IDC Agenda 10-16-1997• AGENDA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, October 16,1997 - 7:00 a.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chair Ken Maus, Vice Chair Tom Lindquist, Secretary Tom Ollig, Shelly Johnson,
Don Smith, Kevin Doty, Bill Tapper, Dick Van Allen, Bob Mosford, and Grace
Pederson.
COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Bill Fair
STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Ollie Koropchak.
GUEST: Dan Goeman, Goeman Realty
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE JULY 17 AND SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 IDC
MINUTES.
3. WELCOME NEW IDC MEMBER BOB MOSFORD.
• 4. CONSIDERATION TO SUMMARIZE FEEDBACK FROM THE JOINT MEETING
FOR THE PURPOSE TO PLAN A STRATEGY FOR FOLLOW THROUGH.
5. CONSIDERATION OF A PRESENTATION BY DAN GOEMAN: AVAILABLE
PROPERTY FOR CONSIDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
6. CONSIDERATION OF BRE VISITS AND INDUSTRIAL PROSPECTS.
7. CONSIDERATION OF CHAMBER ACTIVITIES:
A. IDC BANQUET, October 28, 1997 - Accountability of tickets sold. Other requests.
B. Monti/Rogers Industrial Tour -October 16. Lunch, Russell's in St. Michael -Panel
forum, Monti SchooUBusiness Apprenticeship Program.
C. Expo, November 16, Little Mountain Elementary.
8. OTHER BUSINESS.
9. ADJOURNMENT.
Monticello Industrial Development Committee:
Minutes of September 18, 1997 Meeting
Members Present: Ken Maus, Tom Lindquist, Kevin Doty, Tom Ollig, Bill Tapper,
Dick Van Allen, Grace Pederson.
Others Present: Mayor Bill Fair, City Staff Ollie Koropchak
Members Absent: Shelly Johnson, Don Smith, Jay Morrell
1. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Ken Maus
2. The 1997 IDC Banquet Tickets and information was handed out. Chairman Maus
urged the IDC members to personally contact the businesses assigned to them for
banquet tickets rather than just mailing them out. At our October 16`~ meeting we
would like feedback on ticket sales.
3. Grace Pederson, Chamber President will give an update on the proposed I-94
corridor tour the week of October 13~' at our next meeting.
4. All IDC members were urged to attend the IDC, Planning Commission, HRA,
City Council, City Staffworkshop on September 29`x. Note this is not an official
meeting rather an casual workshop.
Bill Tapper and Ken Maus gave the IDC an overview of the agenda for the
• workshop, after much discussion it was recommended that the IDC try to set up a
tour of the Anoka Industrial Pazk for the IDC, HRA and City Council.
5. Chairman Ken Maus read a letter of resignation received from Jay
Morrell.
Motioned by Tom Lindquist seconded by Kevin Doty to contact Mr. Bob Mosford
to join the IDC in light of Jay's resignation. Unanimously approved. Ollie was
directed to send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Morrell thanking him for his many
year of service to the IDC.
6. Ollie reviewed with the IDC various business prospects.
a. Sunny Fresh and Rainbow Ent. Visits by her and the Mayor.
b. Tire Service Equip. and Standard Iron will be visited next.
c. Miller Construction from St. Cloud will be meeting with Ollie.
d. Jerry Howazd of DCI is looking to start a new operation, looking for 10,000
sq. feet to lease, 5 to 8 jobs.
e. Received from the State of MN information on a business looking to relocate
would mean 20 jobs with possible growth over time to 100 jobs. Looking for a
building of 15,000 sq. feet.
7. Motioned by Tom Lindquist seconded by Grace Pederson to adjourn, unanimously
approved. Next IDC meeting October 16`x.
•
Monticello Industrial Development Committee:
Minutes of July 17, 1997 Meeting
Members Present: Ken Maus, Tom Lindquist, Tom Ollig, Bill Tapper, Dick Van Allen,
Others Present: Mayor Bill Falr, City Staff, Ollie Koropchak, Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch,
and Bill Fahrney of Shingobee, Inc.
Members Absent: Shelly Johnson, Jay Morrell, Don Smith, Kevin Doty, Grace Pederson.
1. Minutes of June 18, 1997 meeting were reviewed, motioned by Dick Van Allen to
approve, 2°a by Bill Tapper, unanimously approved.
2. Chairman Ken Maus introduced Mr. Bill Fahrney of Shingobee, Inc.
Discussion centered on the long range plans of NSP in regard to the land they
currently own. It is apparent that NSP does not need all of the property it now has.
Many options are being looked at keeping the needs of the City in mind.
3. No date has yet been scheduled for the IDC subcommittee workshop with the City
Council and City Staff. schedules will again be compared to try and work out a date.
4. An update on the storm damage and how the City is responding was given by Fred
Patch of the City Staff. It is estimated that some 600 buildings throughout Monticello
received some type of damage ranging from shingles missing to total destruction.
Residential, Commercial and Industrial properties were effected. The City Staff is
gearing up to streamline the construction and repair permit process. The City has
added additional staff to help with this process, and put on hold some current projects
in order to be able to meet the needs of residents with significant structural damage
to their home or business.
5. Ollie Koropchak reported that the Faymar building is still under construction,
Standard Iron and FSI had significant water damage from the storm.
Also stated that she has heard nothing from the Council in regard to the new tax
abatement request by Midwest Graphics.
6. Reminder of the IDC Banquet on October 28`x.
7. Note a Planning Commission meeting to be held on August 5"' in regard to rezoning
of some parcels of property currently in the City. This would require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
8. There being no further business motioned by Tom Ollig seconded by Bill Tapper to
adjourn, unanimously approved.
•
November 12, 1997
~J
TO: City Council, HRA, and IDC Members and City Staff
FROM: Mayor Bill Fair and Administrator Rick Wolfsteller
SUBJECT: Business Retention Reception
The Mayor and Administrator of the City of Monticello invite you to a reception honoring Eric,
Carl, and Dennis Bondhus, owners of Lake Tool, Inc. Lake Tool recently relocated and moved
into their new facility on Dundas Circle. As an expression of city goodwill, a business retention
reception will be held on Tuesday, November 25,1997, at 3:30 p.m. at Lake Tool, 1347
Dundas Circle.
RSVP, 271-3208, Ollie.
•
Monticello IDC/City Council workshop on
Industrial Development
Opening Comments:
* The purpose of this workshop is to create a better
understanding of the following:
* The status of Industrial Development in
Monticello.
* The benefits of Industrial Development
* What it takes to attract Industry to Monticello
* It is very difficult obtain exact data and
comparisons on this subject, thus much of the
discussion will need to be based on intuition.
* NSP dollars over time have established a standard of
living for Monticello that will be difficult to
maintain in the future. {Exhibit #10)
* 71~ of Monticello's tax revenue now comes from
NSP (Exhibit #3)
* NSP's portion of Monticello's tax revenue has
• dropped 5.6~ in 3 years. (Exhibit #3)
* NSP's portion of Monticello's tax revenue will
certainly drop dramatically over time do to the
following.
* Monticello's growth will demand a larger
budget while NSP tax capacity will not likely
grow.
* Minnesota is likely to change how utilities
are taxed.
* NSP operations are likely to be reduced as
the nuclear license runs out.
* As it relates to industrial development the city has
the broadest authority and must take the lead position
even though other taxing authorities will benefit.
Decisions must consider the total tax benefit to the
tax payer not just the cities portion.
Discussion on the benefits i~ndu4tr~,?7 development:
* Industrial taxes are three""Mmes yteater than
residential. (Exhibit #1)(Exhibit #4)
* Industry requires less city services than does
residential.
* One dollar invested in Industrial Development returns
Seven to the community (exhibit #2).
* Industries support schools they don't require them.
Discussion on what other cities are doing to entice
industry to their city:
• * Anoka model (exhibit #5)
* Free land is a given. (Quote Bill Fahrney)
* Having a industry friendly attitude (Anoka video
segment)
Discussion on financial assistance programs
available to Monticello:
* (Exhibit # 6)
Discussion on current Industrial land availability
in Monticello:
* Map (Exhibit map)
* Green acres
Discussion on enticing industry to Monticello:
* Short term (BC rezoning)
* Phase 2 (Hwy. 25 park)(Exhibit #7)
* Phase 3 (West side park)
* What other incentives can Monticello offer
(Exhibit #8) (Exhibit #9)
* Create a business friendly environment
* Maximize our flexibility
Recoamaendations
* Rezone BC to Il with agreement to revise freeway
building sight covenants to parallel BC building
standards
* City Council adopt a resolution that mandates city
staff adopt a Industry friendly attitude and find
creative ways to help Industry locate and expand in
Monticello.
* City Council immediately begin the study of a city
owned Industrial park on Hwy. 25 and or the west side.
* The workshop attendees tour the Anoka park
•
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 29, 1997 - 7 p.m.
City Council Present: Bill Fair, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson,
Bruce Thielen
Planning Commission
Present: Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Richard Carlson
HRA Present: Brad Barger, Steve Andrews, Dan Frie, Bill Murray,
Darrin Lahr
IDC Present: Bill Tapper, Tom Ollig, Tom Lindquist
A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of discussing the
status of industrial development in Monticello.
IDC member Bill Tapper reported that, after studying the current status of
industrial development in Monticello, the IDC marketing committee concluded that
the City should take the lead in development of additional industrial land and
create a marketing plan. It was their view that the taxes received from the NSP
plant have established a standard of living for Monticello that could be difficult to
maintain in the future as NSP's portion of the tax revenue decreases.
The group discussed the benefits of industrial development, and Bill Tapper noted
that industrial taxes are three times greater than residential, while industries
require less city services than residential developments. In addition, he estimated
that there is a $7 return for every $1 invested in industrial development.
A video explaining the success and development methods of Anoka's Enterprise
Park was shown, after which Monticello's financial assistance programs were
discussed and compared to the incentives offered by Anoka. Bill Tapper suggested
that in order to entice industry to Monticello, the business campus district
regulations should be oriented more toward industry than commercial, program
flexibility should be maximized to work with industries to the fullest extent
possible, and the City needs to be recognized as abusiness-friendly city. It was
noted that once the City decides the direction it will take regarding industrial
growth, a marketing plan must be developed to let people know what Monticello
has to offer.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the IDC made the following recommendations to
the City Council:
Page 1
Special Council Meeting - 9/29/97
r
1. Rezone the business campus districts to I-1 with the agreement to
revise the freeway building sight covenants to parallel BC building
standards.
2. The City Council adopt a resolution that mandates City staff adopt an
industry-friendly attitude and find creative ways to help industry
locate and expand in Monticello.
3. The City Council immediately begin the study of a city-owned
industrial park adjacent and west of on Highway 25.
4. The workshop attendees tour the Anoka Enterprise Park.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 2
~ I l__/
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
See attached report.
C J~~ ~ 3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
~,~~ ~~~~(~ Motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation as noted in
~~ -~ the attached report by NAC.
2. Motion to deny the request.
(" STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator recommends alternative #1.
D SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission agenda item written by City Planner.
~~~~
',
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
r
PLANNING REPORT
T0: Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: August 2fi, '1997
RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance Amendment -
Business Campus District
FILE NO: 191.06 - 97.
. Conside~on of an acoiication by the City to amend the Business CamQ,us District
~y renaming the District and recansiderlna,~9reen s~,~quirements.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Industrial Development Committee has suggested that the City restn~cture the current
Business Campus District in an effort to make the lands within the District more attractive
to developmerrt. The IDC has conGuded that the lads of industrial development in the BC
zoned areas is attributable, at feast in part, to both the perception of the District as
unfriendly to development, and the reality of a concem over buildable.areas limited by the
landscaping requirements.
District Name
This issue may be approached in a number of ways. The concept behind this proposal is
to remove, or alter, the "Business' part of the title to make the District sound more
industrial in nature. The options discussed among staff and the IDC have included
d~anging the B-C to "1-3"; changing B-C to 'I-1 ", and renumbering the current 1-1 and (-2
Districts to I-2 and I-3, respectively; and changing the B-C District to "I-1A".
The I-3 option would be simple, but could lead to confusion due to the fact that the
Ordinance would establish its most restrictive District with the highest number. The
41
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
opposite is more typical. Renumbering the other districts would be more is keeping with
the expected system. However, the reclassfication of this much land with such similar
zoning district names could be confusing for both property owners and City Staff.
The I-1A option would also misorder of the districts by placing the most restrictive district
between 1-1 and 12. However, this option does represent the truest picture of the altered
B-C District: a slightly changed 1-1 District This is because the land uses would change
little from I-1 to 1-1 A, and except for building materials, little change would be seen in
performance standards. The primary difference between districts would be the
requirement in the I-1A that a percentage of the building be covered with a masonry
material.
Green Space
Current B-C District language requires a 30 percent green space reservation from every
developed parcel. The IDC has proposed that this language be removed. At the time of
the adoption of the e-C, there was a concern that land in the Cites industrial areas would
be underdeveloped, particularly in the areas exposed to the freeway. Since that time, the
City has adopted more extensive landscaping requirements, particularly with the bufferyard
ordinance. As a result, it may be appropriate to cansider dropping the percentage green
space requirement, especially given the development pace in the industrial area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision ~. Ordinance amending the title of the Business Campus District
~ ~~,~;en
,~ ~ Altemative 1.
`~
Altemative 2.
Altemative 3.
Approve. the renaming of the B-C, Business Campus District to I-1 A,
Industrial.
Approve the renaming of the B-C, Business Campus Distrlct to
another name.
Deny the renaming of the 8-C, Business Campus District.
Decision 2. Ordinance amending the Business Campus District by changing the Lot
Coverage requirements relating to minimum landscape area.
~a~'d~
G ,~`r~ Altemative 1. Approve the elimination of the percenrtage landscape area from the
~,~~ Business Campus District
Altemative 2.
Altemative 3.
Approve the modficatlon of the percentage landscape area within the
Business Campus District.
Deny the modification of the percentage landscape area.
42
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
C. STAFF RECOMIUIFNt~AT10N
Staff suggests the "I-1A' nomenclature if the Ci chooses to ren
ty ame the Business
Campus District. This is primarily due to convenience of past zoning references, and
avoiding confusion when dealing with developed property. The need for the change would
be based upon the recommendation of the Industrial Development Committee.
With regard to the percentage landscape area, Staff is unsure that either the name of the
district or the landscape requirements have deterred development, considering the
industrial development market, and the fact that the City has been actively involved in land
sales in the area. However, the current zoning regulations provide adequate ability to
maintain an attractive industrial area with minimal impacts on adjacent properties.
Therefore, the elimination of landscape percentage requirements does not threaten the
City's interest in industrial park development
Exhibit A, Ordinance eliminating the percentage landscape requirements.
•
• ~
., ~' ~F 3
._ Ordinance No. _
City of MonticEllo
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 15A, SECTION 5 (/~~, OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOT- COVERAGE IN THE B-C
ANDlOR 1-2A ZONING DlSTR1CT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HERESY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 _
Chapter 15A, Section 5 jA] is amended to read as follows:
[A] LOT COVERAGE: There shall be no minimum ar maximum fot coverage
requirements in tis district.
• Section 2.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
//s//
•
EXHIBIT A -Ordinance Amendment
5F-~
C:
r1
f. J
•
Thursday, Sept. 18, 1997-Page 2
Letters
To The Editor:
I have been a resident and
practicing Wright County physi-
ctan for over thtrty years.
Recently I had an opportunity
to welcome a friend of mine to see
the Monticello area as a potential
site for re-location of a computer
business that employs approxi-
mately 35-40 full-time employ-
ees.
After we concluded this site
tour, these were his observations:
The inner core of the city
appears to be in a slow-death pat-
tern; vacant unmowed lots; deteri-
orating city river park; highway
right-of-ways in and out of the
city showing poor maintenance; a
new bike path on the west side of
the city not visible due to weed
and brush overgrowth; county and
state road signs down or wrecked
for several years; after the July 1
storm, litter still on the streets and
highways; some businesses in the
main center of town and sur-
rounding areas show very little or
no pride of ownership.
I visited the Monticello city
planner to express these concerns.
He directed me to the Wright
County Highway Department.
After the visit to that site and
viewing the appearance of the
grounds, I can see why Wright
County has so many difficulties in
right-of-way maintenance.
I have always been a supporter
of the businesses in Monticello
and Wright County, but I fail to
understand why Monticello is
considering an annexation of
more township properties when
both governments are not able to
service adequately, nor have ade-
quate funds or long-range plans,
to provide adequate servtces to
the present residents.
My friend departed that day
and much to my regret he stated
that Monticello and Wright
County will not be a future con-
sideration for a relocation with his
business.
~ Suggestions for improvements:
~ change the taxation policy at the
I, state, county, town and local lev-
els that property taxes be
decreased if property owners
improve their properties. If prop-
erty owners allow their property
to deteriorate and not meet com-
munity standards increase their
property taxes.
If land is annexed for further
community developments, the
cost of services should be
assessed against the developer
and property owners, not against
older, inner-city properties. Form
local neighborhood groups simi-
lar to neighborhood crtme watch
groups to work with property
owners and government to
resolve local problems that direct-
ly or indirectly affect all citizens
in Wright County. I will volunteer
my time and skills.
-Joseph F. Wethington, M.D.,
Box 846, Monticello.
-'-~
CD
O
C~
O
to
~-
o'
~~