Big Lake Hospital,
and Ultra Machining Company (according to listing
of major employers from Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development).
Workers for Monticello businesses come primar-
ily from Monticello and the surrounding region.
Over 80% of people working in Monticello lived
in Monticello, adjacent townships, Big Lake, or
other places in Wright and Sherburne counties
(2000 Census).
Th e 2000 Census found that only 26% of people
working Monticello also lived in the city.
69% of working Monticello residents held jobs in
other places (2000 Census). More than one-third
worked in Hennepin County.
Th e 2000 Census reported a mean travel time to
work of 26 minutes. 45% of Monticello workers
indicated travel time to work of 30 minutes or
more.
In 2007, St. Cloud State University conducted an as-
sessment of establishing a bioscience park in Mon-
ticello. Th e results of this study provide important
insights on future job growth. Th e study identifi ed
a series “strengths” for attracting bioscience fi rms to
Monticello:
Land availability (compared to Metro Area).
Access to major highways (I-94, U.S. 10 and STH
25).
Regional growth of employment base.
Development of local fi ber optic system.
Proximity to universities.
Overall location.
Expansive park system.
Monticello Community Center.
Many of these factors would also apply to attracting
other types of businesses.
Th e St. Cloud State study also made note of several
weaknesses in attracting these business to the com-
munity. Th e list included:
Lack of hotels and lodging.
No defi ned plan.
Small community.
Low tax base.
Th e recommendations of this Study apply to eff orts to
establishing a bioscience park and to overall develop-
ment of Places to Work:
Site Location - Need to have site that are suitable
and attractive to potential businesses available and
ready for development.
Funding - Funding is essential to provide sites and
for incentives to attract and retain the appropriate
businesses. Local, state and private funding sources
should be explored.
Tax treatment - Th e City gains important tools
from special tax zones that have been made avail-
able at state and federal level.
Partnerships - Attracting jobs to Monticello re-
quires partnerships with other stakeholders.
Expanding the Tax Base
A traditional objective of local economic development
planning is the expansion of the property tax base.
Under the current system of local government fi nance,
property taxes are the largest source of city revenue.
For this reason, it is an important aspect of economic
development planning in Monticello.
Understanding the Property Tax System
Eff ective strategies to promote the growth of the tax
base require a clear understanding of the property tax
system.
Property Valuation
Th ere are three forms of property valuation. Th e foun-
dation of the property tax system is Estimated Market
Value. Th is amount is the value of a parcel of property
as set by the County Assessor. In some circumstances,
the State Legislature limits the amount of Estimated
Economic Development | 4-32008 Comprehensive Plan
Market Value that can be used for taxation. Th ese adjustments result in
the Taxable Market Value. Th e value used to calculate property taxes is
Tax Capacity. Tax Capacity Value is a percentage of Taxable Market Value.
Th e percentage factors are set by the State Legislature and vary by class
of property.
Changes in the Tax System
Traditional economic development theory seeks commercial and in-
dustrial development as a means of building tax base. Historically, the
system supported this approach. A dollar of estimated market value of
commercial-industrial property carried a higher tax capacity value than
residential property. Over the past twelve years, tax “reforms” by the State
Legislature have changed this situation.
Th e chart in Figure 4-1 shows how legislative changes have reduced the
tax base created by commercial-industrial development. Th is chart is
based on the tax capacity value for $3,000,000 of Taxable Market Value.
Th e legislative changes in the rates used to set tax capacity mean that this
property produced 56% less tax base in 2007 than in 1997.
Th is trend takes on additional meaning when compared to other classi-
fi cations of property. Figure 4-2 compares the tax capacity value for the
primary forms of development in Monticello. Th e valuations in this chart
are based on assumptions about the density of development and estimated
market value of new development. Changes in these assumptions will
alter the results.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
199719981999200020012002 to 2007
Ta
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
Figure 4-1: Changes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial/Industrial
4-4 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello
Industrial Retail Offi ce Single Townhome Apt
Acres101010101010
Coverage30%30%30%3612
Development (SF or Units)130,680130,680130,6803060120
EMV per SF or Unit6580100400,000250,000150,000
EMV 8,494,20010,454,40013,068,00012,000,00015,000,00018,000,000
Tax Capacity169,134208,338260,610120,000150,000225,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
IndustrialRetailOfficeSingleTownhomeApt
Ta
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
Figure 4-2: Tax Capacity Comparison
Figure 4-3: Tax Capacity Comparison
Other "Larger"
6%
Xcel Energy
39%
All Other Tax Capacity
55%
Economic Development | 4-52008 Comprehensive Plan
Th is chart clearly illustrates the current reality for eco-
nomic development strategies. All forms of develop-
ment contribute tax base to the community. It is risky
placing too much weight on one type of development
for tax base growth. In addition, cities do not control
the critical elements of the tax system. Changes in the
system lead to unanticipated results at the local level.
Tax base growth has implications that are unique to
Monticello. Th e chart in Figure 4-3 shows the distribu-
tion of taxable (Tax Capacity) value in Monticello. Xcel
Energy creates almost 40% of the City’s tax base. While
it has provided a unique asset for the community, it
is essential that the tax base become more diversifi ed.
Enhancing Downtown
Maintaining a successful Downtown is an important
element of the economic development plan for Mon-
ticello. Downtown is a key business district providing
goods, services and jobs for the community. Down-
town is unlike any other business district because of its
unique role in Monticello’s identity and heritage.
Th e Land Use chapter describes plans, policies and
strategies related to Downtown Monticello. Downtown
is part of the Economic Development chapter because
of the likelihood that city actions and investments will
be needed to achieve community objectives for Down-
town. Th is intervention may include:
Public improvements to provide services or to
enhance the Downtown environment.
Provision of adequate parking supply.
Acquisition of land.
Preparation of sites for development.
Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
Th ese actions may require the use of tax increment
fi nancing, tax abatement or other fi nance tools avail-
able to the City.
Facilitating Redevelopment
Th e Comprehensive Plan seeks to create a place where
land use plans, policies and controls work together with
private investment to properly maintain all properties
in Monticello. It is recognized that this approach may
not succeed in all locations. Despite the best plans and
intentions, properties may become physically deterio-
rated and/or economically inviable. In such places, city
intervention may be need to facilitate redevelopment
and prevent the spread of blight. Th is intervention
may include:
Acquisition of land.
Preparation of sites for development.
Remediation of polluted land.
Construction or reconstruction of public improve-
ments.
Provision of adequate parking supply.
Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
Th ese actions may require the use of tax increment
fi nancing, tax abatement or other fi nance tools avail-
able to the City.
Development Strategies
Th e following strategies will be used to implement the
Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic Develop-
ment:
Th e City must use the Comprehensive Plan to pro-1.
vide adequate locations for future job-producing
development (Places to Work).
Th e City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan 2.
to encourage stable business setting and promote
investment and expansion of facilities.
Th e City should coordinate utility planning and 3.
manage other development to ensure that expan-
sion areas are capable of supporting new develop-
ment in a timely manner.
Th e City should evaluate the need and feasibility 4.
of additional city-owned business parks as a means
attracting the desired businesses.
4-6 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello
Th e City should establish a plan to evaluate the 5.
feasibility of implementing the recommendation
of the St. Cloud State study and if feasible to take
necessary action to attract bioscience businesses
to Monticello.
Th e City will continue to work with existing busi-6.
nesses to maintain an excellent business environ-
ment, retain jobs and facilitate expansions.
Th e City will work with the Monticello-Big Lake 7.
Hospital to ensure the retention and to promote the
expansion of health care services in Monticello.
Th e City will use the Comprehensive Plan to main-8.
tain and enhance the quality of life in Monticello as
a tool for attracting businesses and jobs.
Community Context | 2-12008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-1: Regional Setting
Monticello
2Community Context
Chapter Contents
Physical Characteristics .............2-1
Location .....................................2-1
Planning Context .....................2-2
Existing Land Use ....................2-2
Street System ............................2-4
Orderly Annexation ................2-4
Growth ..........................................2-9
Housing ........................................2-9
Housing Type ............................2-9
Age of Housing ......................2-10
Age of Householder ..............2-11
Households .............................2-12
Mobility ...................................2-14
Demographics ...........................2-15
Age ...........................................2-15
Race ..........................................2-16
Income.....................................2-18
Educational Attainment .......2-19
Occupation .............................2-20
Commuting ............................2-21
Employment ...........................2-22
St. Cloud
Big Lake
St. PaulMinneapolis
Twin Cities Region
Planning for the future does not start on a clean slate. The future will be
built on the foundation of Monticello as it exists today. The Monticello of
today has evolved over time, shaped by a variety of forces. These forces
will continue to shape the community into the future.
The Community Context section of the Comprehensive Plan examines
a variety of forces and factors affecting development of Monticello. A
clear understanding of these influences provides the context for planning
decisions.
This Community Context chapter was updated in the first quarter of 2013
to incorporate updated data since the 2008 plan was prepared. This includes
references to the findings from the 2008 Natural Resource Inventory &
Assessment, 2011 Transportation Plan, the 2010 Census and the 2007-
2011 American Community Survey.
Community indicator analysis now includes both the U.S. Census and
the American Community Survey as the U.S. Census eliminated its
historical long-form in the late 2000s. The long-form was replaced by the
American Community Survey, an ongoing survey that is sent to a sample
of the population each year. Data collected is analyzed and provided to
communities on an annual basis as five-year averages. ACS is now the
source for most socio-economic, income, household, and workforce data.
As is commonly the case, some data previously analyzed in this chapter
are no longer historically comparable. This is usually due to changes in the
wording of questions and responses, as well as challenges in comparing
monetary values across years. Historical comparisons have been provided
where ever possible.
Physical Characteristics
Location
Monticello’s location is a critical factor for the future. Monticello is centrally
located between the Minneapolis/St. Paul and St. Cloud metropolitan areas
on the Interstate 94 corridor (see Figure 2-1). State Highway 25 is a key
north/south corridor on the west edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan
2-2 | Community Context City of Monticello
area. This highway (with the Mississippi River bridge)
connects Sherburne County and other exurban areas
with jobs and services in the Twin Cities. STH 25 is
an important route to recreational areas in northern
Minnesota. In the future, this highway will serve as
the connection with commuter rail transit service in
Big Lake.
This location presents both opportunities and
challenges to Monticello’s future:
f The highway system provides convenient access to
employment, goods and services in the Twin Cities
region. This location allows people to enjoy the
small town environment and lower housing costs
of Monticello while drawing upon employment and
amenities of the Twin Cities.
f This location makes Monticello vulnerable to
increased fuel costs, traffic congestion and travel
time to work.
f Location and accessibility allow Monticello to
become an important center for employment,
services and shopping between St. Cloud and
Minneapolis.
f Thousands of cars travel through Monticello every
day. These vehicles increase the potential market
for local business. On the downside, these trips
add to traffic congestion in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks ways to seize the
opportunities and to mitigate the threats created by
Monticello’s location.
Planning Context
The map in Figure 2-2 is a composite of key physical
factors influencing future growth and development:
f Existing land use.
f Potential future street corridors, highway
interchanges and highway bridges.
f Planned expansion of the sanitary sewer system.
f Existing powerline corridors.
f Watershed breaklines.
f Public waters and wetlands.
This map illustrates the location and type of physical
factors that will shape future development of Monticello.
This map was used to form and evaluate land use
alternatives during the planning process.
The section that follows explains these physical factors
in greater detail.
Existing Land Use
The planning process began with the investigation and
analysis of existing land use. Monticello is constantly
changing. Development converts vacant land to built
uses. Redevelopment changes the character and,
at times, the use of land. The map in Figure 2-2 is
a snapshot of Monticello in 2007. This information
forms the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan by
describing:
f The nature and diversity of land uses in Monticello.
f The relationships between built and natural
features of the community.
f Areas with potential capacity to accommodate
future growth.
The map of existing land uses divides Monticello into
a series of residential, commercial, industrial and
public use types. A brief description of each category
of existing land use follows.
Single Family Residential - Traditional single family
neighborhoods where housing units are “unattached”
to one another.
2 to 8 Units - Forms of housing with two to eight units
attached to one another or in a common structure, most
commonly duplexes, twin homes and townhouses.
8+ Units - Higher density residential land uses with
structures containing multiple housing units including
apartments and condominiums.
Manufactured Home Park – Areas that are exclusively
designed for manufactured housing units.
Commercial – Primarily retail and service businesses.
The map shows properties that are currently planned
for commercial use, but have not yet developed.
Industrial - All forms of businesses with manufacturing,
distribution, warehousing or other industrial use. The
Community Context | 2-32008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-2: Planning Context
2-4 | Community Context City of Monticello
map shows properties that are currently planned for
industrial use, but have not yet developed.
K-12 School – Elementary, middle and high schools.
Institutional – Churches, cemeteries, hospitals and
other quasi-public land uses.
Public – Property owned by local (not school), state
and federal governments.
Park - Property in the public park system.
Private Recreation Facility – Golf courses and the
YMCA camp.
Railroad – Rail right-of-way.
Utility – Power plant.
Agricultural - Land outside of the city limits and not
occupied by some other land use.
Natural Features
The natural environment has shaped Monticello’s past
and will influence its future. The original community
grew along the Mississippi River. As Monticello grew
away from the River, flat land and reasonable soils
facilitated suburban growth. Looking to the future,
natural features will continue to influence development:
f Much of the prime farm land (as classified by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
Wright County) is located in the southeastern
sections of the community.
f Abundant aggregate resources create the potential
for mining in future growth areas.
f Lakes, wetlands and wooded areas offer amenities
to attract development and also to be protected.
In 2008, the City of Monticello adopted a Natural
Resource Inventory and Assessment (NRI/A). The
NRI/A is a set of maps and analysis information on
land, water and air resources. Monticello’s NRI/A
also prioritized these resources based on their quality,
character and community value.
The map in Figure 2-4 shows natural features in
and around Monticello, including sites of Ecological
Significance/Community Importance and High Quality
Natural Areas from the NRI/A.
Street System
The street system continues to play a key role in the
form and function of the community. Streets provide
access to property and the ability for land to develop.
Commercial and industrial land uses rely on this
access to conduct business. Streets allow people
to move throughout the community. The physical
design of streets influences the character of residential
neighborhoods and commercial districts.
The best way to describe the street system is in terms
of its functional classification (see Figure 2-5). Each
street serves a specific function. The pieces of the
street system must fit together to achieve the desired
functional outcomes. Monticello’s street system
consists of five functional classifications: Major
Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local Streets.
f Major Arterial streets represent regional
transportation corridors that connect Monticello
with other cities. Only I-94 is in this classification.
f Minor Arterials are roadways connect Monticello
with the surrounding region. Within Monticello,
Minor Arterials connect districts and other
destinations. The safe and efficient movement of
vehicles is the most important function of these
streets. State Highway 25 and Broadway/County
75 east of Highway 25 are minor arterials.
f Collector streets form the link between arterials and
local streets. As the name suggests, these streets
are intended to “collect” traffic from an area and
channel it into the arterial system. Collector streets
are typically limited in distance to discourage use
for longer trips. Their design typically places equal
emphasis on mobility and access.
f All other streets in Monticello are local streets.
These streets emphasize access to property. They
are typically designed for shorter distances and
lower speeds.
Orderly Annexation
In 2005, the City of Monticello and Monticello Township
entered into an orderly annexation agreement covering
the property surrounding the City (see Figure 2-6).
Community Context | 2-52008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use (2007)
39
2-6 | Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2-4: Natural Resources
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦9 4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
Orderly
Annexation
Area
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Sites of Ecological Significance
High Quality Natural Area
MnDNR FEMA Floodplain
Prime Farmland
Aggregate Resources
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
Orderly
Annexation
Area
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Sites of Ecological Significance
High Quality Natural Area
MnDNR FEMA Floodplain
Prime Farmland
Aggregate Resources
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
Community Context | 2-72008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-5: Street System
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦9 4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
Orderly
Annexation
Area
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦9 4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
Orderly
Annexation
Area
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
2-8 | Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2-6: Orderly Annexation Area
Community Context | 2-92008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
This agreement provides a means for the orderly
development of the community without contentious
annexations. It also protects rural portions of the
Township from urbanization. All of the development
shown in the Comprehensive Plan occurs within the
orderly annexation area.
Growth
Monticello celebrated its 150th birthday in 2006. For
most of this time, Monticello was a small town on
the banks of the Mississippi River. Over the past 30
years, the suburban expansion of the Twin Cities has
brought new growth in Monticello. In 1970, the City’s
population totalled 1,636. By 2010, the population had
grown to 12,759 (see Figure 2-7). Between 2000 and
2010, the community grew by 62%.
As shown in Figure 2-8, most of the community’s
growth came in the first half of the decade. From 2000
to 2005, the City issued an average of 219 new housing
permits per year. In 2006, the overall slowdown in
the housing market dropped new growth to just 77
new units. This growth trend continued with only 47
permits issued in 2007 and 18 in 2008. After dropping to
only 2 permits each in 2010 and 2011, housing growth
started to rebound in 2012 with 22 permits.
Prior to the housing slowdown Monticello was seeing
a shift from traditional single-family detached housing
to single-family attached housing. In 2004 and 2005,
there were more single-family attached homes built.
However, attached housing development seems to have
stopped with the slowdown and not yet recovered as the
City has not seen any new attached housing since 2008.
Housing
Housing is a critical part of the context of planning for
the future of Monticello. It is the single largest form of
built land use. Housing shapes the form and character
of the community. It influences who lives in Monticello
today and in the future.
Housing Type
Figure 2-9 shows the growth in Monticello’s housing
stock. Between the 2000 Census and the 2007-2011
ACS, Monticello added 1,933 new units, a 64% increase
in the total number of units. Single-family detached
housing remains the most prevalent housing type at
55% of all units.
Figure 2-7: Population Trends 1970-2010
Figure 2-8: Building Permits for New Housing
Figure 2-9: Housing Type
145
224
184
156
82
126
67
12 9 2 2
222218
31
48
147
130
10 6 0 0 0 00
50
100
150
200
250
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Single-family detached Single-family attached
1,636 1,830
4,941
7,868
12,759
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
90
3
13
1
12
6
92
44
7
20
9
1,
7
7
1
34
7
14
5
53
47
9
21
0
2,
7
1
3
77
5
15
6
10
9
79
0
39
5
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1-unit detached 1-unit attached 2 to 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 or more units Mobile home, trailer,
or other
Al
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
1990 2000 2007-2011
2-10 | Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2-10: Regional Housing Type Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)Also seen in Figure 2-8, the fastest
growing housing type between
2000 and the 2007-2011 ACS was
1-unit attached housing units.
The proportion of these units of
all units rose from 7% in 1990 to
16% in the 2007-2011 ACS. Single-
family attached units are defined
as 1-unit structure that has one or
more walls extending from ground
to roof separating it from adjoining
structures. Common forms are
twinhomes, townhomes, or row
houses.
A comparison of Monticello to
Wright County and the Twin Cities
SMSA in Figure 2-10 shows that the
community has generally the same
mix of housing units as the Twin
Cities SMSA. The mix is different
than Wright County, which is to be
expected given its rural nature.
The 2007-2011 ACS identifies
20% of the population as living in
rental housing units. Over half of
all renters live in structures with
more than 5 units, while one-third
live in single-family structures. The
distribution of renters in Monticello
is similar to the Twin Cities SMSA.
Age of Housing
Given the growth of Monticello,
it is not surprising to find that the
housing stock is relatively new,
especially when compared to the
Twin Cities SMSA. One-third of
the housing stock in the 2007-2011
ACS was built in 2000 or later (see
Figure 2-12). Only 24% of all units
were built before 1970. Rental
units tend to be older with 40% of
all rental units being built before
1970 as compared to only 18% of
owned units.
55
%
16
%
1%2%2%
5%
11
%
8%
78
%
9%
0%1%1%2%4%5%
61
%
11
%
3%
2%2%4%
15
%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1-unit,
detached
1-unit,
attached
2 units 3 or 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units 20 or more
units
Mobile home
Al
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Monticello Wright Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-11: Regional Housing Type and Tenure Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
73
%
7%
1%2%
0%
12
%
85
%
7%
0%1%
0%
4%
72
%
8%
1%
3%
2%
13
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Owner SF Renter SF Owner 2 to 4 Renter 2 to 4 Owner 5 or more Renter 5 or more
Al
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
-
20
0
7
-20
1
1
Monticello Wright Twin Cities SMSA
Community Context | 2-112008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-12: Regional Year Built Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
Figure 2-13: Year Built/Tenure/Age of Householder (2007-2011 ACS)
Age of Householder
Figure 2-13 connects the age of
the housing with the age of the
householder and status as renter
or owner across all households in
Monticello. Analysis of this data
shows:
f 25% of all households are
headed by owners aged 35-64
who are living in homes built
between 1980 and 1999.
f Of households headed by
individuals aged 15 to 34, 40%
are owners who live in a home
built since 2000, while 21% were
renters who live in a home built
before 1980.
f 57% of all households are
headed by those aged 35 to 64,
82% of those in that age bracket
are homeowners.
f 61% of senior households
(householder age 65 and older)
lived in owned housing. Of
renters, 59% live in units built
between 1980 and 1999.
f 41% of rental units are occupied
by households headed by
persons age 34 or younger,
while 21% are occupied by
seniors.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Built 2005
or later
Built 2000
to 2004
Built 1990
to 1999
Built 1980
to 1989
Built 1970
to 1979
Built 1960
to 1969
Built 1950
to 1959
Built 1940
to 1949
Built 1939
or earlier
Year Built
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
15-34
35-64
65+
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Own
2000 or
later Own
1980 to
1999 Own
Before
1980 Rent
2000 or
later Rent
1980 to
1999 Rent
Before
1980
2-12 | Community Context City of Monticello
Households
A household includes all the people
who occupy a housing unit as
their usual place of residence.
Household characteristics offer
another perspective on the people
living in Monticello:
f 67% of Monticello households
are family households (see
Figure 2-14). This compares
with 74% for the entire County
and 64% for the region.
f 49% of all Monticello family
households include a married
couple. This is down from 53%
in 2000 and 56% in 1990.
f 43% of all households included
children under the age of 18.
Only 33% of all households in
the region contained children.
f Of the 1,749 households added
from 2000 to 2010, 63% were
family households. Of these
new family households, 69%
were married couple families.
Monticello has a smaller proportion
of nonfamily households than the
region as a whole (33% to 36%), but
more than Wright County (26%).
Monticello’s nonfamily households
consist largely of the householder
living alone (78% of nonfamily
households).
Marital status provides another view
of the general family orientation of
Monticello. The 2007-2011 ACS
indicates that 55% of the population
(age 15 and older) is currently
married. This is a lower level than
reported for the County, but above
the regional average (see Figure
2-16).
Figure 2-15: Household Type (1990 and 2000)
Figure 2-14: Regional Comparison of Household Type
28
%
21
%
12
%
6%
33
%
31
%
30
%
8%
5%
26
%
23
%
27
%
8%
6%
35
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Married - children <18 Married - other Other family - children
<18
Other family - other Nonfamily
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
1,777
1,285
987
492 394
2,944
2,066
1,550
878 698
4,693
3,164
2,311
1,529
1,197
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Total households Family households
(families)
Married-couple family Nonfamily households Householder living alone
1990 2000 2010
A Family Household includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related
to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may contain people not related to the
householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder’s family in census tabulations. This
means that the population living in family household may exceed the population of families.
Nonfamiliy Households contain a group of unrelated people or one person living alone.
The Householder is the person in whose name the home is owned or rented.
Community Context | 2-132008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
The Census shows several trends
about the size of each household:
f The economy has slightly
reversed the historical trend
of households getting smaller.
While the average size of a
household dropped from 2.73
in 1990 to 2.64 in 2000, it
increased to 2.68 in 2010. (see
Figure 2-17).
f The rebound of household size
is due to renters where the
household size rose from 1.97
in 2000 to 2.25 in 2010. The size
of owner households continued
to drop between 2000 and 2010.
f The average household living in
owned housing is larger (2.85
people per household) than
the typical household in rental
housing (2.25 people).
f For each household and family
type in Figure 2-18, Monticello
has fewer people per household/
family than for Wright County
as a whole. However, it is larger
than the Twin Cities SMSA.
Figure 2-17: Household Size (1990 to 2010)
Figure 2-18: Regional Household Size Comparison (2010)
2.73
3.04
2.26
2.64
2.90
1.97
2.68 2.85
2.25
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
All households Owned housing Rental housing
1990 2000 2010
2.64
3.13
2.90
1.97
2.83
3.26
2.98
2.04
2.56
3.15
2.75
2.04
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Average household size Average family size Average household size - own Average household size - rent
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
27
%
55
%
1%
5%
11
%
24
%
63
%
1%
4%
8%
32
%
52
%
1%
4%
10
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Never married Now married, except
separated
Separated Widowed Divorced
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
n
d
o
l
d
e
r
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-16: Regional Marital Status Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
2-14 | Community Context City of Monticello
Mobility
Mobility is an important
characteristic of Monticello’s
population. Unfortunately, between
the 2000 Census and the 2007-2011
ACS the question changed from
residence in previous five years to
residence previous year. While this
change helps with understanding
mobility moving forward, it does
prevent historical comparisons at
this time.
In the 2007-2011 ACS, 83% of the
population lived in the same house
the previous year. This compares
to 90% for Wright County and
85% for the region. The Census
does not report movement within
Monticello (the population that
moved to a different house in
Monticello) during this period.
However, it does note that 7% of the
population came from elsewhere
in Wright County. Monticello had
a higher percentage than both the
county or region of people who had
moved from a different Minnesota
county (7%) or a different state (3%)
Another measure of mobility is
the year moved into their current
residence. In the 2007-2011 ACS,
74% of Monticello’s population had
moved into their current house
2000 or later. This compares to 62%
in Wright County and 60% in the
region.
These mobility statistics suggest
that Monticello’s population is
relatively new to the community.
These residents have had limited
time to form connections to
the community. The sense of
community history has a short time
horizon.
Figure 2-19: Regional Comparison of Residence Previous Year
Figure 2-20: Year Moved Into House (2000)
83
%
17
%
7%
10
%
7%
3%
90
%
10
%
5%6%
4%
1%
85
%
14
%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Same house Different house in
the U.S.
Same county Different county Same state Different state
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
46%
28%
18%
5%
2%1%
35%
28%
21%
9%
5%3%
38%
21%21%
10%
5%4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2005 or later 2000 to 2004 1990 to 1999 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or earlier
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Community Context | 2-152008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Demographics
A comprehensive plan focuses
most closely on the physical aspects
of community - land use, parks,
streets, and utilities. Planning
must recognize that the physical
and social aspects of community
are intertwined. It is impossible to
plan for the future without a careful
examination of the demographic,
social and economic characteristics
of the community.
Age
Monticello’s population increased
from 4,941 in 1990 to 12,759 in
2010, a 158% increase. As shown in
Figure 2-21, the population grew in
all age brackets.
An issue raised at community
meetings was that Monticello is
a “starter” community. Young
families buy their first home in
Monticello, but move away later
in life. A comparison with Wright
County and the Twin Cities SMSA
does show that Monticello has a
larger percentage of families with
children (72%) than the Twin Cities
SMSA (63%).
Monticello has a smaller population
of older residents. Only 9% of the
2010 population was age 65 or
older. The senior population is
slightly smaller than for Wright
County (10%) or the Twin Cities
region (11%).
Monticello is a relatively young
community. The 2000 median age
of Monticello’s population was 32.4
years. This compares with 35 years
for the county and 37 years for the
region.
Figure 2-21: Age of Population
Figure 2-22: Age Distribution City/County/Region (2000)
507
1,303
1,915
697 519799
1,846
3,333
1,192
698
1,292
2,893
4,977
2,390
1,207
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Under 5 years 5 to 19/20 years 19/20 years to 44 45 to 64 Over 65 years
1990 2000 2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
65 and older 35 to 64 20 to 34 5 to 19 Under 5
2-16 | Community Context City of Monticello
Race
It is important to understand how
the Census addresses racial issues.
The Census allows people to select
the race or races with which they
most closely identify. The standards
for collecting and presenting data
on race and ethnicity were revised
for the 2000 Census. The new
guidelines are intended to reflect
“the increasing diversity of our
Nation’s population, stemming from
growth in interracial marriages and
immigration.” As a result, race data
from prior to 2000 is not directly
comparable.
An examination of Census data
shows diversity in Monticello did
increase from 3% in 2000 to 7%
in 2010. The racial diversity of
Monticello’s population is similar
to Wright County, but less than the
region as a whole (see Figure 2-24).
Another factor in understanding
race data is the reporting of the
Hispanic population. People who
identify their origin as Spanish,
Hispanic, or Latino are not classified
as a separate racial category. They
may be of any race. The number
of people reported as Hispanic or
Latino (of any race) rose from 160 in
2000 to 686 in 2010. Monticello’s 5%
proportion is notably greater than
Wright County’s 2% and the same
as the region.
School enrollment data collected
and reported by the Minnesota
Department of Education provides
a more current look at the racial
composition of Monticello’s
population. For the 2012/2013
school year, the four schools in
Figure 2-23: Race (1990 to 2010)
Figure 2-24: Regional Comparison of Race (2010)
Figure 2-25: Race of Elementary School Population (2006/07)
93%
2%1%1%2%2%
95%
1%0%1%1%2%
81%
7%
1%6%2%3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
White Black or African
American
American Indian and
Alaska Native
Asian Some other race Two or more races
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY
PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY
MONTICELLO MIDDLE
MONTICELLO SENIOR HIGH
American Indian Asian Hispanic Black White
7,
6
2
9
26 16 44 50 10
3
11
,
8
1
2
19
5
64 13
0
29
5
26
3
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
White Black or African
American
American Indian or
Native Alaskan
Asian Some other race Two or more races
2000 2010
Community Context | 2-172008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Monticello School District reported
that 9% of total enrollment was a
race other than white. (In this data,
Hispanic is classified as a category
of race) This is up from 7% in the
2006/2007 school year. The chart
in Figure 2-25 shows the racial
composition for each school. Little
Mountain Elementary has the most
diverse student population.
Another way of looking at the ethnic
characteristics of the population
is place of birth. Only 1.7% of
Monticello’s population was foreign
born in the 2007-2011 ACS. As
with race, the ratio of foreign born
residents is similar to county and
well below regional levels (see
Figure 2-26). Of note, the percent of
foreign born dropped slightly from
the 2000 Census.
The chart in Figure 2-27 compares
the place of birth for the foreign born
population. Latin America was the
most common place of birth for all
jurisdictions. 55% of Monticello’s
foreign born population was born
in Latin America.
Figure 2-27: Regional Place of Birth Foreign Born Population -Comparison
(2007-2011 ACS)
Figure 2-26: Regional Place of Birth Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
79
%
19
%
0%1%1%
81
%
16
%
0%1%1%
64
%
26
%
1%
4%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Native - born in MN Native - born in other
State
Native - born outside US Foreign born - naturalized
citizen
Foreign born - not a citizen
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
3%
9%
0%0%
55
%
33
%
17
%
24
%
11
%
1%
37
%
11
%
12
%
39
%
21
%
0%
26
%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Europe Asia Africa Oceania Latin America Northern America
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
2-18 | Community Context City of Monticello
Income
Income influences many aspects of
community. Income provides the
capacity to acquire housing (own
or rent) and to purchase goods
and services from local businesses.
Income influences the demand for
and the capacity to support public
services.
Census data shows that Monticello
has more households earning less
than $35,000 than the county. In
addition, the community has a
lower percentage of high income
households than either the county
or region. (see Figure 2-28).
Figure 2-29 compares Monticello
with other cities in the northwest
sector of the Twin Cities region.
For both measures of income,
Monticello falls below all
communities except Big Lake,
Becker, and Buffalo.
Data about the characteristics of
children enrolled in the public
school system provide some
insights about current economic
conditions. In the 20012/13 school
year, Monticello elementary schools
reported that 26% of the student
population was eligible for free
and reduced price lunches. This is
an increase from the 21% eligible
in 2006/2007 school year. For
individual schools, this segment of
the student population ranges from
less than 22% to 29% (see Figure
2-30).
Figure 2-28: Regional Income Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
25%
32%
37%
6%
21%
34%
37%
8%
25%
32%32%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than $35,000 $34,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $149,999 $150,000 and above
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-29: City Comparison Incomes (2007-2011 ACS)
66
,
7
4
8
77
,
0
3
8
84
,
6
6
1
83
,
8
9
0
64
,
1
4
8
67
,
7
5
0
66
,
2
0
0
74
,
2
0
8
63
,
5
3
3
76
,
0
3
4
70
,
2
2
4
83
,
9
5
2
73
,
7
1
1
77
,
7
5
7
94
,
7
6
9
99
,
9
4
0
86
,
1
6
3
89
,
2
2
0
69
,
6
7
4
78
,
5
4
3
66
,
1
5
7
82
,
4
4
8
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Median household Median family
Monticello Albertville Becker Big Lake
Buffalo Elk River Otsego Rogers
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
LITTLE MOUNTAIN
ELEMENTARY
PINEWOOD
ELEMENTARY
MONTICELLO MIDDLE MONTICELLO SENIOR
HIGH
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
S
c
h
o
o
l
Y
e
a
r
Enrollment Free Lunch
Figure 2-30: Socio-Economic Indicators Monticello Schools (20012/13)
Community Context | 2-192008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Educational Attainment
The Census shows an increase
in college education among
Monticello residents. From 1990 to
the 2007-2011 ACS, the percentage
of the population age 25 and older
who was a college graduate of
some type (associate, bachelor, or
graduate) rose from 21% to 38%. In
the 2007-2011 ACS, only 5% of the
population did not graduate from
high school.
The chart in Figure 2-32 compares
educational attainment in
Monticello with Wright County
and the region. Monticello has a
noticeably lower level of residents
with bachelors or graduate degrees
than the region.
Employment
Employment touches many aspects
of community life. Jobs provide
the income to pay for housing and
to purchase goods and services.
The location of jobs influences
the amount of time Monticello
residents are in the community each
day. Commuting decisions impact
transportation systems.
Labor Force
The Census looks at the potential
working population as persons
age 16 and older. The Labor Force
includes all people classified in the
civilian labor force, plus members
of the U.S. Armed Forces. The
Civilian Labor Force consists of
people classified as employed or
unemployed.
Monticello’s labor force grew with
the population from 1990 to the
2007-2011 ACS (see Figure 2-33).
Figure 2-31: Educational Attainment
Figure 2-32: Regional Educational Attainment Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Less than 9th
grade
9th to 12th
grade, no
diploma
High school
graduate
(includes
equivalency)
Some college, no
degree
Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or
professional
degree
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
n
d
o
l
d
e
r
1990 2000 2007-2011
7%
32
%
24
%
13
%
18
%
6%7%
33
%
24
%
11
%
19
%
6%7%
24
%
22
%
9%
25
%
12
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
No H.S. diploma High school graduate Some college, no
degree
Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or
professional degree
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
n
d
o
l
d
e
r
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
2-20 | Community Context City of Monticello
The share of the working age
population employed in the labor
force grew from 67% to 75%. It is
important to note, however, that
unemployment during the same
period also rose from 3.8% to 5.3%.
The increase in the employed
population primarily came from the
transition of folks not in the labor
force. This would include students,
stay at home parents, or seniors,
into the labor force. The percentage
of those classifying themselves as
not in the labor force dropped from
29% in 1990 to 20% in the 2007-
2011 ACS.
Occupation
Figure 2-34 compares the occupation
of Monticello’s population with the
county and region. Monticello
stands out with a lower percentage
of the working population employed
in managerial and professional
occupations. Unfortunately due
to changes in occupation coding,
historical comparisons of this data
is unavailable.
An examination of Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages
shows that between the 1st quarter
of 2002 to the 1st quarter of 2012,
Monticello did have an increase in
the number of establishments and
employees. Monticello’s 24% growth
in the number of employees was
greater than either Wright County
(18%) or the state (2%). Note that
given a change in data collection
methods, not all industries are
represented in the table. This data
shows a better overall growth than
was found in Table 2-5 of the 2010
Business Retention and Expansion
Research Report. That report looked
Figure 2-33: Population in the Labor Force
67%
4%
29%
76%
2%
21%
75%
5%
20%
75%
5%
20%
72%
5%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Employed Unemployed Not in labor force
%
o
f
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
g
e
1
6
a
n
d
O
v
e
r
1990 Monticello 2000 Monticello 2007-2011 Monticello 2007-2011 Wright County 2007-2011 Twin Cities SMSA
31
%
16
%
31
%
10
%
12
%
34
%
16
%
25
%
11
%
14
%
42
%
15
%
25
%
7%
11
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Management, business,
science, and arts
occupations
Service occupations Sales and office
occupations
Natural resources,
construction, and
maintenance
occupations
Production,
transportation, and
material moving
occupations
Ci
v
i
l
i
a
n
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
g
e
1
6
a
n
d
O
v
e
r
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-34: Regional Occupation Comparison
20022012% Change20022012% Change
Total, All Industries 338 374 11%5,992 7,427 24%
Manufacturing 26 23 ‐12%780 1,041 33%
Retail Trade 57 60 5%1,058 1,273 20%
Information 7 8 14%83 87 5%
Finance and Insurance 28 22 ‐21%149 129 ‐13%
Real Estate and Rental
and Leasing 14 18 29%36 32 ‐11%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 6 4 ‐33%88 93 6%
Accommodation and
Food Services 25 38 52%562 720 28%
Other Services (except
Public Administration)17 34 100%152 166 9%
Public Administration 2 4 100%113 155 37%
Number of EstablishmentsNumber of Employees
Figure 2-35: Monticello Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Community Context | 2-212008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
specifically at the change from 2008
to 2010 where there were losses
in retail trade, manufacturing,
accommodation and food service,
public administration, finance and
insurance, and arts, entertainment
and recreation.
Commuting
Travel to work data shows a very
automobile dependent pattern
(see Figures 2-36 and 2-37). The
percent of Monticello workers
driving alone to work increased
from 1990 (78%) to 2007-2011
ACS (86%). Less than 1 percent
of the labor force in Monticello
uses public transportation. More
people walked or worked at home
than used public transportation.
The share of workers that walked or
worked at home remained the same
at 5%. These commuting patterns
are reflective of other exurban
settings in the Twin Cities regions.
The employment and commuting
patterns contribute to the necessity
of owning an automobile in
Monticello. Only 7% of occupied
housing units did not have a vehicle
(see Figure 2-37). The percentage
of housing units with two or more
vehicles rose from 58% in 1990 to
65% in the 2007-2011 ACS.
The Census also collects data on
the average travel time to work.
The 2000 Census reported a mean
commute time of 24 minutes. In the
2007-2011 ACS, the mean travel
times to work were 28.5 minutes
for Monticello, 29.7 minutes for
Wright County, and 24.5 minutes
for the region.
78%
15%
1%1%5%
83%
12%
0%1%4%
86%
6%0%1%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Other means Walked or worked at
home
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
A
g
e
1
6
a
n
d
O
v
e
r
1990 2000 2007-2011
Figure 2-36: Means of Travel to Work
Figure 2-37: Regional Means of Travel to Work Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
86
%
6%
0%1%3%3%
84
%
8%
1%1%1%
5%
78
%
9%
5%
2%
2%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Walk Other Work at home
%
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
A
g
e
1
6
a
n
d
O
v
e
r
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
7%
28%
43%
22%
3%
22%
46%
29%
8%
31%
41%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
None 1 2 3 or more
%
o
f
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-38: Regional Comparison of Number of Vehicles (2007-2011 ACS)
2-22 | Community Context City of Monticello
Employment
The U.S. Census Center for
Economic Studies now provides
local employment dynamic data
on its OntheMap website. 2010
data from that website shows that
Monticello provided employment
for 4,684 workers and had 5,432
residents in the workforce (see
Figure 2-39). Of those employed in
Monticello, only 17% also lived in
the community. Similarly, of those
who reside in Monticello, only 15%
work in the community. This means
that only 835 people both live and
work in the community. Figure 2-40
provides a snapshot of the inflow/
outflow for 2002 to 2010.
Figure 2-41 shows that Monticello
how well Monticello is able to
keep workers residing in the
community and residents working
in the community. While Monticello
has noticeably higher retention
rates than Becker, Big Lake and
Monticello, it has a lower rate than
Buffalo.
Figure 2-40 shows the place of
residence for people traveling to
Monticello for work. The bulk
of the work force continues to
comes from the area surrounding
Monticello. 30% of people working
in the community live elsewhere in
Wright County, including Buffalo
and St. Michael. Another 26% of
the workforce lives in Sherburne
County, including Becker and Big
Lake.
Nearly 40% of Monticello residents
work in Hennepin County, with the
largest percentages in Minneapolis,
Plymouth, and Maple Grove.
Another 15% work elsewhere in
Figure 2-39: OntheMap 2010 Inflow/Outflow Job Counts
Inflow/Outflow Report
Inflow/Outflow Job Counts(Primary Jobs)
2010
Count Share
Employed in the Selection
Area 4,684 100.0%
Employed in the Selection
Area but Living Outside 3,849 82.2%
Employed and Living in the
Selection Area 835 17.8%
Living in the Selection Area 5,432 100.0%
Living in the Selection Area
but Employed Outside 4,597 84.6%
Living and Employed in the
Selection Area 835 15.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
Notes:
1. Race, Ethnicity, Educational Attainment, and Sex statistics are beta release results and only
available for 2009 and 2010 data.
2. Educational Attainment is only produced for workers aged 30 and over.
Inflow/Outflow Report
Inflow/Outflow Job Counts(Primary Jobs)
2010
Count Share
Employed in the Selection
Area 4,684 100.0%
Employed in the Selection
Area but Living Outside 3,849 82.2%
Employed and Living in the
Selection Area 835 17.8%
Living in the Selection Area 5,432 100.0%
Living in the Selection Area
but Employed Outside 4,597 84.6%
Living and Employed in the
Selection Area 835 15.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
Notes:
1. Race, Ethnicity, Educational Attainment, and Sex statistics are beta release results and only
available for 2009 and 2010 data.
2. Educational Attainment is only produced for workers aged 30 and over.
Figure 2-41: OntheMap 2010 Inflow/Outflow Regional Comparison
Figure 2-40: OntheMap 2002-2010 Inflow/Outflow Job Counts
2002 2006 2010
Employees 3,906 4,239 4,684
% Workers Living in Monticello 20.5%20%17.8%
Residents Employed 4,400 4,835 5,432
% Residents Employed in Monticello 18.5%17.5%15.4%
15%
18%
22%22%
7%
10%
6%
12%
6%
16%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Resident Employed in City Employee Living in City
Monticello Buffalo Becker Big Lake St. Michael
Community Context | 2-232008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Wright County, including Buffalo
and St. Michael.
OntheMap provides an ability
compare the wages earned by
residents and workers (see Figure
2-44). The 2010 data shows that
a larger percentage of residents
are able to earn a higher wage
working outside the community
than within the community. It also
shows that the spread of incomes
for jobs within the community held
by non-residents has a generally
equal spread amongst all income
brackets.
Figure 2-45 compares the reported
educational attainment of
Monticello workers when provided.
This figure indicates that workers in
Big Lake (64%) and Becker (66%)
are slightly more educated than in
Monticello (63%). Buffalo has the
same mix as Monticello. At 60% St.
Michael has slightly lower higher
education levels than in Monticello.
Monticello,
15.4%
Minneapolis,
7.8%
Plymouth, 4.6%
Buffalo, 4.5%
Maple Grove,
4.3%
St. Cloud, 3.9%
Other Hennepin
County, 23.0%
Other Wright
County, 9.8%
Other
Sherburne
County, 7.7%
Ramsey County,
5.0%
Anoka County,
5.0%
Other Place,
9.0%Monticello,
17.8%
Big Lake, 5.9%
Buffalo, 4.0%
St. Michael,
3.5%
Becker, 3.0%
Other Wright
County, 22.2%
Other
Sherburne
County, 17.7%
Hennepin
County, 5.3%
Stearns County,
5.0%
Anoka County,
3.2%
Other Place,
12.4%
Figure 2-42: OntheMap 2010 Where Employees Live Figure 2-43: OntheMap 2010 Where Residents Work
Figure 2-44: OntheMap 2010 Income Comparison
Figure 2-45: OntheMap 2010 Education Attainment by Worker
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Bachelor's degree or
advanced degree
Some college or Associate
degree
High school or equivalent,
no college
Less than high school
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
More than $3,333 per
month
$1,251 to $3,333 per
month
$1,250 per month or less
2-24 | Community Context City of Monticello
OntheMap also enables a comparison of jobs by NAICS Industry Sector across communities for 2010. As shown
in Figure 2-43, the highest percentage of Monticello’s jobs are in the Retail Trade, Educational Services, and Health
Care and Social Assistance sectors. Monticello’s 11.6% of manufacturing jobs is less than Becker and Big Lake
but larger than St. Michael and Buffalo. When analyzing this table it is important to remember that Monticello
has 4,684 jobs while Buffalo has 5,625, Becker has 1,429, Big Lake has 2,155, and St. Michael has 2,797. This is
particularly important when comparing the communities as some communities may have a higher percentage
of workers in an industry, but yet the total number of employees in that sector may be less as they have a smaller
total workforce in that community. For example, while Big Lake has 26% of its workers in manufacturing compared
to Monticello’s 12%, Big Lake only has about 20 more workers in manufacturing than Monticello.
Figure 2-46: OntheMap 2010 Jobs by NAICS Industry Sector1
Industry Sector CountShareCountShareCountShareCountShareCountShare
Retail Trade 86818.5%88915.1%35725.0%29613.7%31711.3%
Educational Services 80717.2%5108.7%43730.6%34115.8%1836.5%
Health Care and Social
Assistance
80417.2%1,94333.0%1117.8%2009.3%1605.7%
Manufacturing 54511.6%3085.2%22415.7%56826.4%27910.0%
Accommodation and Food
Services
3277.0%4908.3%634.4%1627.5%49417.7%
Wholesale Trade 2645.6%811.4%795.5%602.8%45716.3%
Construction 2224.7%2354.0%151.0%261.2%42615.2%
Transportation and Warehousing1613.4%340.6%684.8%562.6%361.3%
Public Administration 1393.0%60610.3%00.0%653.0%281.0%
Other Services (excluding Public
Administration)
1202.6%1953.3%90.6%602.8%712.5%
Finance and Insurance 962.0%1101.9%312.2%281.3%602.1%
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services
831.8%1582.7%181.3%371.7%672.4%
Administration & Support, Waste
Management and Remediation
691.5%891.5%40.3%170.8%702.5%
Management of Companies and
Enterprises
701.5%200.3%00.0%20.1%682.4%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing
320.7%430.7%40.3%120.6%301.1%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
300.6%540.9%40.3%321.5%321.1%
Information 280.6%791.3%50.3%572.6%60.2%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting
190.4%510.9%00.0%60.3%130.5%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and
Gas Extraction
00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%
Utilities 00.0%00.0%00.0%1306.0%00.0%
Total 4,684100%5,625100%1,429100%2,155100%2,797100%
BuffaloBeckerBig LakeSt. MichaelMonticello
Worker Area Profile
3-10 | Land Use City of Monticello
cities and developments can guide future planning and
decision making in Monticello.
Attractive Places
Attractive physical appearance is one of the most
common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello.
Attractiveness is a combination of design, construction
and maintenance. These characteristics apply to
buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both
private and public property. Attractiveness reflects
individual pride in property as well as an overall sense
of community quality.
The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to
influence the potential for attractive neighborhoods:
f Building codes and additional regulations to
promote quality construction.
f Subdivision regulations control the initial
configuration of lots.
f Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size
of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship
of structure size to lot area, and building height.
f Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and
correct undesirable uses of property.
f Other City regulations control other ancillary uses
of residential property.
Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining
quality neighborhoods. The tenure (form of ownership)
influences the responsibility for housing maintenance.
The owner-occupant of a single family detached home
is solely responsible for the maintenance of building
and grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance
responsibilities are often shared between tenant and
owner. This relationship may include a third party
property manager retained by the owner to perform
maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may
act collectively through a homeowner’s association.
In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no
direct responsibility for property maintenance. This
discussion does not imply a preference, but is intended
solely to highlight the differences. This understanding
becomes relevant when public action is needed to
address a failure of the private maintenance approach.
Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City
to address failures in private maintenance and use of
property.
Economics also influences property maintenance. The
greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing
costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, utilities), the less money
available for maintenance activities. Maintenance
can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecked,
this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative
effects.
Safe Places
Safety is frequently identified as the most desired
characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan and city government influence
safe neighborhoods.
1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods
and develop new neighborhoods where people
are involved in the community, interact with their
neighbors and support each other.
2. The City will design, build and maintain a system
of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods,
allows movement within Monticello to jobs,
shopping and other destinations and minimizes
traffic that “cuts through” neighborhoods on local
streets seeking other destinations.
3. The City will provide, directly or by contract,
services needed to protect people and property.
4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a
water supply that provides clean water at pressures
needed to support fire suppression.
5. The City will protect the natural environment
by requiring new development to connect to the
sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating
all municipal wastewater.
6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by
protecting water supply sources.
Places to Work
This land use is primarily intended for industrial
development. Places to Work seeks to provide
locations for the retention, expansion and creation of
businesses that provide jobs for Monticello residents
and expansion and diversification of the property tax
base. In order to be a center of employment with a wide
Land Use | 3-112008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
range of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello
preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the
next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of
the most challenging to locate because of its need for
convenient transportation access and influence on
surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to
Work, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of
the community; what type of industrial development
is sought; and what factors should be considered when
locating an industrial land use.
In planning for sustaining existing businesses and
attracting new development, it is necessary to
understand why Places to Work are important to
Monticello. The objectives for this land use include:
f Expanding and diversifying the property tax base.
f Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for
people to work and live in Monticello.
f Promoting wage levels that provide incomes
needed to purchase decent housing, support
local businesses and support local government
services.
f Take advantage of opportunities to attract
companies that have a synergy with existing
companies in the community, including suppliers,
customers and collaborative partners.
f Encouraging the retention and expansion of
existing businesses in Monticello.
Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
9
4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Public Waters Inventory
Rivers and Streams
Potential Interchange
Potential Bridge
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Jobs
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
3-12 | Land Use City of Monticello
Policies – Places to Work
1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
designate and preserve a supply of land for Places
to Work that meets current and future needs.
2. Consistent with the vision for the future of
Monticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the
establishment of business campus settings that
provide a high level of amenities, including
architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of
natural features, storage enclosed within buildings,
and other features. The zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations and other land use controls
will also be used to create and maintain the desired
business campus settings.
3. Places to Work supports the City’s desire to attract
businesses that complement existing businesses
or benefit from the community’s infrastructure,
including power and telecommunications.
4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that
Places to Work should provide locations for
other general industrial development in the areas
of manufacturing, processing, warehousing,
distribution and related businesses.
5. Places to Work may include non-industrial
businesses that provide necessary support to the
underlying development objectives of this land use.
Examples of supporting land uses include lodging,
office supplies and repair services.
Additional public objectives and strategies for Places
to Work can be found in the Economic Development
chapter.
Figure 3-9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Public Waters Inventory
Rivers and Streams
Potential Interchange
Potential Bridge
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Commerce
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(3 9
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011