EDA Agenda 04-12-2017AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Wednesday, April 12th, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Special EDA Meeting at 4:30 p.m. in Academy Room
Commissioners:President Bill Demeules, Vice President Bill Tapper, Treasurer Steve
Johnson, Tracy Hinz, Jon Morphew and Councilmembers Jim Davidson and Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Executive Director Jim Thares, Jeff O’Neill, Angela Schumann, Wayne Oberg and Jacob
Thunander
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Consideration of additional agenda items
4.Consent Agenda
a.Consideration of approving Regular Meeting Minutes – March 8, 2017
b.Consideration of approving Change Order #2 for LSI contract with Metco, Inc.
c.Consideration of approving payment of bills
d.Consideration of Accepting LSI Report for Block 34 – 130 East Broadway
Avenue
e.Consideration of Farm Lease with Tom and Matt Spike
f.Consideration of modifying terms of contributing $5,000 in funding to downtown
(Block 34) art project
5.Consideration of Shred-N-Go Concept Development in Otter Creek Business Park
6.Consideration of Stormwater Management Plan for Otter Creek Business Park
7.Consideration of Update and Request for Direction on 349 West Broadway (Fred’s Auto)
8.Consideration of Director’s Report
9.Closed Session – Consideration of recessing to closed session to develop or consider
offers or counter-offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property pursuant to
Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Subdivision 3(c)(3). PID # 155194000010
10.Adjourn
1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Tracy Hinz, Jon Morphew, Jim Davidson, and Lloyd
Hilgart
Absent: Steve Johnson
Staff: Jim Thares, Angela Schumann, and Jacob Thunander
1.Call to Order
Bill Demeules called the regular meeting of the EDA to order at 6:00 p.m.
2.Roll Call
3.Administer Oath to new Commissioner, Jon Morphew
Jim Thares administered the Oath of Office to Jon Morphew.
4.Approve Meeting Minutes:
a.Regular Meeting – February 8, 2017
BILL TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 8TH, 2017. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0.
b.Special Meeting – February 8, 2017
BILL TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
FROM FEBRUARY 8TH, 2017. JIM DAVIDSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 6-0.
5.Consideration of additional agenda items
None.
6.Consideration of approving payment of bills
Bill Tapper asked why the EDA was still paying for ‘market matching’ with WSB. Jim
Thares commented that the invoice title is misleading and that it was to pay for WSB’s
monthly programing costs, which include assistance with lead generation, technical
assistance, and attendance at regional meetings.
TRACY HINZ MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS THROUGH
FEBRUARY 2017. BILL TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED,
6-0.
2
7.Consideration of entering into a contract with CMDC to Underwrite GMEF Loan
Applications
Jim Thares explained that City Staff had drafted an agreement that would govern a
relationship with CMDC regarding loan underwriting. CMDC would charge a 1.5 percent
fee or a minimum of $4,000 per loan, but the EDA would have the discretion of who
would complete the underwriting service. Typically, any loan amount over $265,000
would be underwritten by CMDC. Thares also stated that if the borrower was seeking a
an SBA 504 loan, the 1.5 percent fee would remain.
Bill Demueles asked where in the contract it discussed the EDA completing underwriting
services on their own. Thares stated it was not included in the contract, but could be
amended. Demeules noted that the way the contract read, it seemed like all loan requests
would be covered by CMDC. Thares stated that the EDA would be covered in the
agreement under ‘Services’, where the second line reads: “The services will be provided
on an as needed basis as directed by the Monticello EDA”.
Thares also explained that the EDA’s attorney reviewed the agreement prior to the
meeting and recommended adding a section about ‘Termination’. Demueles asked that
after a year of provided services that the termination be set at a 30 day notice. Thares
confirmed that could be added to the agreement.
Jon Morphew asked if the EDA could have the CMDC underwrite loans of less than
$265,000. Thares confirmed, stating that the amount was a general guideline.
TRACY HINZ MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO A LOAN
UNDERWRITING AGREEMENT WITH CMDC IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM
OF THE PRESENTED AGREEMENT WITH THE ADDITION OF THE
(TERMINATION) VERBIAGE PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT DEMUELES. BILL
TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0.
8.Consideration of contributing $5,000 in funding to downtown (Block 34) art project
Angela Schumann noted at the August, 2016 meeting; the EDA approved the costs of
landscaping Block 34 near the intersection of Highway 25 and 75. The landscaping
included boulevard trees and plantings. There have since been discussions with the Parks
Department to also include art at this corner and the EDA was asked to consider spending
$5,000 for a metal sculpture. Schumann added that the Parks Department also intended to
paint the side of the building facing Highway 25.
Schumann discussed the benefits of public art related to Economic Development. She
cited a study completed by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Gallup of
what contributes to community attachment. The study surveyed 43,000 individuals from
across 26 American cities. The organizations found three commonalities that relate to
attachment of the community which included aesthetics, social gatherings, and openness.
The study found that community attachment led to increased GDP and growth in a
community where a resident wants to spend money. Schumann encouraged the use of art
in the revitalization and economic growth goals for downtown Monticello.
3
Schumann stated that the art would be completed by Sue Seeger, who recently completed
the metal deer sculpture at Monti-View Park and is partnering with the City on a local art
place grant. Schumann explained that Seeger has proposed two metal swans for the
corner location. The $5,000 cost would cover shop fees and additional materials/supplies.
Schumann also mentioned that the art would be movable in case of future development at
that location.
Bill Demueles asked how the Finance Department would put a value on the sculpture for
the financial report. Schumann stated she would consult with the Finance Department.
Tracy Hinz noted that the Small Area Study focus on revitalization is bringing in new
development, but also working with what is existing. Hinz stated that this would be a way
the EDA could support and encourage investment in the downtown.
Jon Morphew asked if the EDA approved the $5,000 for the artwork and the art place
grant wasn’t approved, what would happen. Schumann stated that the EDA could make
their approval contingent on the approval of the art place grant.
TRACY HINZ MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRIBUTION OF $5,000 TOWARD
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ART SCULPTURE IMPROVEMENT AT THE
SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF TH25/CSAH 75 AND TO ACCEPT THE
DONATION OF THE ARTWORK CONTINGENT UPON GRANT APPROVAL FOR
THE REMAINING FUNDING NECESSARY.
Bill Tapper asked if there were images of the proposed project. He also asked for the
types of materials that would be used for the sculpture and mentioned concerns with rust.
Jon Mophew noted that the Staff Report stated that the swans would be made with
stainless steel. Schumann added that she would ask the artist for more information on the
appearance of the sculpture and would verify the materials.
Tracy Hinz asked if the artist could keep the EDA informed on her plans and progress on
the sculpture. Schumann confirmed that she would invite Seeger to a future meeting and
also send the artist’s website blog to the EDA.
JIM DAVIDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0.
9.Consideration of Director’s Report
Jim Thares noted that he attended the CEDS meeting on February 23rd, which discussed
‘Economic Competitiveness’. There would be two more meetings in the upcoming
months to discuss ‘Community Resources’ and ‘Foundational Assets’. He encouraged the
EDA to also attend these meetings, if possible.
Thares also stated the housing study is in its second draft. He anticipates that the plan will
be completed and presented to the EDA in April.
Thares mentioned that the Small Area Study Steering Committee had met twice. The next
Steering Committee meeting would be held on March 23rd, with a public, open house on
March 30th.
Thares also stated that the Ms. April Studer informed staff that she would be unable to
4
complete the project at the 349 West Broadway due to the high costs of redeveloping the
site. A cancellation agreement had been executed. Thares noted that he has been
receiving interest from others in developing the site. Lloyd Hilgart asked if Ms. Studer
had shared the costs of redeveloping the site. He stated the financials could be useful for
future interested prospects so that they know the upfront costs involved in the
redevelopment. Thares confirmed he would ask Ms. Studer if she would be willing to
provide this information.
Bill Tapper asked if the EDA incurred any expenses from this project. Thares noted that
the City would maintain the $1,000 earnest money from Ms. Studer to cover some of the
costs incurred in attorney fees, but additional fees would be absorbed by the EDA.
Tracy Hinz echoed the importance of knowing the costs for redeveloping the site to better
understand if the EDA should take additional actions to sell the property. Hinz asked
what the main issue with the property was. Bill Demueles noted that it depends on the use
of the building. With Ms. Studer’s proposal, costly renovations to the floor and restrooms
would have needed to occur.
Bill Tapper asked if the post office was relocating. Schumann noted that the City
received official correspondence that indicated the Post Office would relocate to the
carrier annex facility. Hinz asked if it would be beneficial to contact the post office to
indicate that the Fred’s Auto parcel would now be available. Jim Davidson indicated that
he was not in favor of seeing additional postal service vehicles parked in the downtown.
Tapper noted that the post office parcel would be more viable with the additional Fred’s
Auto property and suggested reaching out to the owner of the building. Demueles wanted
the EDA to consider any current proposals for the parcel before considering the
consolidation with the post office parcel.
Thares explained that Groebner, Inc. had decided to seek a purchase agreement for a site
in Rogers. He followed up with Groebner, Inc. to determine any interest in staying in
Monticello if the purchase agreement was not fulfilled. Tapper voiced disappointment of
having the business leave the city and the current outdoor storage covenants. Schumann
acknowledged the risks associated with deviating from the outdoor storage requirements
set forth in the Otter Creek Business Park and stated that industrial land availability is
also a concern.
Tapper asked if the parcel to the south of the cement business in Otter Creek Business
Park was an option for the relocation of Groebner, Inc. Thares stated that Groebner was
asked to consider that site, but they were concerned with the cost of required utility and
road extensions and extensive grading. Tapper noted that the EDA should look at how to
accommodate industrial development with outdoor storage. Schumann noted that staff
would defer to the EDA for direction to work on securing options of additional land
opportunities. Demueles also explained that the MPCA is working to eliminate all
outdoor storage and to keep that in mind moving forward.
Lloyd Hilgart expressed interest in developing additional industrial land, but to do so in a
cost effective way. Schumann stated that staff would work on gathering additional
information regarding industrial land availability and would schedule a future special or
5
closed meeting.
Lastly, Thares commented about the request to research into a consent agenda for the
EDA meetings. He had discussed the request with the EDA’s Attorney and there are not
any prohibitions in using a consent agenda. Thares noted he would add a consent agenda
for the April meeting, pending further review by the EDA Attorney.
10.Adjourn
BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:45 P.M. LLOYD
HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0.
Recorder:Jacob Thunander ____
Approved: April 12, 2017
Attest:____________________________________________
Jim Thares, Economic Development Director
EDA Agenda: 4/12/17
4b. Consideration of approving additional expense for LSI – Block 34 (JT)
A.REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the October 12, 2106 Regular EDA Meeting, a contract was approved authorizing
environmental consulting firm, Metco, Inc., to proceed on a Limited Site Investigation
(LSI) in Block 34. The contract amount was stipulated at $6,290. To complete the LSI
work, Metco needed to obtain a Right Of Way Permit from Wright County to complete
borings in the sidewalk in front of the buildings in Block 34. This expense was not
anticipated in the original budget. The additional cost for the ROW Permit of $100.00
was approved by the EDA at the February 8, 2017 Meeting. The increased labor
component related to the extra boring in the sidewalk amounted to $130.00. The EDA
has not yet approved that expense. The total increase over the original contract is
$230.00. The Minnesota Petrofund will reimburse 90 percent of the additional cost as
well as the same amount of the original contract amount. If Change Order #2 is approved
by the EDA (+ $130.00), it will bring to total contract amount to $6,520.00.
A1. Staff Impact:There is minimal staff time involved in preparing the staff report
for consideration of approving additional expense for LSI – Block 34..
A2. Budget Impact:90% of the expenses to complete the LSI will be reimbursed
through the Minnesota Petrofunds program.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.Motion to authorize an additional $130.00 to the contract amount with METCO.
2.Motion of other.
B.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Alternative #1. If Change Order #2 is approved, the total
contract amount will be $6,520.00. The MPCA will reimburse 90 percent of that amount
leaving the EDA to be responsible for $652.00. Ultimately, the extra cost to the City
between the original contract amount and the proposed change will total just $23.00.
C.SUPPORTING DATA:
A.Metco Change Order Form
B.Metco Contract for LSI Work
EDA Agenda: 4/12/17
4c. Consideration of approving payment of bills (JT)
A.REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Accounts Payable summary statements listing bills submitted during the previous month
are included for review.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.Motion to approve payment of bills through March 2017.
2.Motion to approve payment of bills through March 2017with changes as directed
by the EDA.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Alternative #1.
D.SUPPORTING DATA:
A.Accounts Payable Summary Statements
.
_
t
r
_
n
e
_
r
e
_
u
m
_
s
y
_
a
a
_
e
pr
_
rT
_
o
_
-
f
_
n
d
_
o
e
_
s
v
_
n
o
_
rh
_
po
_
J
p
_
a
e
_
v
d
_
e
n
_
t
a
_
S
_
w
_
e
_
i
v_
e_
r
_
_
s
a_
_
w
_
e
_
l
_
b
_
a
_
y
a
y
p
b
s
ld
l
i
e
b
v
f
o
r
o
p
t
p
s
i
l
A
g
7
n
i
1
/
d
2
e
1
c
/
e
4
r
:
p
e
t
e
a
h
TD
.
_
t
_
n
_
e
r
_
e
m
_
r
y
_
u
a
_
s
p
_
a
r
_
e
r
o
_
f
T
_
d
_-
e
_
n
v
_
o
o
_
rs
_
pn
_
ph
_
ao
_
J
d
_
e
n
_
v
a
_
e
_
t
d
_
eS
_
w
_
e
_
i
v_
e_
r
_
_
s
a_
_
w
_
e
_
l
_
b
_
a
_
y
a
y
p
b
s
ld
l
i
e
b
v
f
o
r
o
p
t
p
s
i
l
A
g
7
n
i
1
/
d
2
e
1
c
/
e
4
r
:
p
e
t
e
a
h
TD
.
_
t
_
n
_
e
r
_
e
m
_
r
y
_
u
a
_
s
p
_
a
r
_
e
r
o
_
f
T
_
d
_-
e
_
n
v
_
o
o
_
r
s
_
pn
_
ph
_
a
o
_
J
d
_
e
n
_
v
a
_
e
_
t
d
_
e
S
_
w
_
e
_
i
v_
e_
r
_
s_
a_
_
w
_
e
_
l
_
b
_
a
_
y
a
y
p
b
s
ld
l
i
e
b
v
f
o
r
o
p
t
p
s
i
l
A
g
7
n
i
1
/
d
2
e
1
c
/
e
4
r
:
p
e
t
e
a
h
TD
_
.
_
t
_
n
_
e
r
_
e
m
_
r
y
_
u
a
_
s
p
_
a
r
_
e
r
o
_
f
T
_
d
_
-
e
_
n
v
_
o
o
_
rs
_
pn
_
ph
_
a
o
_
J
d
_
e
n
_
v
a
_
e
_
t
d
_
e
S
_
w
_
e
_
i
v_
e_
r
_
s_
a_
_
w
_
e
_
l
_
b
_
a
_
y
a
y
p
b
s
ld
l
i
e
b
v
f
o
r
o
p
t
p
s
i
l
A
g
7
n
i
1
/
d
2
e
1
c
/
e
4
r
:
p
e
t
e
a
h
TD
EDAAgenda:4/12/17
4d.ConsiderationtoaccepttheLimitedSiteInvestigation(LSI)Report(MPCALeak#
20142)forBlock34–130EastBroadway(JT)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
TheEDAisaskedtoconsideracceptingtheLimitedSiteInvestigation(LSI)Reportfor
Block34–130EastBroadway.TheLSIwascompletedbyMetco,Inc.,LaCrosse,
Wisconsin.ThereportpertainstoinvestigationofLeak#20142,amunicipalgasfacility,
datingbacktotheearly1900s.MetcoperformedtheLSIaccordingtothestandard
protocoloftestboringsforsoilandgroundwatercontaminationonandnearthesite.On
page9oftheReport,Metcostatesthat“Basedontheanalyticalresultsofthesoil
samplescollectedfromtheGeoprobesoilborings,whichshowednodetectsforthe
compoundsanalyzed,theredoesnotappeartobeanysignificantsoilcontaminationfrom
theformergasolinetank”atthesite.MetcohasprovidedtheReportandtheir
recommendationtotheMinnesotaPollutionControlAgency(MPCA).Specificallythey
arerecommendingthattheMPCAcloseoutLeakFile#20142.
A1.BudgetImpact:Thereportpreparationandtheinvestigativeworkatthesite
costatotalof$6,520.00(includes$230.00inchangeorders).Asistypicalfor
LSIwork,theMinnesotaPetrofund(MinnesotaDepartmentofCommerce)will
reimburse90percentofthetotalexpenses$5,868.00)totheEDA.Theexpected
balanceofexpenses,$652.00,willbecodedtoTIF1-22perthepreviously
approvedInterfundLoanResolution2014-025,oralternatively,againstafuture
TIFDistrictperthepreviouslyapprovedInterfundLoanResolution2014-095.
A2.StaffImpact:Theworkactivitiesforthisprojectconsistedofsolicitingbids,
organizingthefile/materials,monitoringtheprogressofthereportpreparation,
reviewingthefinalreportandtheinvoicesforpaymentandpreparingthestaff
report(s).NoadditionalstaffwillbeneededtocompletetheLSIworkactivities.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontoaccepttheLimitedSiteInvestigation(LSI)ReportperformedbyMetco
relatedtoLeak#20142onEDAownedpropertyinBlock34.
2.MotiontotableacceptanceoftheLSIReportrelatedtoLeak#20142onEDAowned
propertyinBlock34.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsAlternative#1.TheStandardScopeLSIwascompletedperthe
MPCArequirements.Thefindings,certifiedbytheenvironmentalconsultant,Metco,
Inc.,indicatethereisnosoilorgroundwatercontaminationrelatingtoGROsandVOCs
atthesiteinBlock34.MetcoisrecommendingthattheMPCAcloseoutLeakCase
#20142.Withacceptanceofthereport,theEDAhasfulfilleditsresponsibilitiesto
completetheinvestigationofdiscoveredcontaminationonpropertyitcurrentlyowns.
1
EDAAgenda:4/12/17
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
A.LimitedSiteInvestigation(LSI)Reportwithattachments
B.StaffReport-October12,2016EDAMeeting
C.Letter(7-20-16)fromMPCAregardingrequiredstepsforLeak20142
2
6:
68
39
65
3:
41
2:
42
34
45
43
46
29
48
28
56
31
27
4:
49
23
2
25
Xfmm!Sfdfqups!Tvswfz!Nbq
Gpsnfs!Nvojdjqbm!Hbt!Gbdjmjuz
203!Njmf!Sbejvt
Gpsnfs!Nvojdjqbm!
Hbt!Gbdjmjuz
Xfmm!$2
Xfmm!$3
Xfmm!$6
EDAAgenda:10/12/16
12.ConsiderationtoauthorizebidselectionprocessforcompletionofaLimitedSite
Investigation(LSI)-MPCALeakFile#20142onEDA-ownedpropertyinBlock34
(JT)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
TheEDAisaskedtoconsiderauthorizingtheselectionprocessforthemostqualifiedand
economicalbidderforaLimitedSiteInvestigation(LSI)ofEDA-ownedpropertyin
Block34.TheMinnesotaPollutionControlAgency(MPCA)requiresaLSItobe
completedduetothecontaminatedsoilsencounteredduringtheutilityreplacement
componentofthe2016StreetReconstructionprojectthatoccurredinthisareainmid-
July,aswellastheresultsofthePhaseIIanalysiscompletedinJune,2016.TheMPCA
openedafileandassignedaLeaknumber,20142,tothepetroleumimpact.Thefileis
officiallyinan“open”statusandpendingfurtherinvestigation.Asnoted,thepetroleum
impactedsoilsdiscoveredduringtheutilityreplacementareconsistentwiththe2016
LimitedPhaseIIEnvironmentalSiteAssessment(ESA)results.
AttheSeptember14,2016EDAmeeting,staffweredirectedtoobtaintwoormore
quotes/bidsfromqualifiedconsultantsastothecostofcompletingtheLSIinBlock34.
Bids/quoteswerereceivedfromseveralfirms.Thebidders,shownbelow,were
instructedtousetheStandardScopeofWorkfoundontheMPCAwebsitetocompile
theirbids.
Liesch–TerraconCo.
BraunIntertec
WSB&Associates
ATCGroup
METCO
TheEDAisbeingaskedtoauthorizeabidselectionprocessthatisasfollows:
1.AllbidswillbeprovidedtotheMinnesotaDepartmentofCommerce’sPetrofund
officeforanapplestoapplesanalysisforidentificationofthemostqualifiedand
economicalbidamongthefivefirms.
2.Theidentifiedmostqualifiedandeconomicalbidderwillbeinformedofthe
selection.
Usingthisprocess,itispossiblethatWSBmaybedeemedthemostqualifiedand
economicalbidderduetotheirfamiliaritywiththesiteandtheiractualpresenceonthe
sitewhenthecontaminatedsoilwasdiscoveredandremoved.TheEDAmaystillbeable
toreceivethe90percentreimbursementinthissituation.
A1.BudgetImpact:AsistypicalforLSIwork,thecostscanbesubmittedtothe
MinnesotaPetrofundforreimbursementintheamountof80to90percentofthe
totalexpense.AllunreimbursedexpenseswillbecodedagainstTIF1-22perthe
1
EDAAgenda:10/12/16
previouslyapprovedInterfundLoanResolution2014-025,oralternatively,
againstafutureTIFDistrictperthepreviouslyapprovedInterfundLoan
Resolution2014-095.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Theworkactivitiesforthisprojectconsistofsoliciting
bids,organizingthefile/materialsandpreparingthestaffreport(s).Noadditional
staffwillbeneededtocompletetheLSIworkactivities.
ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontoauthorizetheselectionprocessinvolvingMNDepartmentofCommerce
vettingofbidstoidentifythemostqualifiedandeconomicalbiddertoperforma
StandardScopeLimitedSiteInvestigation(LSI)relatedtoLeak20142onEDA
ownedpropertyinBlock34.
2.MotiontotableauthorizationoftheselectionprocessinvolvingtheMNDepartment
ofCommerceinvettingofthebidstoidentifythemostqualifiedandeconomical
biddertoperformaStandardScopeLSIrelatedtoLeak20142onEDAowned
propertyinBlock34…untilalaterdateorforgatheringofmoreinformation.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsAlternative#1.Intheinterestofanaccuratequalifyingprocess,itis
prudenttousetheMinnesotaDepartmentofCommerce’sPetrofundstafftohelpidentify
themostqualifiedandeconomicalbidderfortheLSIwork.Byauthorizingtheselection
processseekingthemostqualifiedandeconomicalbiddertoperformtheLSI,theEDA
willbecarryingoutitsresponsibilitytocompletetheinvestigationofdiscovered
contaminationonpropertyitcurrentlyowns.CompletionoftheLSIwillincreasethe
knowledgeabouttheEDAlandholdingsandtheextentofpossibleenvironmentalissues
andthereinreducetheunknownssothelandcaneventuallybetransferredtoadeveloper
foraredevelopmentproject.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
A.SampleLetter(9-16-16)solicitingStandardScopeLSIbids
B.Letter(7-20-16)fromMPCAregardingrequiredstepsforLeak20142
2
EDA Agenda – 04/12/17
4e. Consideration of approving a 2017 Farm Lease Agreement for Outlot F, Otter
Creek Crossing.(JT)
A.REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The EDA is asked to approve a lease agreement between the EDA and Tom & Matt
Spike for the farming of 13.6 acres of land at Otter Creek Crossing. The lease agreement
is consistent with the farm lease agreement entered into with the same tenant for 2016,
with exception of lease rent payment.
The lease allows the tenant access to farm the property between May 1st and November
30, 2017. The lease land area is not irrigated and is directly adjacent to land owned by
the proposed lease tenant.
The agreement has been drafted and signed by the lessee for 2017 and includes a rental
fee of $1,100. The 2016 rate was also $1,100. Although the amount for lease is less than
the 2017 tax payment ($1,696), it is required that the EDA establish ground cover to
manage erosion and control weeds for the site. As such, farming the site is preferred for
this year over an alternative planting at this time.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.Motion to authorize the EDA Executive Director and President to execute the Farm
Lease agreement for Outlot F, Otter Creek Crossing as drafted.
2.Motion of other.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1.
D.SUPPORTING DATA:
A.Farm Lease, Outlot F, Otter Creek Crossing - Draft
B Aerial Image
402309v1 MNI MN190-101 1
FARM LEASE
THIS LEASE (the “Lease”), made this 12th day of April, 2017, by and between the City of
Monticello Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic and a political
subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the “Authority”), and Matt and Tom Spike (the “Tenant”).
1.Property Description. The Authority hereby rents to the Tenant in consideration of the
rents and promises hereinafter described the property (the “Property”) generally
described as PID 155171000060 containing approximately 13.6 acres and located along
90th Lane next to Otter Creek industrial park. The Property is legally described and
depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto.
2.Term. The term of this Lease is for 7 months commencing on May 1st, 2015 and
terminating on November 30th, 2017.
3.Rent. The annual rent due under this Lease is $1,100. The annual rent for the lease year
shall be payable by August 1, 2017.
4.Authority Obligations. The Authority shall peaceably allow the Tenant to occupy the
Property for normal and customary farming practices. The Tenant shall have reasonable
access to the Property 24 hours per day, seven days per week for such purposes.
5.Tenant Obligations. Tenant shall be responsible for paying or doing the following:
a.The Tenant shall occupy the Property for agricultural purposes only. The Tenant
agrees to use normal and customary farming practices in the care and maintenance of
the Property and, without limiting normal practices, keep the Property free of noxious
weeds to the extent possible;
b.The Tenant agrees to comply with all statutes, ordinances, rules, orders, regulations,
and requirements of the federal, state, county, municipal and other units of
government regulating the use of the Property;
402309v1 MNI MN190-101 2
c.The Tenant shall allow access to the Property by the Authority and its agents during
all reasonable hours for the purpose of examining the Property to ascertain
compliance with the terms of this Lease and for any other lawful purpose;
d.The Tenant shall not remove or move any existing structures or improvements made
to the Property by the Authority. The Tenant may not store equipment on the
Property for periods exceeding one week without coordinating such storage with the
Authority;
e.The Tenant shall not commit waste on the Property;
f.Tenant shall refrain from using or applying any chemicals or products on Property
which contains phosphorous;
g.The Tenant shall plow back the Property prior to the termination of this Lease; and
h.This Lease does not entitle Tenant to allow or authorize use of Property by any party
for recreational purposes, including but not limited to hunting or the riding of all
terrain or similar recreational vehicles.
6.Independent Entities. The Authority does not retain the Tenant as an agent of the
Authority. The Tenant does not retain the Authority as an agent of the Tenant. The
Authority shall not provide to the Tenant, its agents or employees, any benefits or
expenses, including, but not limited to, insurance for liability or property, or ordinary
business expenses.
7.Costs associated with Lease. The Authority is not responsible for paying any of the
Tenant’s costs associated with this Lease, including preparation of the Property for
farming. The Tenant shall pay all costs related to farming the Property, including the
cost of plowing the Property back prior to the termination of this Lease.
8.Insurance. The Tenant shall acquire and maintain property and liability insurance
adequate for the Tenant’s use of the Property. The Tenant shall provide proof of
insurance upon request by the Authority. The Tenant, while performing any service or
function related to this Lease, agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the
Authority and all its agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or
causes of action of whatever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the
execution or performance of this Lease or use of the Property.
9.Assignment and Sublease Prohibited. The Tenant intends to farm the Property himself.
The Tenant agrees that no assignment or sublease of the Property shall be effective
without the prior written consent of the Authority.
10.Surrender of Possession. The Tenant shall surrender the Property to the Authority in
good condition and repair upon termination of the Lease, whether by lapse of time or
otherwise.
402309v1 MNI MN190-101 3
11.Termination Prior to Expiration. The Authority may, at any time after providing 90 days’
written notice, terminate this Lease and take possession of the Property for any purpose
deemed in the best interest of the Authority. The Authority shall allow the Tenant to
remove crops with normal and customary farming practices or, if time does not so allow,
return all rents paid for the year and compensate the Tenant at rates not exceeding the
current market rate per acre for any crop planted but not harvested.
12.Remedy. If the Tenant fails to pay the rent when due or fails to perform any of the
promises contained in this Lease, the Authority may, after furnishing the Tenant with a
30-day written notice specifying the default, re-enter and take possession of the Property
and hold the Property without such re-entering working a forfeiture of the rents to be paid
by the Tenant for the full term of the Lease. If default occurs during cropping season, the
Authority will harvest any and all remaining crops and apply proceeds from the sale
thereof to any rent payment due or other outstanding obligations of the Tenant to the
Authority.
13.Tenant’s Default. In the event of one of the following acts, the Tenant shall be in default:
a.The Tenant fails, neglects, or refuses to pay rent or any other monies agreed to be
paid, as provided in this Lease when those amounts become due and payable, and if
such failure continues for five days after written notification by the Authority;
b.Any voluntary or involuntary petition or similar pleading, under any section of any
bankruptcy act shall be filed by or against the Tenant or should any proceeding in a
court or tribunal declare the Tenant insolvent or unable to pay debts;
c.The Tenant fails, neglects, or refuses to keep and perform any other conditions of this
Lease and if such failure continues for a period of 30 days after written notification
by the Authority; or
d.Should the Tenant make or attempt to make any assignment or sublease of any
interest in the Lease or the Property without the prior written consent of the
Authority.
In the event of any default or violation of this Lease continuing more than 30 days after
written notification of default by the Authority to the Tenant, the Authority may
terminate the Lease and enter into and take possession of the Property. Possession of the
Property in these conditions does not relieve the Tenant of the obligation to pay rent and
abide by all other conditions of the Lease.
In the event of any default or violation of the Lease continuing more than 30 days after
written notification of default by the Authority to the Tenant, termination of the Lease
and possession of the Property by the Authority, the Authority may lease the Property to
another party without further obligations to the Tenant.
402309v1 MNI MN190-101 4
14.Loss and Damage. Tenant assumes and bears the risk of all loss and damage to the
Property from any and every cause whatsoever, whether or not insured, except in the case
of gross negligence or intentional misconduct on the part of the Authority, its employees,
agents or contractors. No loss or damage to the Property or any part thereof shall impair
any obligation of Tenant under this Lease and the Lease shall continue in full force and
effect unless Tenant is unable to use the Property for the purposes intended under this
Lease.
15.Limitation of Warranties and Liability. In no event shall the Authority be liable for
special, incidental or consequential damages, including but not limited to lost profits, lost
business opportunity, or damages related to Tenant’s use or intended use of the Property.
16.Lease is Binding. This Lease shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their heirs,
successors and assigns.
17.Notification. Notices related to this Lease shall be sent to the following addresses:
a) As to the Authority:City of Monticello Economic Development Authority
505 Walnut Avenue, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Attn: Executive Director
b) As to the Tenant:Matt and Tom Spike
or to such other address as either party may notify the other of pursuant to this section.
18.Entire Lease. It is understood that this Lease contains all agreements, promises, and
understandings between the Authority and Tenant regarding the subject matter hereof.
This Lease supersedes any prior agreements between the parties regarding the subject
matter hereof and any prior lease related to the Property. No modification to this Lease is
binding unless made in writing and signed by the Authority and the Tenant.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year
first above written.
******************
402309v1 MNI MN190-101 5
CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:
President
By:
Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2017 by
___________ and ______________, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the
City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic and
political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the political subdivision.
Notary Public
402309v1 MNI MN190-101 6
[Name of Tenant]
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of May, 2017 by
_____________________, Tenant.
Notary Public
402309v1 MNI MN190-101 A-1
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description and Depiction of Property
Su b j ect Pa rce l
City Bou nd ar y
May 4 , 2016
Map Po wer ed by DataLink fro m WS B & Ass ociates
1 inch = 752 fe et
Sou rce: Esri, Digita lG lo be , Ge oE ye, E arthst arGeographics, CNES/A irbus DS, USDA,US GS, A EX, Get ma ppin g, A erog rid , IG N, IGP,swissto po , a nd the GIS User Community
EDA Agenda: 4/12/17
4f. Consideration of a contribution of $5,000 for public art for Block 34, 100 East
Broadway site (AS)
A.REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At its March meeting, the EDA authorized a $5,000 contribution for a public art sculpture
to be located at the southeast corner of TH25/CSAH 75 intersection on Block 34.
The art will be designed by Sue Seeger, an Elk River-based artist. The sculpture itself is
a $10,000 project, with $2,000 in materials supplied by the artist and $5,000 to be funded
by the EDA. The balance of the funding required was proposed to come from a grant
Ms. Seeger had applied for in the amount of $3,000. Therefore, the EDA’s March
motion for the contribution was contingent on the balance of funding coming from the
grant.
Ms. Seeger has learned since the time of the March EDA meeting that the TH 25/CSAH
75 project was not selected for the grant. However, the Ellison family has generously
donated $3,000 toward the sculpture, which fills the funding gap in lieu of the grant. The
City Council accepted the donation at its March 27th, 2017 meeting.
As such, the EDA is asked to amend their original motion to acknowledge the
replacement of the balance of the funding from the Ellison family, and continue forward
with the $5,000 contribution.
A1. Staff Impact:Minor; Parks and Community Development staff time has been in
discussions and site visits totaling less than 4 hours for the site.
A2. Budget Impact:The funding gap for the artwork is $5,000. As noted in the
March report, the funding for the project would be from the EDA General Fund.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.Motion to authorize a contribution of $5,000 toward the development of an art
sculpture improvement at the southeast intersection of TH25/CSAH 75 and to
accept the donation of the artwork and acknowledge the $3,000 contribution of
the Ellison family to the sculpture.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff continues to recommend Alternative #1 for a contribution to the sculpture. As a
highly visible location at a primary intersection, improvements at this corner will
maintain an attractive landscape for the area and would not negatively impact the
marketing and development efforts for the property. In addition, with the EDA funding,
the sculpture will be able to become a permanent fixture in the community.
D.SUPPORTING DATA:
Contribution Form
EDA Agenda – 4/12/17
5. Consideration of Shred-N-Go Development concept in Otter Creek Business Park
(JT)
A.REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff is asking the EDA to review the Shred-N-Go concept development and its job
creation and economic impacts in the context of the EDA’s goals and objectives. Shred-
N-Go is a commercial grade paper and document shredding company. It currently has
three locations and wants to create a presence in Monticello to serve the Twin Cities and
St. Cloud region. It has been working with staff to identify a suitable site in Otter Creek
Business Park that would allow it to develop a 20,000 sq. ft. paper shredding facility with
opportunities for additional growth in the future.
Shred-N-Go has stated that it will be asking for TIF to support its project and may also
want to utilize the GMEF. It’s goal is to start development activities in the summer of
2017 and complete the project by the end of the year. No decisions are being asked of
the EDA at this meeting. It is a chance to learn about the project and evaluate it for a
future determination.
Mr. Mark Suppes, owner of Shred-N-Go, will be attending the EDA meeting to present
information about the company and the development concept. The attachments provide
background information regarding the company and the proposed project.
A1. STAFF IMPACT:Staff has committed a significant amount of time in informing
Shred-N-Go about the City of Monticello, the available land parcels in the City and
possible financial assistance options. The time commitment is likely approaching 20 to
24 hours. These hours are being covered by the EDA General Fund as this is part of
staff’s job duties. Several concept iterations of a site plan were also created by WSB due
to the complexities of the site which features power lines and a proposed expansion of a
stormwater drainage pond.
A2. BUDGET IMPACT:The cost to complete the concept plan iterations in Otter
Creek Business Park is approximately $1,200+/-. There are no other costs related to this
proposal at this time.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.No motion is being requested from the EDA at this meeting.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes this informational presentation will be a chance for the EDA to learn about
Shred-N-Go and ask questions of the owner-operator. The EDA may be asked to make a
decision land pricing and assistance packages in support of Shred-N-Go at a future
meeting. Once the EDA is fully informed of the company, it’s development concept and
job creation, economic impacts, then it will be in a better position to evaluate options that
staff will recommend during a future meeting.
2
D.SUPPORTING DATA:
A.Shred-N-Go Business information and Business Subsidy Application
B.Shred-N-Go proposed Otter Creek Site Plan Concept
EDAAgenda–4/12/17
6.ConsiderationofacceptanceoftheStormwaterManagementPlanforOtterCreek
BusinessPark.(AS)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
InJuly,2016,theEDAauthorizedastormwatermanagementsystemevaluationforthe
EDA/CityindustrialparkatOtterCreek(alsoknownasMonticelloBusinessCenter).
Theanalysis,preparedbyCityEngineerWSB&Associates,wasauthorizedtoevaluate
stormwatermanagementneedsinlightofnewstormwatermanagementstandards.
AstheEDAmayrecall,theNationalOceanographic&AtmosphericAdministration
(NOAA)hasdevelopedanewmodelbywhichthefrequencyandintensityofstormwater
isnowmeasured.“Atlas14”replacesstormwatermanagementstandardsthatwere
adoptedandusedfrom1970until2015.ThechangeovertoAtlas14impactsallstorm
waterdrainagesystemsintheCity,andfortheEDAhasdirectimpactonthecurrent
stormwatersystemsandfuturestormwaterimprovementsatOtterCreekindustrialpark.
WSBhascompletedtheiranalysisofstormwatersystemsatOtterCreekrelativetothe
newstandardsandpresentstheattachedreportsummarizingthefindingsfortheEDA’s
reviewandcomment.
A1.STAFFIMPACT:RepresentativesfromWSBwillbepresentattheEDAmeeting
todiscussandansweranyquestionsabouttheplan.StafftimeonthepartoftheCity
Administrator,EconomicDevelopmentManagerandCommunityDevelopmentDirector
wasspentinreviewingthepreliminaryfindingsanddraftsofthereport.
A2.BUDGETIMPACT:ThecosttocompletetheStormWaterManagementSystem
updatestudyinOtterCreekBusinessParkis$21,248.TheCity’sStormWaterTrunk
Systemfeeswereusedtofundthestudy.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontoaccepttheStormwaterManagementPlanforOtterCreekBusiness
Park.
2.Motionofother.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
Asafirststep,thereportprovidesdetailonexistingandproposedstormwater
improvementsatOtterCreekforEDAreview.Withthereportinformationandcomment
resultingfromtheEDA’sreview,staffwillofferrecommendationsonnextstepsatfuture
meetingsoftheEDA.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
A.DRAFT–StormwaterManagementPlan,MonticelloBusinessCenter(OtterCreek
industrialpark)
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENTPLAN
MONTICELLOBUSINESSCENTER
April12,2017
Preparedfor:
CityofMonticello
505WalnutStreet
Monticello,MN55362
WSBPROJECTNO.2596290
MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
April 12, 2017
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 XeniaAvenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
763-541-4800
763-541-1700 (Fax)
Monticello Business Center Stormwater Management Plan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Table of Contents
1.Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1
1.1.Stormwater Management Plan Purpose and Recommendation..................................................1
2.Site Location........................................................................................................................................4
2.1.Project Location...........................................................................................................................4
2.2.Drainage Areas............................................................................................................................4
3.Stormwater management requirements..............................................................................................5
3.1.Rate Control.................................................................................................................................5
3.2.Volume Control.............................................................................................................................5
3.3.WaterQuality................................................................................................................................6
3.4.Other Requirements.....................................................................................................................6
3.5.Required Submittals.....................................................................................................................6
4.Model Development Hydrology and Ponding information................................................................7
4.1.Model Development.....................................................................................................................7
4.2.Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................7
4.3.Proposed Conditions....................................................................................................................9
5.MBC UNDEVELOPED LOT REQUIREMENTS................................................................................12
6.Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................13
Figures:
Figure 1 ProjectLocation
Figure 2 Developable Parcels
Figure 3 Existing Conditions
Figure 4 Proposed Conditions
Figure 5 MBC Stormwater Management
Appendices:
Appendix AStormwater Site Plan Review Checklist
Monticello Business Center Stormwater Management PlanTable of Contents
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290
1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1.Stormwater Management PlanPurposeand Recommendation
Purpose
This Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) was developed for the Monticello Business Center (MBC),
located within the city limits of Monticello. There are several undeveloped parcels within the MBC that
will needto incorporate stormwater management requirements when developed.The purposeof this
SWMPis tooutline the stormwater management requirements for the MBC properties usingthe new
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates.
City standards require stormwater management for rate control, volume control and water quality control.
Prior stormwater management standards for the state and nation included utilizing a lower rainfall event
standard (TP40) that was developed in the 1960s. This was the standard used for all theponds
designed in the City, including the MBC. The National Weather Service Hydrometeorlogical Design
Studies Center released a new standard in 2014 called NOAA Atlas 14, which agencies are currently
utilizing when determining rainfall frequency estimates for stormwater ponding design. Atlas 14 standards
results in higher rainfall intensities, therefore changing the allowable capacity of our ponds. In general,
the results of Atlas 14 have required new ponds to besized approximately 30% larger than the TP40
standards. Due to this change in standard, this creates the need to reevaluate the area and determine
what additional stormwater management is needed based on the larger rainfall events. The results of
this study will be useful to the City for determining the developable acreage on each parcelint eh MBC,
.
City/EDA owned properties in the MBC for future
development.The marketable acreage may bereduced by stormwater infrastructure. This SWMP
recommends a regional approach for compliance with stormwater management requirements in order to
maximizethe marketable acreage within the MBC.
Recommendation
The following recommendations are a product of this studygiven the development assumptions included
in this report. SeeFigure 4for reference.
Expand the pond adjacent to the Karlsburger Pondby approximately 2.8acres.The existing
pond currently provides rate and water quality control for Karlsburger Foods, Suburban
Manufacturing, and Dahlheimer Distributionalong with adjacent roadway drainage. As
development occurswithin the MBC,the Karlsburger pond should be expanded toprovide rate
control for adjacent undeveloped Lots A, B and C.
Constructproposed PondsB and C within the Chadwick/Bowers outlots at the time of
development. The approximate area of ponding needed on these properties total 3.6acres.The
ponds will provide rate controland water qualityfor both properties, as well as the I-94right-of-
wayarea stipulated in the agreement between the City and Chadwick/Bowers.
Construct proposed PondA, which is approximately 2.2acresat the time of development of the
adjacent undeveloped Lots C, G and E.This proposed pond location is adjacent to theChelsea
Pond/wetland area just east of Dahlheimer Distribution.The existing topsoil stockpile will needto
be removed in order to construct the pond and develop the adjacent areas.
Construct a proposed pond, approximately 1.8acres, inthe southeast area of the MBC south of
the existing wetland complexto serve the adjacent
undeveloped Lot E to the south.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-1
The regional improvements outlined above will meet water quality and rate control requirements
for development in the MBC. Volume control(i.e. infiltration)will still be required on each lotas
it develops. Infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs)shall be provided at each lot and
designed and constructed in accordance with City design criteria, MIDs, NPDES, and MPCA
Minnesota Stormwater Manual.If conditions are suitable,the regional ponds can be utilized for
compliance with the infiltrationrequirements.However, given the known high groundwater
elevations within the City/EDA properties, the existing and proposed ponds likely cannot
accommodate infiltration requirementsand other methods may be explored if feasibleper the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual guidance.It is possible that the ponds constructed on the
Chadwick/Bowerssite could include infiltration, given that there is at least 3-feet of separation
from the bottom of the infiltration basin to the groundwater elevation
Useexisting storm sewer stubs and routestormwater as indicated in this study.
Applying the regional stormwater management approach for the MBC area allows for the least amount of
impact to the undeveloped property. Proposed pond locations were determined based on existing
topography and to minimize impacts to the remaining undeveloped parcels. The approximate
stormwater management areas required for each of the undeveloped properties is summarized in Table
1below.
adequate separation to bedrock and/or groundwater. If during the geotechnical investigation,
determined that groundwater and/or bedrock is a limiting factor the pond footprint will need to increase in
size in order to provide the required storage volume.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-2
Table 1.
Monticello Business Center Future Stormwater Management Plan for Undeveloped Parcels
Volume
ReductionRate Control
Total Allowable Area Required Area Needed for
AreaImpervious for Infiltration Regional Pond Providing Regional Pond
1245
Parcel(ac)Area (ac)BMP (ac)Rate Control(ac)
3
City Lot A10.833.300.17Expanded Karlsburger Pond1.2
City Lot B5.283.800.19Existing Walker Pond0.4
Proposed Pond A and Walker
City Lot C6.664.800.24Pond0
City Lot D3.40Lot is used for Regional Pond1.8
3
City Lot E18.689.00.68Proposed Pond D0
Existing Chelsea/Wetland
City Lot F5.724.120.21Area0
3
City Lot G8.755.00.25Proposed Pond A2.2
City Lot H1.83Lot is used for Regional Pond and trail corridor1.2
Outlot C Bowers18.9313.630.70On-Site Proposed Pond B1.7
Outlot D
Chadwick19.1713.800.70On-Site Proposed Pond C1.9
Dahlheimer
Outlot2.401.730.09Proposed Pond A0
1
Gross lot area, does not depict developable area
2
Based on composite CN=88, 72% Imperviousper MN Storrmwater Manual standardsfor assumed developable area.
3
Allowable Impervious area excludes electrical easements, steep slopes,wetlands, etc.
4
48-hourdrawdown time for 0.4 in/hr infiltration rate
5
Area assumes groundwater and/or bedrock is not a limiting factor for pond construction
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-3
2.SITE LOCATION
2.1.Project Location
The MBCis approximately 102 acres andis located in the northwestareaof Monticello, southof County
th
State Highway 39, west of Interstate 94and north of 90Street as shown on Figure 1.
The MBC is located within the Otter Creekwatershed, which ultimately discharges to the north to the
Mississippi Riveras identifiedin thes Management Plan (WRMP).
There are lots within the MBC that are currently developedand also lots that are undeveloped. The
following summarizes the lots within the MBC (refer to Figure 2):
Developed:
Karlsburger Foods
Dahlheimer Distribution
Walk In-Store
Suburban Manufacturing
AVR
Undeveloped City Owned:
Undeveloped Privately-owned Platted Outlots:
Dahlheimer Distribution Outlot
Bowers Outlot
Chadwick Outlot
2.2.DrainageAreas
For purposes of this report, drainage areas were assumed to be contained within the above-mentioned
lots.Upstream off-site drainage tributary to the MBC area was also factored into this study. All of the
drainage areas, along with the naming conventionused for modeling and reporting purposes are shown
inFigure 2.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-4
3.STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The City of Monticello, as a permitted MS4City, requires new development projects tocomply with the
followingrequirements:
No net increase from pre-project conditions for total volume, total suspended solids (TSS), and
total phosphorus (TP).
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance is intended to:
-Meet thecurrent construction site erosion and sediment control and post-construction
stormwater management regulatory requirements for construction activity and small
construction activity (NPDES) permit as defined in 40 CFR pt 122.26(b)(14)(x) and (b)(15)
-Meet the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) developed under Minnesota Statutes
2009, Section 115.03, subdivision 5c.
Design Manualand can be found on the City of Monticello website or provided upon request. A
Stormwater Review Checklistutilized for review of development plansis included as Appendix
A.
Stormwater managementrequirementsin conformance with City standards include the following:
3.1.Rate Control
The City requires that proposed runoff rates are equal to or less than existing runoff rates. This can be
managed through either on-site or regional ponding.
3.2.Volume Control
If the total newly constructed or reconstructed impervious area is greater than one acre in size, infiltration
areas will be required to be constructed. The size of the infiltration area must capture and retain a
volume equal to 1.1-inches of runoff over the net increase in impervious surface. If the disturbed area
for the proposed development is one acre or more, NPDES requirements are in effect. This requires
that one-inch of runoff over any new impervious area is infiltrated on site. The MPCA Minnesota
Stormwater Manual outlines the technical details and planning that are to be followed for the design and
construction of infiltration best management practices (BMPs)
Other considerations for infiltration design:
Design infiltration rates will need to be confirmed prior to construction activities. The Minnesota
Stormwater Manual provides guidance on methodology for the infiltration testing.
Groundwater and bedrock separation from the bottom of the infiltration practice shall be three
feet or greater.The MPCA has guidance on flexible treatment options if infiltration is not
feasible.
Pre-treatment of runoff prior to entering the infiltration basin is required.
An operation and maintenance plan for the infiltration practice and any related structures (such
as manhole sumps) is also required.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-5
3.3.Water Quality
Water quality goals are met through infiltrating 1.1-incheson site. If that is not feasible(due to poor soils
or inadequate groundwater/bedrock separation), then water quality goals will be met with anEPA
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)basin. This can be with an on-site basin or regional basin.
When feasible, the City prefers a regional stormwater management approach for overall efficiency and
long term maintenanceof stormwater BMPs.
For new development, the water quality control standard shall be considered satisfied if the volume
control standard has been met. In the event that it is notfeasible to meet the volume control standard
due to contaminated soils or other site constraints,the proposed stormwater treatment plan will need to
satisfy the water quality standards using an alternative water quality BMP. Because the parcels use
regional basins for rate control, it is practical to design the basins as standard NURP basins. Each of
the proposed ponds are assumed to have 4-feet of storage below the outlet and designed according to
NURPrequirements.If infiltration is determined to be not feasible for any of thedevelopable lots, the
regional basins can be used for meeting City water quality goals.
3.4.Other Requirements
During planning and design, other factors to consider in stormwater management are:
There is at least three feet of vertical separation from the pond bottom to groundwater and/or
bedrock.
the lowest opening of a structure.
Drainage easements and outlots for ponds shall encompass an area to the calculated one foot
above the 100-year HWL.
Operation and long term maintenance of stormwater BMPs via a stormwater maintenance
agreement between the City and property owner.
All future development within the City of Monticello will be required to use the Atlas 14 storm
events for stormwater design and modeling given that this is the accepted standard as part of the
MPCA Minnesota Stormwater Manual.
Access and maintenance benches shall be provided around proposed ponds and infiltration
basins.
3.5.Required Submittals
The following documents are required for proposed developmentsubmittals:
Stormwater Management Plan and Narrative
General Site Plan
Erosion Control Plan
SWPPP
HydroCAD models for existing and proposed conditions
Infiltration Design Calculations and Geotechnical Report /Infiltration Testing/Depth to
groundwater
Any requiredaccess or easement agreements
An Operation and Maintenance Plan for any on-site stormwater BMPs
The specific requirements for each of these, areprovided in Appendix A,Stormwater Site Plan Review
Checklist,and in the City Design Manual. In addition, the Minnesota Stormwater Manual provides
requirements for infiltration basin design andinfiltrationtestingprior to construction. It is recommended
that the developer use the Minnesota Stormwater Manual as a reference for stormwater design
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-6
4.MODEL DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY AND PONDINGINFORMATION
4.1.Model Development
AHydroCAD based hydrologic/hydraulic computer model was developed for the purposes of this studyto
identify the existing conditions and the proposed conditions to determine stormwater ponding needs with
future development.The following data sources were used for calculating hydrologic and hydraulic input
parameters:
City as-built records
Wright CountySoil Survey
City GIS shapefile data
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data
NOAAAtlas 14 Rainfall Data
The City of Monticello Water Resource Management Plan (2006)
GIS Aerial Imagery(2013)
4.2.Existing Conditions
Existing runoff rates were modeled for each of the subwatersheds in this study.For comparison
purposes, subwatershed boundaries were assumed based on lot areas and the existing and proposed
subwatershed boundaries are the same. Figure 3shows the modeled subwatershed boundaries, along
with existing stormsewer and pond areas.
A composite existing runoff CN value for each subwatershed was calculated based on existing
impervious area and pervious area CN.GIS software and aerial imagery were used to
determine the area of impervious coverage for each subwatershed.
Time of concentration(Tc)values for existing conditions werecalculated in HydroCAD using the
lag method, which factors in the longest flow length, land slope,and pervious CN value.
events. Table 2
storm sewer system is designed for the 10-year rainfall event. The 10-year event precipitation depth is
similar and therefore it has been assumed that the existing storm sewer system has sufficient capacity.
Table 2.
TP40 and Atlas 14 Rainfall Amounts
2-year10-year100-year
TP40
2.704.105.80
Atlas 14
2.844.226.87
Theobjective of the modeling is to evaluate the impact on 100-year high water levels (HWLs) by applying
an Atlas 14 event to the existing pond network due to the 18%increase in precipitation depthcompared
to TP40.
A description of each of the existing ponds is provided below:
Karlsburger Pond: Thisexisting pondis located adjacent to the Karlsburger Foods and Suburban
Manufacturing sites and currently provides rate and water quality control forthese sitesalong with the
Dahlheimer Distributionsite and adjacent roadway drainage. The existing conditions model includes the
2016 expansion of Dahlheimer Distribution. In 2005, Dahlheimer Distribution was originally planned and
did discharge runoff directly to the Chelsea Pond/Wetland area. In 2016, Dahlheimer expanded their
building and was approved to reroute a majority of their site runoff directly to the Karlsburger Pond, to
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-7
alleviate standing water occurring in their site stormsewer system. At the time the Dahlheimer building
expansion plans were approved, the City understood that the Karlsburger Pond would need to be
expanded to manage runoff from the new Dahlheimer expansion and also factoring in a fully developed
condition for the MBC using Atlas 14 rainfall amounts. This was detailed in the stormwater management
plan approval for the Dahlheimer expansion approved in July 2016.
Walker Pond:This existing pond is located under the powerline easement west of the Walker-In-Store
building. There is no available space to expand this pond due to constraints related to the location of
existing transmission towers, powerline easement constraintsand topographic conditions.
Chelsea Ponds/Wetland Complex:This existing pond is located south of Chelsea Road, between the
Dahlheimer Distribution site and existing wetlands. The existing large wetland complex is connected to
the Chelsea Ponds and provides stormwater management and flood storage for the adjacent areas. This
pond and the Karlsburger pond are connected via a storm sewer pipe. TheHWL is controlled by the
tailwater condition in Karlsburger pond due to the flat slope on the outlet pipe. There is no available
space to expand this pondwithout impacting the adjacent wetlands.
Off-site Drainage:There areapproximately 67 acres, south of the Dalton Avenue cul-de-sac thatdrains
to the storm sewer system on Dalton Avenue NE, referred to as drainage areas Off Site 1 and Off Site 2
onFigure3.The existing Xcel substationwithin this drainage area has a small stormwater pond on site.
Future development in these off-site areas must provide rate control to restrict the 100-year discharge
rate to 10 cfs to theexisting stormsewer stub on the west side of the Dalton Avenue NE cul-de-sac that
serves as the outlet.
Table 3lists the pertinent elevations for each of the existing ponds.
Table3.
Pond Details: Existing Conditions
LocationNWL (ft)Storage HWL (ft)BuildingDock Ground
Provided (ac-(Atlas 14)Lowest Elevation (ft)
ft)Opening (ft)
11
Karlsburger 926.211.11932.72938.00934.0
22
Pond 935.50931.5
33
935.87932.0
11
Chelsea 930.032.0932.59938.00934.0
22
Pond/Wetland935.50931.5
33
935.87932.0
Walker Pond930.018.9935.55939.00NA
1
Karlsburger Foods
2
Suburban Manufacturing
3
Dahlheimer Distribution
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-8
Existing conditions model results for each of the subwatersheds is provided in Table 2of Appendix B.
A summary of model results for the existing regional pondsare provided in Table 4, below.
Table 4.
HydroCAD Model Results for Existing Conditions -Ponds
Pond Inflow (cfs)Pond Outflow (cfs)100 yr 100 yr
HWLFlood
2 yr10 yr100 yr2 yr10 yr100 yr
Storage
Volume
Karlsburger Pond27.465.9209.42.65.955.8932.7215.4
Chelsea 6.930.1124.40.42.68.7932.5914.4
Ponds/Wetland
Walker Pond16.345.9120.14.928.398.9935.553.9
4.3.Proposed Conditions
A proposed conditions model was developed by updating the existing hydrologic conditions for fully
developed conditions at each of the remaining undeveloped parcels.Undeveloped parcels were
modified in the proposed conditions model with a CN value of 88and an assumed time of concentration
of 10 to 20 minutes, depending on lot size.ACNvalue of 88equates toeach lot being 72% impervious.
This impervious percentage is recommended per the MN Stormwater Manual standards. City Lot A, E
and G have reduced allowable developable area and impervious area due to existing powerline
easements and wetland onthese sites.If a development is proposed toexceed the allowable
impervious areaas shown in Table 5, the developer will need to meet rate control and other
stormwater management requirements with their site plan proposal. The solutionmayinvolve
on site stormwater management in addition to utilizing the regional system.
Table5.
Maximum Allowable Impervious Area (ac)
1
ParcelTotal Area(ac)Allowable Impervious Area
(ac)
2
City Lot A10.833.30
City Lot B5.283.80
City Lot C6.664.80
City Lot DLot is used for Regional Pond
2
City Lot E18.689.0
City Lot F5.724.12
2
City Lot G8.755.0
City Lot HLot is used for Regional Pond
Outlot C Bowers18.9813.67
Outlot D Chadwick19.1713.80
Dahlheimer Outlot2.401.73
1
Gross lotarea, does not depict developable area
2
Adjusted based on potential actual developable area. Does not include power line easements,steepslopes,wetlands,
etc.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-9
Given the design criteria outlined in Section 3, the following stormwater ponds are proposed to
accommodate full development of the MBC.
-Karlsburger Pond Expansion
-Proposed Pond A-East of Dahlheimer Distribution
-Proposed Pond B-Bowers property
-Proposed Pond C-Chadwick property
-Proposed Pond D-south of wetland complex
These pond basin locations were determined based on existing property lines, GIS aerial imagery, and
LiDAR data. The exact location and footprint of all proposed regional basins will be determined at the
time of development.
Figure 4 shows the approximate location of the proposed ponds and the storm sewer network and
locations of stub connections within the MBC. Figure 4also identifies what parcels are managed for
rate control by each of the regional basins.
Figure 5shows the proposed stormwater routing and subwatershed boundariesfor the entire MBC area,
which ultimately discharges into Otter Creek.The overall stormwater management for the MBCwill
reduce or maintain the existing discharge rates to Otter Creek.
Results for the 100 year storm event High Water Level (HWL) for the proposed and existing pondsfor a
fully developed condition in the MBCare provided in Table 6.
Table 6.
HydroCAD Model Resultsfor Proposed ConditionsPonds
Regional
Pond
100 year Area
100FloodNeeded
Pond Inflow (cfs)Pond Outflow (cfs)yearStorage(ac)
10100210100Volume
Pond ID2 yearyearyearyearyearyearHWL(ac-ft)Outlet
Existing 15" RCP at
Expanded 926.37' and 21" RCP at
Karlsburger73.0172.5336.86.113.230.6932.4327.03.0930.28'
1
Proposed Pond A37.667.9127.13.28.614.3933.578.62.2Proposed 24" RCP
Proposed 15" RCP to 15"
1
Proposed Pond B35.661.5111.64.47.08.1932.895.81.7stub on Chelsea
Proposed 24" RCP to
29x18 RCPA stub on
1
Proposed Pond C36.162.3113.01.26.321.9932.895.71.9Chelsea
1
Proposed Pond D36.469.2136.85.010.917.7938.515.71.8Proposed 18" RCP
Chelsea Existing 24" RCP at
Ponds/Wetland30.856.4126.62.06.511.9932.9718.3n/a930.19'
Existing compound outlet
n/acontrol structure w/ 6"
Walker Pond65.1118.2220.329.478.3149.0936.924.9orifice at 930.0'
1
donce grading plans are finalized for the proposed ponds.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-10
Summary of Results:
The Atlas 14 100-year HWLs for each of the existing ponds still providesat least 2 feet of
freeboard to thelowest openingtothe existing adjacent buildings.
Ponding adjacent tothe loading docksat Suburban Manufacturing and Dahlheimer Distribution
will occur for storm events greater thana50-yearstorm. Modeling results indicated that this
would occurfor both existing conditions and fully developed conditions.Storm drains within
loading dock areas were not modeled for this study. Stormwater ponding within loading dock
areas is acceptable sincethere is still adequate freeboard related to thelow opening and also if
there are storm drains that allow for the water to pond only for short periods of time.
Generally,the planned stormwater management for the MBC effectively manages the Atlas 14 100-year
storm event for thefully developed condition. As development occurs, adequate freeboard for anynew
proposed structures will need to be addressed site by site.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-11
5.MBC UNDEVELOPED LOTREQUIREMENTS
Each of the undeveloped parcelswithin the MBC will be required to have on-site infiltration BMPs for
volume control.The existing and proposed regional ponds on the City/EDA properties likely cannot
accommodate infiltration requirements due to the high groundwater in the area that does not make
infiltration conducive.Other methods may be explored if feasibleper the Minnesota Stormwater Manual
guidance. It is possible that the ponds constructed on the Chadwick/Bowers site could include infiltration,
given that there is at least 3-feet of separation from the bottom of the infiltration basin to the groundwater
elevation.
Approximate infiltration areaswere calculated based on an assumed infiltration rate of 0.45 inches per
hour(based on hydrologic soil group B and Minnesota Stormwater Manual guidance). The other factor
that determines what the approximate footprint would be is thearearequired to infiltrate within a 48-hour
time frame.
Table 7shows the required infiltration volume (based on the calculated maximum allowable impervious
area) and the approximate infiltration area.
Table 7also shows the estimated area for proposed ponds or pond expansion that would fall within the
given parcel. The City can use these estimated areas to determine overall marketable acreage,
factoring in stormwater management.The actual pond area will be determined when a grading plan is
completed for applicable areas
Figure 5illustrates the areaavailable for development, after stormwater management for the MBC is
factored in. Stormsewer planning androuting at a detailed level was not a part of this study.Also, as
previously mentioned, the overall footprint of the infiltration areamay be affected by high groundwater or
bedrock elevations.
Table 7
Approximate Area Required for Stormwater Management
ParcelTotal areaAllowable Required Approximate Regional
(ac)Impervious Infiltration Infiltration Area Pond Area
Area (ac)Volume (cf)(ac)Needed(ac)
City Lot A10.833.3013,1770.171.2
City Lot B5.283.8015,1800.190.4
1
City Lot C6.664.8019,1470.240
City Lot D3.40Lot is used for Regional Pond1.8
City Lot E18.689.035,9370.460
City Lot F5.724.1216,4450.210
City Lot G8.755.019,9650.252.2
City Lot H1.83Lot is used forRegional Pond1.2
Outlot C 18.9813.6754,5670.701.7
Bowers
Outlot D 19.1713.8055,1130.701.9
Chadwick
Dahlheimer 2.401.736,9000.090
Outlot
1
Values represent total volume and area for Outlot C. However, drainage is split, see Figure5.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-12
6.CONCLUSIONS
As development continues within the MBC area, stormwater management can effectively be
accomplishedon a regional basis, as opposed to individual ponds and BMPs on each lot. This is the
approach that the City prefers because it: maximizes developable land,allows for more efficient
maintenance in the future and is more attractive to developers who are interested in this area.The
stormwater management approach outlined in this study addresses current standards for rate control,
volume control and water quality control while also utilizing the higher Atlas 14 rainfall amounts.Many
cities are faced with the challenge of reevaluating what additional stormwater management is needed
based on the larger rainfall events. This study not only focuses on resizingthe existing stormwater
ponds but also looks to the future and plans for the MBC as it fully develops.
The City shouldevaluatethe timing and sequencing for constructing or expanding any pond areasbased
on development proposalsand aplanned approachthat considers which parcels are the most
marketable and likely to develop first. This study can also be used to determine the approximate costs
for pond construction and to determine stormwatertrunk revenue generated with development.
The next step for the City/EDA is to evaluate their current development proposals and determine the
process and funding scenario in order to construct the associated regional ponding improvements.
Monticello Business Center Stormwater ManagementPlan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290Page-13
Figures
Monticello Business Center Stormwater Management Plan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290
Document Path: K:\\02596-290\\GIS\\Maps\\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd Date Saved: 11/10/2016 11:42:46 AM
NOLLAF
ENEVA
ENEVANOSNOMDE
DR
AIRB
OWR
DO
EN
EVAD
OOW
RAIRB
Document Path: K:\\02596-290\\GIS\\Maps\\Figure2_DevelopableParcels_2.mxd Date Saved: 11/17/2016 11:39:19 AM
NL ENIV
R
D Y
AW
RIA
F
RIC
EL
GA
E
EN EVA NO
TLAD
Document Path: K:\\02596-290\\GIS\\Maps\\Figure3_ExistingConditions.mxd Date Saved: 11/11/2016 10:49:15 AM
ri
C elg
aE
"
"
"
Dr
"
ENevAnotlaD
Document Path: K:\\02596-290\\GIS\\Maps\\Figure4_ProposedConditions_2.mxd Date Saved: 2/22/2017 2:50:05 PM
"
RIC
EL
GA
E
"
WE
ST
ON
"
EN
"
EVAN
OTLAD
Document Path: K:\\02596-290\\GIS\\Maps\\Figure5_StormwaterManagement.mxd Date Saved: 2/24/2017 2:12:37 PM
ri
C elg
aE
"
r
iC
ret
ne
C
"
"
Dr
"
ENevAnotlaD
Appendix A
Stormwater Site Plan Review Checklist
Monticello Business Center Stormwater Management Plan
City of Monticello
WSB Project No. 2596-290
City of Monticello – Stormwater Site Plan
Review
A Stormwater Management Plan is required for:
Any land disturbing activity that may ultimately result in the addition of one acre or
greater of impervious surfaces, including smaller individual sites that are part of a common
plan of development that may be constructed at different times.
The construction of any new public or private road; or
Any land disturbance activity, regardless of size, that the City determines is likely to cause
an adverse impact to an environmentally sensitive area or other property.
Submittals Received
General Site Plan
YesNo
hĭƷƚĬĻƩЋЉЊЏ
Erosion/Sediment Control Plan
YesNo
Stormwater Management Plan
YesNo
hĭƷƚĬĻƩЋЉЊЏ
Water Quality and Volume Reduction
“The City of Monticello has adopted MPCA Minimal Impact Design Standards in Chapter 4 of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section
4.10. MIDs Infiltration design criteria as described in the MPCA Stormwater Manual shall be followed for the proposed project.”
YesNo
Rate Control
YesNo
Freeboard
YesNo
hĭƷƚĬĻƩЋЉЊЏ
o
o
o
o
hĭƷƚĬĻƩЋЉЊЏ
EDAAgenda:4/12/17
7.Considerationoffutureof349WestBroadway(Fred’sAuto)(JT)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
StaffisaskingtheEDAtoconsiderthefuturestatusandpossibledirectionregarding349
WestBroadway.Asareminder,staffhasbeenmarketingthepropertyforsometimeand
iscontinuingtotakephonecallsandinquiriesregardingtheproperty.RecentlytheEDA
declinedtoacceptapurchaseofferforthepropertyduetoquestionsregardingthe
ultimatecostofrehabbingthebuildingandalsotheimpactsofthelikelyrelocationofthe
adjacentPostOfficefacility.
InformationthatstaffreceivedfromthePostOfficefacilitiesmanagerindicatesthatthe
PostOfficewillberelocatingfromitscurrentbuildingnexttoFred’sAutopropertyin
eitherMarch2018orMarch2019.IfthePostOfficebuildingbecomesvacant,the
possibilityofalargerredevelopmentfootprint(togetherthetwopropertiesrepresent38
percentoftheblock)orrepositioningthetwopropertiestogethermaybeapossibility.
Staffhasnowtakentheinitialsteptoremovethemarketingsignfromthepropertyandis
closingtheloopwiththelatestthreecallsregardingapossiblepurchaseandreuse.
Additionalstepsthatcanbetakenincludeseekingdemolitionquotes/bidsorpossibly
doingnothingmorethanwaitforadditionalclarityregardingthePostOffice’sstatus.
A1.StaffImpact:Minor;thereislittletimeinvolvedindiscussingthefuture
directionregardingFred’sAutoProperty.Removingthesigninvolvedthe
assistanceofthePublicWorksDepartment.
A2.BudgetImpact:ThereislimitedbudgetimpactfromdiscussingFred’sAuto
Property.DependingontheEDAdirection,theremaybeacostifthe
recommendationistodemolishthebuildingandprepareitforresaleasavacant
lot.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontoauthorizestafftosolicitdemolitionbidsforthebuildingandparkinglot
area.
2.MotiontoauthorizeexplorationofaRenovationandRenewalTIFDistrict
possibilityinvolvingFred’sAutoandthePostOfficefacilitywithassistancefrom
NorthlandSecurities.
3.Motiontotableforadditionalinformationordiscussion.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsAlternative#1asapotentialsurestepiftheEDAisinterestedin
creatingacleanpad-readysitefornewconstruction.Alternative#2isrecommendedif
theEDAwantstoconsideraTIFDistrictforpossibleredevelopment.SincethePost
OfficeandFred’sAutopropertytogetherconstitute38percentoftheblock,the
RenovationandRenewalDistrictwouldbeaneffectivetooltohelpfacilitatethe
redevelopmentofthisarea.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
A.AerialImageofSiteandBlock
B.RenovationandRenewalTIFDistrictInformation
2
EDA Agenda: 4/12/17
1
8.Economic Development Report (JT)
CEDS (Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy)
The third of four CEDS meetings was held in St. Cloud on March 28. The topic of discussion
was “Community Resources”. The attached materials provide a summary of the impact of
arts and tourism in the regional and state economy.
As a reminder, the fourth topical meeting will held in the next month to discuss Foundational
Assets. Staff will make sure that the EDA is notified when the next CEDS meeting is
scheduled.
Housing Study
A third draft of the Housing Study has been completed by WSB. Staff are now reviewing the
document for final edits and consideration at the May 2017 EDA meeting.
Small Area Study
The steering committee for the Small Area Study has met for the third time. An open house
was held on March 30, 2017 with good attendance and feedback from participants. Meetings
will be held with focus groups as a next step in the process.
Prospects
Staff is still actively engaged with or monitoring the next steps process for several prospects.
They are:
1. Large International firm 2. Shred-N-Go
3.DEED Prospect 4. Project Novus
WCEDP Activities
A summary report of 2016 activities and contacts in Monticello from the Wright County
Economic Development Partnership (WCEDP) is attached.
WSB Economic Development Support Contract Activities Update
A summary report of the 2016-2017 activities and contacts in Monticello from WSB is
attached.
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy –your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
C:\Users\vicki.leerhoff\Desktop\New folder\EDA\Item 8. Exh C - WSB 04-2017 Update.docx
Memorandum
To:Monticello EDA
Jim Thares, Economic Development Manager
From:Jim Gromberg, Economic Development Coordinator
Date:April 6, 2017
Re:Project Updates
WSB Project No. 02596-034
Thank you for the opportunity to continue to assist the City of Monticello in their continued efforts to
provide economic vitality for the community and the residents. Below are updates on the projects that are
currently being completed for the city with regards to the economic development efforts.
•Senior Housing:I met with D. W. Jones and Progressive Care to discuss the need and
opportunity for the development of a senior housing or assisted living facility in the City of
Monticello. The meeting went well and based on the demographics of the area (percentage of
population over 55, current facilities) there is a market for senior housing and assisted living.
They group did request additional information concerning the existing facilities and the area that
was covered by the demographic information.
•Workforce Housing:The additional good news is they currently have a couple of workforce
housing projects (Pelican Rapids, Mora and Glenwood) that could be examples of projects that
could work for the City of Monticello. The project would require about 3 acres and would be
estimated to be 24-36 units. We will need to collect job vacancy information for the local
companies which will help with the determination of the need. Since the new facilities are not age
or income specific, these units may also assist in the development of a stronger life cycle housing
process for the community.
•Project Novus:The City was contacted by a consultant for the development of a new facility for
a company. This was a search being conducted in the north metro (outside the 694 beltline).
While the company has not decided on the final location they have excluded one of the sites in
the north metro from additional consideration.
•Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy:The 7W region is currently completing the
CEDS plan for the counties of Stearns, Benton, Wright and Sherburne. This study will allow for a
comprehensive plan for the region for continued development. The completion of the study will
allow for the area to have better access to possible federal EDA funds. Jenn Russell from the
Central Minnesota Job Skills Training is leading the effort and the City of Monticello has been
involved in the discussions concerning the development of the plan.
•Groebner Manufacturing:The Company has found a new location in the City of Rogers that will
meet their needs for limited outside storage. They will continue to have a relationship with
Monticello and understand that the city did not have a site that worked for their needs. In the
effort to prevent the same happening in the future the City may want evaluate the need for areas
that allow for outdoor storage.
•Wright County Brokers Event:The Wright County Economic Development Partnership is
currently in the process of planning a broker’s event for September 19th that will be held at Fox
Hollow Golf Course. The City will have the opportunity to have a table at the event to provide
Project Updates
March 8, 2017
Page 2
C:\Users\vicki.leerhoff\Desktop\New folder\EDA\Item 8. Exh C - WSB 04-2017 Update.docx
information about opportunities in the community. One of the things that we have been talking
about is the development of a marketing piece that promotes the different communities in a
consistent way. The group agrees that the design of the Monticello pieces is a good style for the
marketing pieces. Jim Thares has also attended the meetings for the planning of the event.
•Minnesota Marketing Partnership:The Minnesota Marketing Partnership has conducted its
first quarter with the City of Owatonna hosting the event. The state will be attending the Site
Selector Guild as a Gold Sponsor the week of March 13 -16. The presentation at the meeting
was by Janet Addy a site selector and Economic Development Marketing firm. The biggest take
away from the presentation is that communities need to be prepared for the opportunity of
submitting sites for possible projects. This preparation also includes the development of
identification of community assets.
•Site Selectors Guild:The State of Minnesota was a gold sponsor at the Site Selector Guilds
annual conference. The conference was concluded by a private lunch with the guild to discuss
Minnesota and the communities that were represented. The biggest suggestion from the site
selectors was that communities and the state need to promote themselves about the
opportunities that exist. This includes the development of the reasons on why a project would
work in the community (development of the community’s assets).
•Project 556:This is a unknown large manufacturer that is currently conducting a multi-state
search for a new facility. The company had not yet decided on the final location for the facility.
They were scheduled for site visits in January-February but those visits were put on hold based
on internal discussions for the company.
•Greater St. Cloud Development Corporation:The GSCDC completed a business retention
visit with UMC concerning their future and current operations. The visit was conducted with the
St. Cloud Chamber and the Grow Minnesota initiative with the Minnesota Chamber. The company
did discuss that they are in the beginning stages of planning new larger facilities to accommodate
growth.
Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the above projects or require additional
information on the projects. In addition, let me know if you have additional projects that should be
reviewed and included.