Loading...
IEDC Agenda 02-02-2010AGENDA MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 2, 2010 7:00 a.m., Boom Island MEMBERS: Chair Don Roberts, Vice Chair Patrick Thompson, Secretary Charlotte Gabler, Bill Tapper, Lynne Dahl - Fleming, Dick Van Allen, Dan Olson, Zona Gutzwiller, Rich Harris, Wayne Elam, Marshall Smith, Elaine DeWenter, and Chris Kruse LIASIONS: Sandy Suchy, Chamber Clint Herbst, Mayor Glen Posusta, City Council 1. Call to Order 2. Consideration of adding items to the Agenda 3. Approve Minutes: a. January 5, 2010 4. Economic Development Director 5. Reports: a. City Council b. Chamber 6. Elect 2010 Officers 7. Discuss Potential Business Expansion Incentive Program 8. Industrial Business of the Year Criteria 9, Recap 2009 / Review 2010 Work Plan (if time permits) 10. Adjournment. (8:30am) MEETING MINUTES INDUSTRIAL & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, January 5a' 7:00 a.m. Boom Island MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Don Roberts, Charlotte Gabler, Rich Harris, Bill Tapper, Lynne Dahl - Fleming, Dick Van Allen, Dan Olson, Zona Gutzwiller, Wayne Elam, Chris Kruse. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chair Patrick Thompson, Marshall Smith, Elaine DeWenter LIAISONS PRESENT: Mayor Clint Herbst, Sandy Suchy, Glen Posusta CITY STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director, City Administrator Jeff O'Neill, City Zoning Ordinance Consultant Ben Gozola Call to Order IEDC Chair Don Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. Approve Minutes MOTION BY SECONDED BY Economic Development Report: No report was provided at this time. City & Chamber Reports: TO APPROVE DECEMBER 1, 2009 MEETING MINUTES MOTION CARRIED 10 -0. City Administrator O'Neill provided an updated regarding proposed legislation related to Nuclear Plants. The City has approved contracting services with Flaherty Hood to potentially pursue necessary action. O'Neill reported that the City Council had also adopted its 2010 operating budget, as well as a 2010- 2014 Capital Improvement Plan. Sandy Suchy reported that the Annual Chamber Banquet, held on December 7, 2009 was a well - attended event. She thanked those IEDC members are representatives who were able to attend. Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision Presentation: Community Development Director Schumann introduced the City's consultant for the Zoning Ordinance Revision project, Ben Gozola of MFRA. Gozola reviewed the project, explaining its origins, the process to -date and the next steps. He indicated that a Steering Committee represented by the five Planning Commissioners and members of the City Council is guiding the re- drafting of the code. The group began by outlining the primary objectives and goals for the project, which Gozola reviewed with the IEDC. The group then completed an in -depth analysis of current code issues and the development of a new code structure. Gozola illustrated examples of the new code structure and compared it to the previous code. Gozola explained that currently, the Steering Committee has completed the drafting of the administrative portions of the code. Those sections are available online for viewing by the public. The Steering Committee's next task will be to work on the use districts and the performance standards for each. Gozola explained that the process includes two upcoming meetings with the IEDC specifically for the purpose of gathering their input on the industrial and commercial districts. The IEDC's feedback will be combined with other comments and recommendations in preparing the updated language for those chapters. At the time that the use and performance standards chapters are completed, the City will hold an open house to review the chapters and take additional comment for refinement. As work continues on the ordinance, Gozola noted that there will be many additional opportunities for public review and comment. The IEDC members inquired about the process for amending the new code and noted that it would be critical to maintain the new code to avoid the same pitfalls and problems that exist with the current code. Gozola concluded by indicating that all IEDC member emails would be added to the e -mail distribution list for on -going project updates. Adjournment: MOTION BY TO ADJOURN. SECONDED BY . MOTION CARRIED. 10 -0. Meeting adjourned at 8:30am. Economic Development Director Updates: a. General: 1. EDA: The EDA approved joining the I -94 West Corridor Coalition at their January meeting. The Coalition is in the process of determining when their regular meetings will be held. The Economic Development Director will begin receiving correspondence from the Coalition and will pass on such info to the IEDC and EDA. The EDA and City Council held a joint workshop on January 13, 2010. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss how surplus TIF funds should be spent prior to decertification (one district decertifies this year). The general result of the meeting was to look at purchasing buildings within downtown from willing sellers. I {ennedy and Graven is looking at the approved TIF Budgets to determine if this is an option and what regulations the EDA would be subject to both short and long term. 2. The City Council: See attached agenda. 3. Planning Commission: See attached agenda. 4. Networks: Staff recently attended the Economic Development Association of MN conference. The conference had good topics and speakers. Special focus was on Nanotechnology. Green Energy, and Social Media. Staff will be attending a NIOP event on February 16, 2010 to hear about Opportunities in Chaos. This will be a great opportunity to network with brokers. 5. Wright County Economic Development Partnership: Please see attached email from Noel LaBine. St. Cloud Area Economic Development Partnership is spearheading the initiative to develop and implement a regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). City Staff will be participating. If any IEDC member is interested please let the Economic Development Director know which date would work best to host the first meeting. 6. 2010 Street Reconstruction Project: Public meetings were held for the proposed West River Street reconstruction project. The City Engineer is working on compiling comments. There appears to be some debate as to whether sidewalks should be included. 7. BR &E: The Leadership Team of the BR &E met on January 28, 2010. The Leadership Team will be meeting twice a month in order to accomplish necessary tasks. The next meeting of the Leadership Team will consist of finalizing the survey and determining what businesses will be surveyed. It is anticipated the Taskforce will meet in March to receive training on how to survey the businesses, determine survey pairs, assign businesses to each pair, and set site survey schedules for individual businesses. The Leadership Team is very excited and dedicated to this initiative. It should also be noted letters to ten various businesses were sent out the week of January 25t" requesting financial participation. The City and Chamber still needs to obtain $8,000 to cover the required administration fee. 8. Membership: Please see attached resignation letter from Charlotte. Due to low attendance numbers and several members not being replaced on the IEDC, it seems prudent to reach out to the business community asking for volunteers to join the IEDC. b. Business Communications: 1. Business Newsletter: The Winter Business Newsletter was mailed the week of January 25, 2010. 2. Related newsletters /articles: none included c. Future Meeting Dates: 1. Next Meeting: March 2, 2010. 2. Chamber Lunch: The State of the City event will be held at the February 16t" Chamber Lunch. Staff is requesting as many IEDC members attend this event. It is important that the business community get to know their local leaders. Please RSVP to the Chamber at 763.295.2700 or monticellocci.com. 3. A_ special IEDC meeting is scheduled for February 16, 2010. The meeting could be held at either 1:30 or 3:30 depending on the availability of the IEDC. The purpose of the meeting is to review sections of the zoning code with MFRA. 4. EDA: February 10, 2010 IEDC 2.2. 10 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 25, 2010 — 7 p.m. Mayor: Clint Herbst Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojehouski Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2A. Approval of Minutes — January 11, 2010 Regular Meeting Consideration of adding items to the agenda 4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates a. Citizen Comments: b. Public Service Announcements: 1) Community Gardens b. Council Updates: 1) Citizen Service Desk 5. Consent Agenda: A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010 -03 accepting contribution of $250 from Tom Perrault to go into the General Fund C. Consideration of approving lease renewal and amended contract for City biosolids farmland D. Consideration of preliminary approval of fire contract with the Township of Monticello E. Consideration of renewing contract with Carefree Lawn Service 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 7. Consideration of authorizing staff to proceed with office reorganization plan 8. Consideration of Junk Amnesty Day service level by: continuing status quo, establishing it as a bi- annual event (to be held in odd - numbered years), or by discontinuing 9. Approve payment of bills for January 25th 10. Adjournment AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3H 2010 5:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojehouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman —NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 1", 2009 and January 5t1' 2010. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Housing Analysis Update 6. Kj ellberg Estates - Pfeffer Companies Extension Request 7. Agenda Cable Posting Update 8. Community Development Director's Report. 9. Adjourn. 5:45 PM — Monticello Zoning Ordinance Steering Coimnittee Meeting Megan Barnett From: Noel LaBine, Econ Dev Partnership [nlabine @whe.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 2:35 PM To: Angela Schumann; Audra Etzel; Barb Swanson (bswanson @montrose- mn.com); Bob Derus; Carol Banken; Connie Holmes (Connie @cdholmes.com); Daniel Buchholtz (daniel- hanover@comcast. net); Deb Geyen (Deb.Geyen @ci.maple- lake.mn.us); Deborah Ryks; Dick Norman; Don Levens; Gene Janikula (gjanikula @frontiernet.net); Jeanene; Jeff O'Neill; John Northenscold Sr. ( John. Northenscold @ci.maple- lake.mn.us); Joni Golden (cityofclearwater @mywdo.com); Kelly Hinnenkamp (cityadmin @howard- lake.mn.us); Larry Kruze (Ikruse @ci.albertville.mn.us); laureen.bodin @ci.buffalo.mn.us; Linda Hruby (cityclerk @maplelakemn.org); Luke Fischer; Lynn Kissock (Lynn. Kissock@ci.maple- lake.mn.us); Mark Casey (mcasey @annandale.mn.us); Megan Barnett; Merton Auger; Mike O'Laughlin (in po @lakedalel ink. net); Nancy Carswell (nancyc @cityofrockford.org); Phil Kern; Sally Custer; Sher Dircks (Shar .Dircks @ci.maple - lake.mn.us); Tina Goodroad Subject: FW: Townhall meetings for Federal Application for Community Economic Development Strategy for Region 7W Please share with all your EDA, HRA, and EDC members Noel We would like to invite you to participate in one of several special meetings concerning developing and implementing a regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the region including Benton, Sherburne, Stearns and Wright Counties. This process is being carried out by the St. Cloud Area Economic Development Partnership (The Partnership) in cooperation with the Wright County Economic Development Partnership, St. Cloud State University, the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University and the Initiative Foundation. The meetings in Wright County will all be similar and we encourage you to attend the one most convenient to you. Meeting Dates, Times and Locations: February 17'" from 4 to 6 pm at Haikko's Bowling Center, which is located at 1207 N. Hwy. 25 Buffalo MN 55313 March 17 "' from 4 to 6 pm at Annandale City Hall, which is located at 30 Cedar Street East Annandale, MN 55302 March 31" from 4 to 6 pm at Albertville City Hall, which is located at 5959 Main Avenue NE Albertville, MN 55301 There will be presentations including the following information: County and regional economic development profile that will help us understand our present and future opportunities and challenges. Workforce, economic and community development strategies that the regional profile and other studies have led us to suggest. The presentations will be followed by group breakout discussion: • Discussion on proposed strategies including additional suggestions from the group. • Discussion on what community amenities attract people to our area or keep them here if they are long time residents. • Discussion on what support or barriers for economic growth you see for the county and region. There will be a wrap -up or conclusion to the session: Explain next steps, build consensus for the plan and implementation. Please RSVP your attendance by contactine Noel Labine by e -mail or at 763 - 477 -3086 by February 12 ". If you know of others in your area that have an interest in local and regional economic and community development, please share this information with them and encourage them to attend. Thanks in advance for your assistance, it is appreciated. Sincerely, Noel LaBine Executive Director Wright County Economic Development Partnership 763- 477 -3086 www.wrightpartnership.org This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney - client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are Intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of the message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges. GABLER 6431 River Ridge Lane Monticello, MN 55362 763 - 295 -0469 charlottegabler @msn.com January 25t", 2010 Industrial & Economic Development Committee CIO Megan Barnett City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Resignation From Committee Dear Megan and IEDC: It is with dismay I submit my resignation to the IEDC. Due to time constraints with my role at New Look Contracting, Inc., I am unable to fully commit my time to the IEDC as needed. I understand that IEDC only meets once a month or when needed, however, it seems some conflict tends to occur and I have missed over 6 meetings this past year. I should not hold a place that someone else that can fill and attend more frequently. Please accept my resignation effective immediately. Thank you. Best Regards, Charlotte Gabler 6. NOMINATE OFFICERS FOR 2010: Reference and Background: The organizational resolution for the IEDC states appointment of officers shall be elected every year. Currently Don Roberts is serving as Chair, Patrick Thompson is serving as Vice - Chair, and Charlotte Gabler is serving as Secretary. Please note Charlotte submitted her letter of resignation. Alternate Actions: 1. Motion to elect: to serve as the 2010 Chair. 2. Motion to elect: to serve as the 2010 Vice - Chair. 3. Motion to elect: to serve as the 2010 Secretary. 7. Discuss Potential Business Expansion Incentive Program: Background: The City Council directed staff to review options /ideas for the establishment of a business expansion incentive program. Attached is the staff report presented to the City Council. It outlines good information pertaining to what options currently exist related to payment of required fees along with various potential options. Staff would like to point out additional financing programs the City currently has available to the business community: TIF Qualified new and existing businesses can request TIF if their proposed project meets TIF laws and City policies. This would allow the write down of land purchases, development fees, and construction costs. GMEF The EDA administers the City's revolving loan fund (Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund). A pool of money is available for qualified businesses looking to locate, expand, or relocate in the City. The funds can be utilized for purchasing real estate, purchasing equipment, and /or assisting with development fees. The fund does require the business to secure a first loan. The attraction to this fund is the low interest rate (2% below prime or a minimum rate of 3 %). Small Cities Loan This pool of money is a revolving loan fund for business start ups, expansions, and initiatives to retain jobs. This fund is regulated by Federal guidelines. It does allow businesses to use the funds for working capital. Financial Consultant The City has the ability to offer Ehlers (the Cities financial /TIF consultant) as a consultant to businesses to help secure and structure financing for new or expanding business plans. Grants The City has access to State and Federal grants. Recommendation: Please read the attached staff report. If the IEDC sees value in establishing a business expansion incentive program, staff would offer the following suggestions: 1. Keep the program simple 2. Structure program to allow for customized decisions (i.e. case by case basis) 3. Do not offer SAC /WAC & Building Permit reductions (these numbers are established for a justified reason and could cause a reduction in the ability to pay for infrastructure in the long run). Currently SAC/WAC fees can be assessed. 4. Offer a reduction in City Development Fees (trunk sewer /water, etc.) and City Application Fees 5. Base reduction on percentage of proposed expansion: examples (just examples, munbers can be structured however is determined best approach) a. Increasing building size by 50 %, would equal a potential reduction in City Development/Application fees by 25% b. Increasing building size by 25 %, could equal fee reduction of 10% c. Must create 2 -3 jobs or show retaining jobs by expansion 6. If receiving TIF — no reduction 7. If receiving GMEF — only reduce application fees, keep development fees same 8. Reductions should require City Council approval in all situations Staff recommends the IEDC look at all data included in Staff report. The IEDC is also asked to generate new ideas in order to continue to market Monticello has a competitive community for new and expanding businesses. Recommendations by the IEDC will be taken forward to the City Council as part of an overall strategy. 2 12. Consideration of policy recommendations as related to City fees and special assessments. (JO, TK, AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In September of 2009, the City Council appointed a small task force to review current building and development charges for the purpose of providing recormnendations for possible adjustments. The review was to be completed in anticipation of setting the 2010 fee schedule and is in response to feedback from the City Council and the development community. Mayor Herbst and Council member Wojchouski were appointed to the task force. The task force has met twice since that time of appointment. Council member Posusta served in Council member Wojehouski's place during the first meeting. During its first meetings, the task force discussed the current timing and application of overall development charges, including: • Building pen-nit inspection and plan review fees • Sewer & Water Access charges • Trunk Area charges • Special Assessments • Development Incentives • Storm Water Fees In this report, staff has outlined the general direction of the task force, and provided recommendations resulting from that direction. The recommendations focus on the policy for payment of these charges and do not analyze potential rate increases or decreases for 2010. The purpose of this report is to gain a direction from the full Council on the policy statements outlined by the task force. ANALYSIS & STRATEGIES For commercial, industrial and institutional projects, the majority of fees are paid at the time of building permit. These charges can generally be classified into two categories: building costs and development costs. Building costs include the building plan review fee, the building inspection fee, Sewer Access Charges (SAC), and Water Access charges (WAC). Building permits also include other charges, but these items relate directly to fees paid to other entities for service or materials (such as State surcharge, or the charge for a water meter). Development costs include trunk utility charges for watennain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer, and may also include road improvement costs, including streetlights and pathway /sidewalk. In the case of larger coordinated developments (such as Union Crossings or Walmart), building costs are paid up front, while some or all of the development - related charges may be assessed by a development agreement. In many cases, the charges for street improvements have been assessed on a development -wide basis and are not paid with the building permit. For residential projects, Monticello's practice has been to calculate trunk utility charges with the development agreement at time of final platting. They are then assessed on a per unit basis and paid off at the time a developer sells a lot to a builder. SAC and WAC fees are paid at the time of building permit. Building /Development Fee Strategies In discussing both building costs and development cost items included in the overall building permit fee, the Council task force members reviewed and provided direction on the items as discussed below. a) Review building permit cost and development cost calculation practices with the goal of keeping costs and services equivalent. The Chief Building Official has the authority to approve plan review and inspection costs based on the actual construction costs provided by the applicant, versus those per recommended State schedule. This is true for any building whether it is residential or commercial /industrial. For the majority of large cormnercial/industrial /institutional buildings, Monticello's permit costs are already being calculated using actual cost estimates provided by the applicant rather than using the State Schedule (which is based on a calculation of square footage and construction type). In residential construction, actual construction cost estimates are very comparable to the estimated State schedule cost. This is due to the fact that the State schedule is based on actual construction rates for particular building types. Therefore, most contractors actually defer to the State schedule. In discussing the application of SAC /WAC fees, the task force did express some concern regarding the existing formulas for calculation, given changes in use and operation of properties over time. Currently, Monticello uses the Metropolitan Council's system for assigning SAC and WAC units. It was recognized, however, that it is the best available structure we have and that developing an alternative program would require an extensive and detailed study, which would be time consuming and perhaps cost - prohibitive at this time. Therefore, the consensus of the task force was to continue to review each application thoroughly to determine the most accurate application of SAC/WAC charges. 11 b) Continue to allow assessment of development costs and adopt a policy for assessment terms based on a cost scale. Based on previous Council action, it has been the practice of the City to allow for special assessment agreements for SAC, WAC and trunk utility charges at the time of building permit for commercial /industrial /institutional projects. These did not require individual Council approval and are executed at the time a building permit was issued. The terms of the assessment are determined by the Finance Director and are based on the amount to be assessed. In addition to this existing policy, Coimcil could also adopt a policy allowing these types of assessments to be deferred. By allowing for the deferred assessment of fees, the City has the advantage of providing an incentive for construction of a building, and in turn additional tax base. The business gains the advantage of having a significant cost deferred until they are firmly established. The task force has presented this option for the full Council's consideration. It would be recommended that if an assessment were going to be deferred, it would require the approval of the City Council. This is consistent with past practice as related to deferral of street and trunk utility costs through development agreement. Under the program above, the applicant would continue to have the ability to elect to pay some of their costs upfront and assess others. For example, they could still pay the SAC /WAC fee with the building permit, but defer trunk charges. For consistency related to the possible assessment and deferral of these charges, it would also be recommended that Council adopt a scale based on the costs to be assessed. The proposed scale could be modified from that suggested below: 11),'_a c)' d'a I) Assessment Term Deferral, Allowable Interest Rate 2010 $5,000 - $10,000 3 years No 6% $10,000 - $20,000 5 years No 6% $20,000 - $250,000 10 years Yes — 3 years 6% $250,000+ 15 years Yes — 5 years 6% Levied Special Assessment Strategies The City Council will most likely receive additional requests for reapportionment or deferral of levied special assessments. Special assessments already in place relate mostly to major street and utility improvements projects. Due to the complexity related to each individual assessment, as well as statutory public hearing requirements, the task force recommendation is to allow Cowicil to consider the reapportionment and /or deferral of previously levied special assessments on an individual request basis only. Similar to the recent request made for the reapportiomnent of special assessments for Outlot D of Otter Creek Crossings, a property owner could request that the City reapportion or even defer levied special assessments. Adopting a deferral does present risk, as there are a considerable number of special assessment projects which have been levied over the past ten years. Each represents a substantial cost to the City in terns of bond repayment. It is estimated that the City has special assessments totaling around $14,107,859.69 that could be subject to requests for deferrals or reapportionment. However, as noted previously, the inability of the property owner to pay the levied assessments also has a negative impact on the City's ability to make the bond payment. If by extending the assessment out, it allows the property owner to continue to pay the property taxes and keep them current, the City is better off receiving a partial (reapportioned) payment as compared to receiving no payment. In surveying the policies of a limited number of surrounding communities on some of these strategies, the following infonnation is presented for reference and comparison purposes. Becker No — Payable at permit No — Payable at permit Request Basis (including residential projects. ALL trunk due prior to first permit) Big Lake No - Payable at building No - trunk fees are due at Request Basis permit. time of development agreement (or building The City has approved permit if no development assessment of these agreement on a project) charges over limited duration (usually 3 years) in certain circumstances where the fees are fairly high. Developer has to request this from the City. Monticello Yes Yes Request Basis (currently by development agreement only) St. Michael No — but provide a 50% Limited — if allowed, Request Basis reduction in charges for assessed with short terms commercial /industrial (less than 7 years) projects (new and Incentive Proeram StrateEies The following strategies represent new programs that could be adopted by the Council to further support efforts to spur development. a.) Develop a business expansion incentive program. The task force also requested that staff review the possibility of an incentive program for the expansion or the relocation with expansion for existing Monticello businesses. In recommending this program, the task force cited goals of encouraging the growth and vitality of local businesses, building tax base, and developing employment opportunities. The idea would be to customize a reduction in development costs (and possibly SAC/WAC) for each project based on a sliding scale, which could include one or a combination of the following factors: Cost of the expansion project Number of jobs created Adaptive re -use of vacant and /or blighted property Each project would be reviewed and approved individually by the City Council, as the application of incentives will vary based on the project specifics. The development of such a program would be in addition to the financial tools already available through the EDA, which include the Small Cities loan program, the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund and the potential use of TI,F. Any and all of these programs could be combined depending on the type of project. If the full Council is interested in moving this program forward, staff will complete additional research and develop a set of criteria for Council review in February. b.) Review and reduce SAC fees for restaurants On more than one occasion, the City has heard feedback that SAC charges for restaurants can be prohibitive to the start -up of new enterprises. SAC charges for restaurants often seem comparatively higher than for other new businesses, specifically due to the increased strain that restaurants place on the municipal sanitary sewer system. If Council is interested in considering a policy for the reduction of SAC fees for restaurants (whether for a limited time or as a permanent development strategy), staff will complete additional research and provide a program outline at an upcoming meeting. It should be noted that if a reduction to restaurant SAC were to be considered, the reduction would likely shift costs to the balance of system users. Storm Water System Maintenance Funding In addition to development fees, the Committee also included in its discussion the development of a revenue source for use in funding storm water system maintenance projects. The storm water system is a critical piece of the City's infrastructure. Good storm water management protects the quality of Monticello's water supply, mitigates environmental problems, protects the water quality of the Mississippi and other receiving water bodies, and protects against the loss of life and /or property by preventing localized flooding. As you know, the City has been building storm sewer facilities such as outlets, inlets and ponds necessary for managing storm water. As with any infrastructure, these facilities need repair and maintenance over time. However, a funding source for this work has not been established. Some months ago, it was suggested that a committee be formed for the purpose of developing a storm water utility program. This committee was intended to work with the community to determine the structure for collection of funds. The goal was to create a fee system based on use. The more storm water generated, the more a property owner would pay into this fund. In reviewing the situation, the task force compared and contrasted a proposed user fee with an overall general fund expense. The task force would like Council to consider collecting revenue for this purpose via general taxes as opposed to development of a utility fee program. The task force proposes shifting to a funding structure that recognizes storm water maintenance as a broad infrastructure improvement that benefits the greater community, and therefore should be paid for by general taxes. For this type of structure, a budget for the development and maintenance of the system would need to be developed and then incorporated into the general fund budget each year. More discussion on a long -tenn user fee could continue at a later time, as the group indicated that as a major infrastructure component, it is essential that the program consider all impacts and be as equitable as possible. At a minimum, it is important that a fund get started to be used in malting necessary storm water repairs over time. CONCLUSION With the above information in hand, the following policies have been prepared for review and consideration by the City Council. Included are only those recommendations made by the task force. h1 their motion, Council can eliminate or alter each of these based on discussion. Please note that this not an all- encompassing list as related to other City fees and assessment policies. 2010 BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT FEE & ASSESSMENT POLICIES DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Continue the practice of calculating building permit costs for commercial/industrial/ institutional plan review and inspection based on actual construction costs at the request of the applicant. 2. Continue the practice of allowing SAC/WAC and trunk utility charges to be assessed. Council action on individual requests would not be required. 3. Adopt a new policy allowing SAC /WAC and trunk utility charges to be deferred for a set time (versus assessed payable in the following year). Council action on individual requests would be required. 4. In relationship to policies 1 -3 above, adopt a scale for deferral and assessment. The proposed scale could be modified from the scale suggested below: s � s� „ m, I I)e1o„ inelih�> s� ^ «. xf�Y,�i As the i �L e�riii'61e'ral'' ?.,� =''1oxw,able ` .xsa r <:� It►ee'�' �`" $5,000 - $10,000 3 years No 6% $10,000 - $20,000 5 years No 6% $20,000 - $250,000 10 years Yes — 3 years 6% $250,000+ 15 years Yes — 5 years 6% 5. Direct staff to research the development and implementation of a Business Expansion and Relocation Incentive Program. 6. Direct staff to research the possible reduction in SAC fees for restaurant development. 7. Implement a Storm Water Utility & Maintenance program as described, which would require the development of an annual budget, which would be funded through general taxes. No retroactive policy would be recommended for any of the above. For example, a 100,000 square foot commercial building already in place could not be refunded their development fees and then have the costs assessed instead. 9. The reapportionment and/or deferral of previously levied special assessments will be considered by the City Council on an individual request basis only. Al. Budget Impact: These recommendations obviously represent risk and potential cost to the City. The City takes the risk of having assessments go unpaid with buildings and infrastructure already in place. Additionally, with infrastructure such as trunk utility systems and road improvements, there are a considerable number of special assessment projects which have been levied over the past ten years. The City has already assinned a certain level of risk based on the current policy of special assessment of residential trunk charges for new development, adoption of various special assessment agreements which defer payment, and by allowing for special assessment of SAC /WAC and trunk charges with past cormnercial /industrial /institutional projects. There is the potential for a significant budget impact if the Council elects to fund the storin water utility and maintenance program through the general fund. An annual project budget will need to be determined and then included for funding with the general levy. It will be critical that if the program is funded in this manner, an annual allocation is funded in order to properly maintain the system. A2. Staff Worldoad Impact: For recommendations 1 -3, staff workload requirements are straightforward and would require only the modification of assessment agreement templates based on the request. If Council elects to review special assessments of the various items on a case -by -case basis this does represent more staff time in preparing analysis and reports. Recommendations 5 — 7 would require more staff time in preparing the needed background information for formulation of a program or policy recommendation. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the policies as recommended in the staff report of 01/11/10. 2. Motion to approve the following policies as recommended and revised by the City Council: a. (Council to insert recommendations from above as desired) 2. Motion to table for further review and discussion by the task force. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The recommendations presented are those of the development fee task force. Staff recognizes that these are policy decisions for the City Council. Staff will provide additional research and information as needed by the fiill City Council to make their final recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. 10 8. Establish Criteria for an Industrial Business of the Year Award: Background: The Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Industry recently determined there was a need for an industrial business of the year award recipient at the annual Chamber Banquet. You may recall that Cargill Kitchen Solutions won this award last year. Since the IEDC has a focus and connection to industry leaders, it would seem appropriate for the IEDC to work with the Chamber in establishing criteria for the Industrial Business of the Year Award. The hope is the IEDC will nominate 3 -4 industry businesses in October. The Chamber Board will review the nominations and determine the final recipient. The following criteria are used by the Chamber to determine Business of the Year recipients: *Business must be a chamber member; the business has been around at least five years; the business must have a consistency of service and /or products to its customers and community; and promote betterment of the community as a business; and encourage employees to be involved in the community; has not received this award in the past five years. In an effort to provide the IEDC other ideas for applicable criteria, staff contacted the City of Ramsey for a copy of their language and past business of the year recipients: 1. Provided for the maintenance or expansion of the conmiercial /industrial tax base of the community through the development of new business ventures or the retention or expansion of existing business. 2. Expanded or retained the employment base of the community. 3. Been a positive influence to the business community. 4. Been involved in various aspects of building community. The City's general criteria are as follows: Quality Job Creation, Impact on Region, Creation of Tax Base, Community Participation, Business Innovation, Innovative Product. Recommendation: City Staff and the Chamber Executive Director recommend the IEDC establish baseline criteria for the hndustrrial Business of the Year Award. Business of the Year Nomination Form Criteria considered for award • Quality Job Creation • Impact on Region • Creation of Tax Base • Community Participation • Business Innovation • Innovative Product Business Name Please state the reasons for nominating this business based on the above criteria: Any suggestions for improving the RAMSEY BUSINESS EXPO? *Special Thanks to all the businesses that took part in this event* INDUSTRIAL & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 2009 WORKPLAN Mission Statement: To increase the tax base and the munber of liveable wage -level jobs in Monticello by promoting industrial and economic growth and working to maintain a desirable business environment. 2009 Objectives: The IEDC is dedicated to being pro- active in following the guidelines established in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. It is the intention of the IEDC to work within the areas identified below as supporting actions and objectives: Land Use: 1. Review current Economic Development section within the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Review current inventory of City owned industrial land and determine if efforts should begin to obtain additional industrial land for future use. 3. Review current zoning practices (participate in Zoning Code rewrite). Transportation: 1. Review benefit /location of third I -94 interchange. 2. Participate in discussion and research related to mass transit within Wright County. 3. Assist in efforts to begin implementing strategies to alleviate traffic on Highway 25. 4. Begin grass roots efforts to begin planning for an additional River crossing. 5. Support and participate in efforts to expand I -94 corridor. Business Retention /Communication: 1. Complete a Business Survey. 2. Further define purpose and structure for joint IEDC /EDA events. 3. Continue to assist City staff in the IEDC section of the Monticello Business Insider. Higher Education: 1. Coordinate opportunities between the business community and the local schools (Career Pathway model) 2. Initiate classes /training opportunities to the business community via surrounding colleges (or other suitable higher education facilities)