HomeMy WebLinkAboutAd Hoc Business Park Planning Committee - Agenda - 2/14/2023K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Agendas\2023 Agendas\02 FEBRUARY 14
2023\FEB 14, 2023 BUSINESS PARK AGENDA.doc
Bayfield County Administrator
117 E 5th Street, PO Box 878, Washburn, WI 54891
Ph: 715-373-6181 Fx: 715-373-6153
Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator
Kristine Kavajecz, Human Resources Director
Paige Terry, Clerk
BAYFIELD COUNTY
AD HOC BUSINESS PARK PLANNING COMMITTEE
Cole Rabska Marty Milanowski
Ken Disher Mark Abeles-Allison Leo Carlson
Preston Mikula Jake Hipsher
Dear Committee Members:
This letter is written to inform you of the Bayfield County Ad Hoc Business Park
Planning Committee Meeting scheduled for Tuesday February 14, 2023, 10:00
a.m., This will be an in-person meeting at the Town of Eileen Town Hall,
29130 State Hwy 137, Ashland, WI 54806. Please use the information below
to connect via phone or video. If you have questions or need assistance, please
contact Mark Abeles-Allison at 715 373-6181 or mark.abeles-
allison@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov
The agenda for this meeting is as follows:
Notice is hereby given that a majority of the Bayfield County Board may be present at the meeting to gather
information about a subject over which they have decision-making responsibility. This constitutes a meeting of
the Bayfield County Board pursuant to State ex rel. Badke v.Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis. 2d 553, 494
N.W.2d 408(1993), and must be noticed as such, although the County Board will not take any formal action at
this meeting.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Introductions
3. Public Comment
4. Minutes from January 18, 2023
5. Discussion with Cooper Engineering Regarding Utility Feasibility Study
6. Discussion Regarding Ribbon Cutting
7. Discussion Regarding Business Park Policy Regarding Storage
K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Agendas\2023 Agendas\02 FEBRUARY 14
2023\FEB 14, 2023 BUSINESS PARK AGENDA.doc
8. Discussion Regarding SSG/WEDC Update of Site Selection Pilot Program
9. Discussion Regarding Items Needed to Establish Codes, Covenants, and
Restrictions for the Bayfield County Business Park
10. Adjournment, next meeting, March 14, 2023
Should you have any questions in the meantime, please contact Cole or me.
Sincerely,
Mark Abeles-Allison
Bayfield County Administrator
MAA/pt
Any person planning to attend a Bayfield County meeting that has a disability
requiring special accommodations should contact 373-6100, 24-hours before the
scheduled meeting, so appropriate arrangements can be made.
cc: Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
The Daily Press, via email
K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Minutes\2023 Minutes\JAN 18, 2023
MINUTES Business Park.doc
Bayfield County Administrator
117 E 5th Street, PO Box 878, Washburn, WI 54891
Ph: 715-373-6181 Fx: 715-373-6153
Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator
Kristine Kavajecz, Human Resources Director
Paige Terry, Clerk III
Minutes of the:
Bayfield County Ad-Hoc Business Park Planning Committee
Wednesday January 18th, 2023 – 2:30 p.m.
Meeting Held Remotely
BAYFIELD COUNTY
AD HOC BUSINESS PARK PLANNING COMMITTEE
Cole Rabska, Chair Ken Disher
Mark Abeles-Allison Marty Milanowski, Vice-Chair Leo Carlson
Preston Mikula Jake Hipsher
1. Call to Order:
The Bayfield County Ad Hoc Business Park Planning County was called to order at 2:31
p.m. by Committee Chairman Rabska.
Members Present: Cole Rabska, Marty Milanowski, Mark Abeles-Allison, Leo Carlson,
Preston Mikula, Ken Disher, Jake Hipsher (arrived late)
Others Present: Paige Terry- Bayfield County Clerk III, Bruce Markgren- Cooper
Engineering President, Dave Gale-Westwood, Jake Benson- Bayfield County Highway Patrol
Superintendent, Jeff Saxby- SEH
2. Introductions: Introductions of committee members were made.
2:35 p.m. – Jake Hipsher joined the meeting.
3. Public Comment: None
4. Minutes from November 16, 2022:
Motion by Milanowski, seconded by Mikula to adopt the minutes of the November 16, 2022
Bayfield County Ad-Hoc Business Park meeting as presented. Motion Carried.
5. Presentation Regarding Highway 137 Reconstruction Project, WisDOT: Jeff Saxby,
SEH, informed the committee that the environmental documents for the project are being
prepared and a public comment period for the project was held earlier. Construction is
anticipated to begin in 2024 but the deadline may change depending on problems that
may arise. Saxby informed the committee that thoughts, comments, and ideas regarding
K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Minutes\2023 Minutes\JAN 18, 2023
MINUTES Business Park.doc
the project are much appreciated. Dave Gale, with Westwood, explained that the project
will be taking place from US HWY 2 on the west side to State HWY 112 on the east side.
Gale reviewed the project’s planned improvements. The committee discussed the
implications of the project and how it may affect the business park.
6. Utility Feasibility Study Report, Cooper Engineering: Bruce Markgren, Cooper
Engineering President, reported that an agreement was recently sent out to the Town of
Eileen for review and to be signed. Once the agreement is signed and sent back to Cooper
Engineering, they will move forward with the project and begin the analysis.
7. Discussion Regarding Update on Site Selector Group Request for Information
Regarding the Certified Site Pilot Program: Rabska informed the committee that he is
continuing to work with the site selector group and wanted to let the committee know that
he has heard of establishments being asked to pay a site certification fee costing upwards
of $7,500 but has yet to be asked to pay such a fee.
8. Reports:
a. Signage: Rabska reported that the sign contract is close to being finished and
hopes the sign will be built the following spring.
b. Ribbon Cutting: Rabska reported that KV Tech is rebranding to KV Builders,
and the company is fully moved in to their site at the business park. Rabska
recommended holding a ribbon cutting ceremony during the spring to celebrate
multiple events that happened at the business park.
c. Advertising and Promotion: Rabska reported that the WDC website is up to date
regarding information on the business park and that the BCEDC regularly
mentions the park in its newsletter and on Facebook. Rabska informed the
committee that most of the inquiry calls regarding the business park stem from
citizens that notice the purple banners that were hung at the park. Mikula asked if
it would be helpful to reach out to Bottom Line News to ask them to write an
article on KV Builders. Rabska answered no as the paper does not have the staff
available to write the article, only to publish a submitted article.
9. The Committee may entertain a motion to move in and out of Closed Session
pursuant to §19.85(1) (e) Deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public
properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business,
whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session:
Chairman Rabska dispensed with the item as there were no items to be presented in closed
session at this time.
10. Adjournment, Next Meeting:
Mikula asked if anyone had talked to the City of Ashland to see if the city would be okay
with the Business Park hooking up to the city’s line. Abeles-Allison explained that the
city did not necessarily rule the option out the last he spoke with staff. Disher asked if the
city was close to its line limits which would be impacted by the business park hook up.
Mikula informed the committee that he had heard the city would be close to its line
limits. Abeles-Allison asked Disher if he had any updates for the property being utilized
at the business park but Disher said there were no new updates to report. Bayfield electric
K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Minutes\2023 Minutes\JAN 18, 2023
MINUTES Business Park.doc
has set mid-June 2023 as the estimated completion date at the parcel.
Next meeting was set for Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:00 AM at the Town Hall of
the Town of Eileen.
There being no further business to come before the Bayfield County Ad-Hoc Business Park
Planning Committee, Committee Chairman, Rabska adjourned the meeting at 3:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paige Terry
Paige Terry, Clerk III
Bayfield County Clerk’s & Administrator’s Offices
Wisconsin Certified Sites
November 2022
Bayfield County Business Park
Executive Summary
3
Program Status
SITE AND COMMUNITY READINESS EVALUATION PHASE
THIS REPORT
SSG and WEDC redesigned the Wisconsin Certified Sites program to add value beyond the
“stamp”of certification.We have engaged a comprehensive approach to site readiness that
also incorporates workforce,target industry recommendations,RFI and site visit feedback,
and more.We strongly believe that every property is different and requires a customized
approach to development.This report is the aggregation of SSG’s third party perspective on
what we think about the property and what we think the next steps towards development
should be.This report does not mean that the site has achieved certification –the
outstanding items to certification are listed in the certification tracker (in Excel)provided.
WHAT IS THIS REPORT?
Request for
Information
Site &
Community
Readiness
Visit
Strategic
Development
Plan
SSG has provided a color-coded Excel document that
outlines what the outstanding items are towards fulfilling
the site certification requirements.Please feel free to use
SSG as a resource as you work through the due diligence
process and have questions.We accept these responses
to these requirements on a rolling basis,but have set a
deadline of March 31,2023.
NEXT STEPS TOWARDS CERTIFICATION
CERTICIATION TRACKER
EXAMPLE CERTIFIED SITE
CERTIFICATION PHASE
4
Executive Summary: Site & Community Report
100+ developable acres under public control
Electric and natural gas infrastructure on-site
Internal gravel road stubbed in and allows access into core developable acreage
SSG has provided an in-depth report on the Bayfield County Business Park and hopes the community finds value in the level of data and detail provided.To summarize the full report,we have brought a few key slides
here to the top to provide the key takeaways from the report. The four categories below represent the structure of the report: Site Analysis, Workforce, Target Industry, and Execution on RFI and Site Visit.
Site Analysis
Rezoning required for industrial use
No municipal water or wastewater systems serve the site
Due diligence has not been completed at the property
Target Industry
Competitive
Positioning:
Workforce &
Costs
Further supporting the target industry analysis, comparing Bayfield against
other communities across Wisconsin shows that it’s strongest value proposition is likely in the food and/or wood industries.
The site has a pretty strong cost-focused value proposition. However, this
does not take into account logistics costs which would likely hurt the site’s
cost profile for most types of industry.
Unfortunately, Bayfield doesn’t score as favorably from a
workforce perspective for most types of industries. It’s simply much more rural with a lower presence of target industrial-focused occupational clusters compared to other
sites across Wisconsin.
Files were organized logically and easy to reference during the site
evaluation.
Maps/visuals were clear and provided enhanced understanding of conditions at the site.
Utility questionnaires would benefit from more information.
Digital content in presentation was not utilized for site visit meeting. Improving this technology will help enhance the first impression of the community as you give a prepared
pitch of the community and property.
Execution RFI
& Site Visit
Based on the quantitative analysis, we’re not surprised to see food and
wood/construction products score strongly in the target industry
analysis.
Again, given the community’s geographic positioning, target industries are going to be strongly connected to local commodities/feedstock
available in the area –food and wood could be aligned on that front.
Site and utility constraints (specifically water and
wastewater) while have a material impact on the types of
projects the community and this site can attract. Lighter uses, or those in the wood/timber industry that may not water/wastewater in their processes may be more aligned.
5
Strategic Development Plan: Bayfield County Business Park
ACTION PLAN Timing Comments Investment Level ROI Potential
Strategic Initiative 1: Water and Wastewater Study
1. Prioritize USDA Feasibility Study Immediate
The inability to serve the site by a municipal water/wastewater system is a significant challenge. The USDA Feasibility Study should be a top priority of economic development team, as this is a barrier to industrial recruitment, and it is SSG’s opinion that the property will be precluded from most industrial site selection searches before this issue is resolved. Work with the City of Ashland to develop detailed cost and schedule for delivering municipal service to the property. It’s important to have these proactive discussions rather than trying to gather information while a project is in hand.
$$$HIGH
2. Gather engineer’s cost and schedule for on-site wells and address fire flow Immediate In the short-term, gather engineer’s cost and schedule for private well installation, as well as capacities this solution could realistically serve. The community should also address concerns for industrial fire flow protection requirements.$$HIGH
3. Gather engineer’s cost and schedule
for on-site septic Immediate In the short-term, gather engineer’s cost and schedule for private septic installation, as well as capacities this
solution could realistically serve.$$HIGH
Strategic Initiative 2: Utility Adequacy
1. Further evaluate electric capacity at the property Immediate Work with electric providers to better understand the level of service (MW) available to the property, including estimated cost and schedule for delivering recommended levels of service (1.5 MW, 3 MW, 5 MW, 10-15 MW and beyond) for industrial clients.$MODERATE
2. Ensure alignment between electric
providers on future projects On-going
SSG applauds the collaboration between electric providers, given the “split site.” The fact that these entities
play well together and will do whatever it takes to make a project successful does not go overlooked. Simply
ensure alignment between broader economic development team and electric provider(s) on future RFI
responses.
$LOW
3. Vet natural gas infrastructure for
higher demands 6 months
SSG feels relatively comfortable with the 10,000 mcf per month natural gas capacity available to the property,
as this will cover most “bread and butter” industrial projects. However, projects are regularly increasing utility
demands, and as such, community should work with gas provider to proactively understand cost and schedule
estimates to meet demands greater than 10,000 mcf per month.
$LOW
4. Continue to refine utility information as property develops On-going Ensure alignment between economic development team and utility partners regarding the utility infrastructure to serving the property (size, location, capacities, etc.) and continue to hone the narrative and translate messaging into future RFIs as the property develops and infrastructure is built out.$LOW
5. Create Master Utilities Map Immediate Create a Master Utility Infrastructure Map that depicts both existing and proposed infrastructure at the site. This exhibit will help prospects understand the existing conditions at the site easily with a one-page document.$$MODERATE
6
Strategic Development Plan: Bayfield County Business Park
ACTION PLAN Timing Comments Investment Level ROI Potential
Strategic Initiative 3: Rezoning for Industrial Use
1. Consider rezoning in order to reduce development timeline 12 months Consider the benefits of proactive rezoning to allow for industrial use at the property to mitigate schedule risks for future prospects. Anything you can do to reduce the development timeframe improves the property’s competitive advantage in the marketplace, which is especially important for properties in rural markets.$$HIGH
2. Detail rezoning process for future prospects Immediate Be prepared to discuss the rezoning process (process and timeline) for potential industrial end users. $HIGH
Strategic Initiative 4: Enhance Site Developability
1. Create Master Conceptual Plan Immediate Create a Master Conceptual Plan for the property that depicts various building sizes and facility layouts, including one concept that visualizes the entire property for a large, single user.$$MODERATE
2. Complete due diligence studies Immediate Complete due diligence studies (Phase I ESA, Wetlands Delineation, Endangered Species Report, Archaeological Report, and Geotechnical Assessment) at the property.$$MODERATE
3. Gather engineer’s plans for upgrading internal park road Immediate Gather engineer’s estimated cost and schedule for upgrading internal park road (including process, cost, schedule, etc.) to provide industrial level access.$$HIGH
7
Due Diligence Plan: Bayfield County Business Park
The suggestions above are based on a cursory review of the property conditions and research conducted by others.Suggestions are made in line with SSG’s opinion of what a typical prospect/consultant would like to have completed on the property, and what SSG considers is a common sense approach to due diligence.
DOCUMENTATION STATUS / DATE COMPLETED SSG’S COMMENTS ON DUE DILIGENCE
Documentation of Control/Ownership INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Title Search February 27, 2012 Title insurance will need to be updated since it is has been over ten years since it was completed.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Wetlands Delineation May 1, 2016 Wetlands Delineation will need to be updated since it is has been over six years since it was completed.
Jurisdictional Determination letter from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Survey INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Archaeological and Historical
Investigation INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Geotechnical Assessment INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Master Conceptual Plan INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
ALTA Survey December 1, 2014 ALTA survey provided –please update ALTA survey to include any changes that have occurred since December 1, 2014.
Fire Insurance Classification Rating INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Technical Site Analysis
9
Bayfield County Business Park
~136 available acres
10
Site Characteristics
Acreage
Property is 206 acres, of which approximately 136.78 acres
are considered available and developable (66%.)
Largest contiguous parcel is approximately 83.4 acres.
Excel Energy has a land lease on XX acres of property –this
acreage will not be included in the “certified” acreage. Once
the lease has expired, it can be added back into the total
available acreage.
Ownership
Property consists of eight (8) tax parcels and is owned by a
single owner -Bayfield County.
Price per acre listed at $3,500.
Surrounding Uses
The area is predominately forested/agricultural land.
A few commercial users are present within the park,
including Bayfield Foods, KV Builders, and Superior Sauna.
Recommendations
•Keep Master Conceptual Plan up-to-date Xcel
Energy leased land comes back as “available”.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
11
Site Characteristics
Recommendations
•Consider the benefits of proactive rezoning to
allow for industrial use at the property to
mitigate schedule risks for future prospects.
Anything you can do to reduce the
development timeframe improves the
property’s competitive advantage in the
marketplace, which is especially important for
properties in rural markets.
•Be prepared to discuss the rezoning process
(process and timeline) for potential industrial
end users.
•Complete due diligence studies (Phase I ESA,
Wetlands Delineation, Endangered Species
Report, Archaeological Report, and
Geotechnical Assessment) at the property.
Zoning
Property is in the Bayfield County jurisdiction and is zoned
Agriculture and Commercial. A zoning change will be
necessary for industrial use.
FEMA Flood Zone
and Wetlands
Property is located in FEMA Flood Zone X –outside the 100-
and 500-year flood zone.
Wetlands delineation has been completed on the property,
but report was not shared with SSG. Based on imagery
available from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), it is
expected that wetlands impacts will be minimal.
Due Diligence
RFI indicates that a Wetlands Delineation was completed
May 1, 2016, however, report was not shared with SSG.
No further due diligence has been completed at the property.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
12
Transportation Access
Recommendations
•Understanding that the internal gravel road will
be paved upon further development of the
park, proactively gather engineer’s estimated
cost and schedule for upgrading internal park
road (including process, cost, schedule, etc.)
to provide industrial level access.
Road & Interstate
Access
Property is located 40+ miles to US Hwy 51 and US Hwy 53,
four-lane highways.
Property is located 65 miles to nearest interstate (I-35.)
Ingress/Egress
State Farm Road, which is directly adjacent to the property’s
western boundary, is the primary ingress/egress route and is
accessed via US Hwy 2 (north) or WI Hwy 137 (south).
Internal park road, Arganbright Road, is recently completed
gravel road that allows access into the interior of the
property.
Proximity To Airport
& Port
Property is approximately 70 miles to Duluth International
Airport (DLH).
Property is approximately 63 miles from Port of Duluth.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
13
Utility Availability –(Electric)
Electric
Property is a “split site” between electric providers.
Customer choice is available at the property.
Xcel Energy is the electric provider (transmission and
distribution) north of Arganbright Rd.
Dairyland Power (transmission) and Bayfield Electric
Cooperative (distribution) are the electric providers south of
Arganbright Rd.
Xcel Energy has a12.5 kV line located 500 ft. from the
property. Bayfield Electric has a 7.2 kV line located on-site.
Xcel Energy has 34.5 kV and 69kV lines one mile from the
site.
Xcel Energy’s Fish Creek Substation is less than one mile
from the site.
Dairyland Power’s Barksdale Substation is two miles from
the site with current 10 MW capacity.
Estimated cost and schedule for providing service?
Recommendations
•Work with electric providers to better
understand the level of service (MW) available
to the property, including estimated cost and
schedule for delivering recommended levels of
service (1.5 MW, 3 MW, 5 MW, 10-15 MW and
beyond) for industrial clients.
•SSG applauds the collaboration between
electric providers, given the “split site.” The
fact that these entities play well together and
will do whatever it takes to make a project
successful does not go overlooked. Simply
ensure alignment between broader economic
development team and electric provider(s) on
future RFI responses.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
14
Utility Availability –(Natural Gas)
Recommendations
•SSG feels relatively comfortable with the
10,000 mcf per month natural gas capacity
available to the property, as this will cover
most “bread and butter” industrial projects.
However, projects are regularly increasing
utility demands, and as such, community
should work with gas provider to proactively
understand cost and schedule estimates to
meet demands greater than 10,000 mcf per
month.
•Ensure marketing materials, utility exhibits,
etc. remain up to date as infrastructure is
constructed within the business park, and
translate these into future RFI submissions.
Natural Gas
Northern Natural is the transmission provider and Xcel
Energy is the distribution provider to the property.
2-inch line operating at 60 psi is located adjacent to the
property along State Farm Rd.
2-inch line along State Farm Rd. is expected to be able to
serve natural gas capacities up to 10,000 mcf per month.
Demands greater than 10,000 mcf per month will require
further engineering analysis to determine necessary
upgrades, including cost and schedule, to serve the site.
Natural gas infrastructure is currently being constructed
within the business park to serve KV Builders.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
15
Utility Availability –(Water)
Recommendations
•The inability to serve the site by a municipal
water system is a significant challenge. The
USDA Feasibility Study should be a top priority
of economic development team, as this is a
barrier to industrial recruitment, and it is SSG’s
opinion that the property will be precluded
from most industrial site selection searches
before this issue is resolved. Work with the
City of Ashland to develop detailed cost and
schedule for delivering water service to the
property.
•In the short-term, gather engineer’s cost and
schedule for private well installation, as well as
capacities this solution could realistically
serve. The community should also address
concerns for industrial fire flow protection
requirements.
Water Line
Property is not currently served by municipal water provider.
Individual wells are required to provide water service for
each parcel.
Water System
Property is not currently served by municipal water
treatment system.
Bayfield County has received a USDA Feasibility Study Grant
to explore the viability of connecting the property to the City
of Ashland’s municipal water system. Connecting to the
water system is estimated to take three to five years.
Detailed costs and schedule for necessary improvements,
upgrades, etc. has not been established.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
16
Utility Availability –(Wastewater)
Recommendations
•The inability to serve the site by a municipal
wastewater system is a significant challenge.
The USDA Feasibility Study should be a top
priority of economic development team, as
this is a barrier to industrial recruitment, and it
is SSG’s opinion that the property will be
precluded from most industrial site selection
searches before this issue is resolved. Work
with the City of Ashland to develop detailed
cost and schedule for delivering wastewater
service to the property.
•In the short-term, gather engineer’s cost and
schedule for private septic installation, as well
as capacities this solution could realistically
serve.
Wastewater Line
Property is not currently served by municipal wastewater
provider. Individual septic systems are required to provide
wastewater service for each parcel.
Wastewater System
Property is not currently served by municipal wastewater
treatment system.
Bayfield County has received a USDA Feasibility Study grant
to explore the viability of connecting the property to the City
of Ashland’s municipal wastewater system. Connecting to
the wastewater system is estimated to take three to five
years. Detailed costs and schedule for necessary
improvements, upgrades, etc. has not been established.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
17
Utility Availability –(Telecom)
Recommendations
•None.
Telecom
Norvado is the telecom provider to the property.
Underground fiber is available to the property.
Dark fiber is potentially available to the property.
Schedule for service is typically 30 to 60 days.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
18
Master Planning
Master
Conceptual Plan
A Master Conceptual Plan has been created for the park that
depicts lot sizes ranging from five to 10 acres.
Municipal Water
& Wastewater
Systems
Inability to serve industrial users with municipal water and
wastewater systems is a significant challenge to industrial
recruitment at the property.
Annexation &
Rezoning
As mentioned previously in the report, Bayfield County and
City of Ashland should work collaboratively to explore
benefits of proactive rezoning for industrial use, and whether
annexing into the City of Ashland is required for serving the
property with public utilities.
Recommendations
•Create a Master Conceptual Plan for the
property that depicts various building sizes
and facility layouts, including one concept that
visualizes the entire property for a large, single
user.
•Keep Master Conceptual Plan up-to-date as
Excel Energy leased land comes back as
“available”.
•Create a Master Utility Infrastructure Map that
depicts both existing and proposed
infrastructure at the site. This image will help
prospects understand the existing conditions
at the site with a one-page document.
•Continue working with City of Ashland to
explore feasibility of connecting to municipal
water and wastewater systems. It’s important
to have these proactive discussions rather
than trying to gather information while a
project is in hand.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
Target Industry Analysis
20
SSG’s Approach To Target Industries
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
Qu
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
Growth
Wage & Tax Base
Workforce Alignment
Diversify
Site Characteristics
Pragmatic
Industries that have grown and are projected to grow at the national and regional levels.
Industries that have high wages (absolute and relative) and higher impact on the regional
economy (ROI).
Industries that align with current and future workforce value proposition.
Industries that offer further market diversification.
Real estate options that currently (or with strategic investment) can meet the needs of target
industries.
Common sense strategies that align with community’s vision and resources.
Target Industry Approach
•The graphic below highlights the key criteria that SSG uses to evaluate and
recommend target industries for communities overall or connected to
specific industrial sites.
•This leverages a combination of quantitative data along with SSG’s project
experience to identify realistic, pragmatic targets that align with the
community’s goals and real estate characteristics.
21
Defining Clusters & Potential Targets
All Clusters
Traded Clusters
Industrial
Focus
Site Characteristics
•Aligning potential operational size and
requirements with the site.
Specific Niches
•Identifying potential niches/operational types
that fall out of the NAICS infrastructure.
•Recombine similar clusters at end of process.
The analysis utilizes the Cluster framework and associated 2012 NAICS definitions developed by the U.S. Cluster Mapping project.
Key Definitions:
•Industry Cluster: A group of inter-related industries that drive wealth creation in a region, primarily through export of goods/services. A cluster represents the entire value chain of a
broadly defined industry, spanning suppliers to end products, including support services and specialized infrastructure.
•Traded Cluster: A cluster which serves markets beyond the region in which it is located, while a local cluster will be defined as a cluster which serves the market in which it is located.
22
Constructing The Target Industry Model: Data & Weights
1. Wage & Tax Base –Target Wages
This criteria allows SSG and the community to select a target wage level that
most aligns with their overall objectives and the characteristics for the
community. For this engagement, we use an hourly wage of $24.90 –which
is the combined county average wage for Ashland and Bayfield (based on
EMSI analysis).
Raising this threshold will favor industries with higher paying jobs (but may be
unrealistic for the community). And on the contrary, lowering this threshold
will favor industries with lower paying jobs, that may be more accessible, but
less desirable.
2. Complementary/Workforce Alignment
Site Selection Group used national staffing patterns for each industry cluster to
identify the most common occupations present in each cluster. SSG then calculated the presence and concentration of those occupations within a 40-
minute drive time of the site. In short, this identifies the types of industries that align well with the region’s current workforce. SSG made similar estimates
using higher education completion data, to identify which occupations align
well with the types of educational completions (defined by CIP codes) coming out of local and regional educational institutions.
3. Diversify
These measures are inverted, that is, they reward industries that have no or minimal presence in an area. These measures temper focusing on industries
that already have a significant presence in the region.
Industry Growth 25.0%
U.S. Growth -Historic -Absolute 5.0%
U.S. Growth -Historic -Percentage 10.0%
U.S. Growth -Projected -Absolute 15.0%
U.S. Growth -Projected -Percentage 20.0%
Regional Growth -Historic -Absolute 5.0%
Regional Growth -Historic -Percentage 10.0%
Regional Growth -Projected -Absolute 15.0%
Regional Growth -Projected -Percentage 20.0%
Absolute Cluster Size (used as a filter)0.0%
Wage & Tax Base 30.0%
U.S. Wage Level -Overall 10.0%
Regional Wage Level -Overall 15.0%
U.S. Wage Level -Target Wage Level 20.0%
Regional Wage Level -Target Wage Level 30.0%
TARGET WAGE LEVEL (1)$24.90 per
hour
Total Sales Multiplier (State)5.0%
Total Jobs Multiplier (State)15.0%
Total Earnings Multiplier (State)5.0%
Complementary/Workforce Alignment (2)40.0%
Occupational Alignment -Absolute 25.0%
Occupational Alignment -Concentration 50.0%
Regional Completions (2 hours -Bach+)10.0%
Regional Completions (2 hours -<Bach)5.0%
Local Completions 10.0%
Diversify (3)5.0%
Absolute Cluster Size 20.0%
Concentration 80.0%
Notes on Analysis
23
Target Industry Analysis: Quantitative Results
The figure at right shows the results of the quantitative
target industry analysis for the site.
Based on that target, the results of the analyses, and SSG’s qualitative view of the site, we highlight key
clusters here that may be best aligned with the
community’s overall value proposition. We do not simply
select the highest scoring clusters but use the results to prioritize and also understand the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the community to attract and retain those
industries.
Broad Clusters of interest include:
•Wood and Related Products
•Food and Agricultural Products
Additional information and SSG’s view of overall site
alignment are included on the next pages. We also
incorporate results from the comparative cost and workforce analysis to further identify the site’s comparative advantage in relation to other sites across
Wisconsin.
Please note that SSG filters out clusters that are extremely small/niche nationally (i.e. in the bottom 10% of clusters by overall size). Because this is a much more
rural area with more limited industry presence, we do
NOT filter out clusters with limited current presence.
Cluster Total
Score
Industry
Growth
Wage & Tax
Base
Workforce
Alignment Diversify
Food Processing and Manufacturing 68.9%85.8%57.6%72.5%22.4%Construction Products and Services 62.2%59.9%44.2%80.8%32.4%Forestry 61.0%32.1%50.8%93.7%5.6%Livestock Processing 59.6%73.8%49.0%64.3%14.4%Wood Products 59.4%40.4%60.5%76.8%7.6%Apparel 59.0%47.6%49.5%80.2%2.4%Downstream Chemical Products 57.7%74.5%55.7%49.9%48.4%Downstream Metal Products 55.3%71.6%40.4%55.8%60.0%Education and Knowledge Creation 54.1%35.7%44.1%77.5%19.2%Distribution and Electronic Commerce 54.0%51.0%58.0%55.6%32.4%Biopharmaceuticals 53.9%54.8%47.5%52.4%100.0%Textile Manufacturing 51.7%19.9%68.8%52.8%100.0%Video Production and Distribution 50.0%63.5%33.8%53.5%52.0%Agricultural Inputs and Services 49.5%37.5%38.8%69.5%14.4%Oil and Gas Production and Transportation 48.9%49.9%47.4%48.8%52.8%Coal Mining 48.5%24.1%52.6%54.2%100.0%Water Transportation 48.3%31.8%53.0%48.6%100.0%Plastics 47.4%32.8%65.2%36.6%100.0%Furniture 46.8%23.2%54.7%57.8%30.0%Recreational and Small Electronic Goods 46.3%45.7%40.1%56.3%6.8%Printing Services 44.5%22.1%54.3%52.3%35.6%Electric Power Generation and Transmission 44.0%16.6%41.4%67.3%9.2%Medical Devices 43.4%47.9%50.8%27.9%100.0%Upstream Chemical Products 42.7%38.4%51.6%31.6%100.0%Trailers, Motor Homes, and Appliances 42.4%49.1%65.9%13.5%100.0%Metalworking Technology 41.5%27.9%43.1%46.8%58.0%Lighting and Electrical Equipment 40.0%50.8%52.7%16.3%100.0%Transportation and Logistics 39.6%38.5%41.3%38.0%48.0%Communications Equipment and Services 39.2%44.4%65.2%13.7%62.0%Upstream Metal Manufacturing 38.8%42.4%48.9%28.3%44.4%Information Technology and Analytical Instruments 38.6%54.5%45.5%15.9%100.0%Paper and Packaging 37.8%24.0%60.5%21.6%100.0%Vulcanized and Fired Materials 36.9%42.9%32.2%34.4%55.6%Production Technology and Heavy Machinery 36.2%26.7%43.7%39.9%8.4%Fishing and Fishing Products 31.2%44.3%34.0%18.9%48.0%Aerospace Vehicles and Defense 30.7%32.5%46.0%9.4%100.0%Automotive 29.6%31.3%49.9%12.4%36.0%
24
Potential Target Industries
Wood and Related Projects
•As a much more rural area, Bayfield is not going to score as well from a qualitative (workforce) perspective compared to
other sites. That being said, Bayfield’s strongest “comparative advantage” is in the wood products space.
•It’s not surprisingly that wood and related clusters score especially well in the target industry analysis –that’d due in large
part to strong workforce alignment scores.
•Access to the underlying commodity (timber) will also play a significant role in helping Bayfield attract these types of
industries.
•Water and wastewater constraints are the primary concern from a site perspective. That being said, many wood and
related projects have limited need for water and wastewater support. For example, SSG just completed a project for a
treated lumber company where they needed to water in their process and could rely on septic for sanitary needs.
Food & Agricultural Products
•Like many other sites, food projects could also be well aligned with the Bayfield site. SSG has seen a significant amount of
project activity in this space over the past few years.
•Bayfield scores comparatively well for a baseline food project, driven by low operating costs.
•Water and wastewater are likely to be a much larger concern, however, for attracting food projects to this site compared to
a wood/lumber operations. While not all food projects have significant water and wastewater needs, most do use
water/wastewater in their processes and are unlikely to be comfortable with a well/septic operation.
Competitive Positioning: Workforce & Cost Analyses
26
Competitive Positioning: Costs vs. Quality (Workforce)
Qualitative (Primarily Workforce Analysis)
•The flip side of the analysis is measuring those factors that are critical to a
project’s requirements, but do not have a direct cost associated with it.
Namely, that’s focused on workforce considerations. While each project is different, the baseline process SSG would use to measure a community’s
workforce is based on measuring three categories: workforce demographics, target occupational supply, and target occupational demand
(competition). We typically measure that at a 20-and 40-minute drivetime
from target sites. As a result, that’s the base analysis we use herein.
•We also show baseline results for a comparative geographic/logistics
analysis (based solely on population access and air accessibility) and general tax rankings. However, logistics requirements vary considerably by project
so we do not weight it in our model. On the tax side, we are only evaluating
sites in Wisconsin, so the scoring does not change across site.
Objective:
•Through SSG’s corporate lens, evaluate the
target site on both qualitative (i.e. workforce) factors but also estimated operating costs.
•This is the same type of evaluation SSG would
conduct if it were analyzing a site for a
corporate user.
•Evaluate each site across a number of different types of mock projects, more
advanced requirements (e.g. highly advanced
manufacturing & biotech, to more baseline
industrial requirements).
•Identify comparison sites and/or markets to benchmark the target site against. In this
case, we benchmark the three target locations
in this round against existing certified sites.
•We then compare the results of the cost
analysis vs. the qualitative analysis to see where each community’s comparative value
proposition lies.
•This analysis is intended to further inform the
strategic direction for the site and community
overall.
Operating Cost Analysis
•The objective of this portion of the analysis is to gauge the approximate
operating cost for these different types of operational types across the comparison markets. SSG does this on a 10-year, nominal basis. This is
driven by parameters like wage/salary, benefits, utilities, property/sales tax,
land/construction costs and fixed capital costs.
•Please note that this analysis does not take into account logistics costs,
which are typically a very large driver in the industrial site selection process. However, each project’s logistics requirements vary so much as its virtually
impossible to estimate in an exercise like this.
27
Mock Projects/Industries Used for Benchmarking
Example Project Advanced Manufacturing Metals/Plastics Baseline Food Advanced Food Chemicals Wood Products Biotech Distribution
Operating Cost Drivers
Headcount 100 Workers 100 Workers 140 Workers 75 Workers 115 Workers 130 Workers 160 Workers 350 Workers
Capex (M&E)$100 mm $40 mm $40 mm $100 mm $75 mm $20 mm $250 mm $50 mm
Utilities Moderate Moderate Moderate, but elevated
gas and water/sewer
Moderate, but elevated
gas and water/sewer Very High Low to Moderate Moderate to High Low
Real Estate 100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
Workforce Drivers (Analysis favors the occupational requirements and target demographics listed below)
Key Occupational Requirements
Advanced Production (e.g. CNC)
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Ind. Maintenance
Metals/Related (e.g. Welders)
Advanced Production (e.g. CNC)
Metals/Related (e.g. Welders)
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Ind. Maintenance
Food Production
Logistics
Maintenance
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Food Production
Biotech
Adv. Production
Maintenance
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Logistics
Chemicals
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Maintenance
Logistics
Wood/Timber
Logistics
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Maintenance
Biotech
Adv. Production
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Maintenance
Logistics
Maintenance
Engineering Techs.
Target Demographics
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Moderate Income
More Advanced
Education (AAs)
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Moderate Income
Moderate Education
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Lower/Moderate
Income
Lower/Moderate
Income
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Moderate Income
More Advanced
Education (AAs/BAs)
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Moderate Income
More Advanced
Education (AAs/BAs)
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Lower/Moderate
Income
Lower/Moderate
Income
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
High Income
Very Advanced
Education (BAs)
Sheer numbers
Low Median Age/Target Age Profile
Lower/Moderate Income
Lower/Moderate Income
28
Operating Cost Assumptions & Notes
Data Point Sources / Notes
Workforce: Wages & Benefits
Wages & Salaries
Weighted model using data from three sources: EMSI, ERI, and Job Postings (via EMSI)
3% wage inflation and 5% headcount growth annually
Benefits
Employee +1 health insurance at 85% coverage
7% health insurance inflation
SUTA
Workers Comp Estimate
+10% for additional benefits/retirement/bonuses
Federal Payroll Taxes
Utilities
Utilities
Electric: rates as provided in RFI, or state-level EIA data, or provider level data via EIA
Gas: rates as provided in RFI, or state-level EIA data (typically assume the same or similar rates as underlying commodity costs will drive rate).
Water & Wastewater: rates as provided in RFI, or primary research (e.g.reviewing community rate sheets)
All assumed at 3% annual price growth and 5% annual consumption growth
Taxes
Taxes
Property Taxes: effective rates as provided in RFI. For comparison markets, primary research via looking at comparable properties and actual taxes paid
Sales Taxes: Primary research on sales tax rates
Does not include any applicably inventory tax, state corporate income tax
Rates assumed to escalate at 1.5% annually
Assume 15 year depreciation on M&E
Assume 3% annual increase in value of land/real estate for taxing purposes
Data Point Sources / Notes
Real Estate & Capital
Land
Cost: Cost per acre as indicated in RFI. For comparison properties, primary research or best estimate
Site Prep: not included in analysis but meant to show a placeholder on what level of investment would it take to get a site competitive, and how would that impact comparison with other sites.
Assume 3% annual increase in value of land for taxing purposes
Building
Cost per square foot based on scenario –in general, more advanced facilities
will have higher cost/square foot.
Adjust based on nearest market for RSMeans construction cost index
Assume 3% annual increase in value of building for taxing purposes
Capital (M&E)Fixed amount for purposes of estimating personal property tax
Logistics
Logistics Does not include any estimated logistics costs which can play a significant role in a site/community’s value proposition. Inbound and outbound logistics are far too unique to each requirement to attempt to model in the abstract.
29
Comparison Locations
For a typical corporate project, SSG would benchmark
target locations against one another to determine each one’s overall value proposition (e.g. a strong workforce
but higher costs, better logistical positioning but higher
property taxes, etc.)
For this pilot round of the revamped Wisconsin Certified
Sites program, SSG decided to benchmark the three target communities against all existing Wisconsin Certified
Sites. Those sites are shown at left and also included at
Wisconsin's site portal:
https://inwisconsin.com/doing-business-in-wisconsin/available-sites/certified-sites/
This is not meant to be a fully inclusive list, but rather an illustrative example of each site’s competitive positioning.
Clearly, this list includes a diversity of market types and sizes and we do not expect all these locations to be
competitive against one another for all types of projects.
But we like to use a diversity of markets for this type of mock exercise to better show community’s strengths and
weaknesses.
Bayfield
Stanley
Marshfield
30
Summary of Results Very Strong Vale Proposition
Strong Value Proposition
Moderate Value Proposition
Example Project Advanced Manufacturing Metals/Plastics Baseline Food Advanced Food Chemicals Wood Products Biotech Distribution
Bayfield
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Low costs
•Moderate qualitative score
•Slightly favorable value proposition
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Moderate costs
•Moderate qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line, but best qualitative score
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
Wisconsin Overall
•Central & West WI sites generally offer best value proposition.
•Central & West WI sites generally offer best value proposition.
•Central WI sites generally offer best value proposition.
•Central WI sites generally offer best value proposition.
•Starts favoring greater Madison sites.
•Strong tradeoffs between cost & quality overall.
•Impacted by water/wastewater rates.
•Heavily favors Central and West WI.
•Higher costs, but very high qualitative scores in greater Madison.
•Green Bay sites score well, too.
•Western and Central WI scores score well.
•This project type is primarily driven by specific logistics requirements.
Summary & Comments:
•The table above shows the high-level results for how the site/community scores out for the different types of projects across the cost and qualitative assessment.
•Frankly, we’re not terribly surprised at the results here, knowing that Bayfield is a much more rural area and we’re comparing against much more populated communities across
Wisconsin. It’s workforce scoring across different types of industries isn’t especially strong.
•However, it does score comparatively better for baseline food and even stronger for wood-related projects.
•Overall, based on this desktop analysis, Bayfield could have a cost-focused value proposition. That’s going to be contingent on finding potential end-users who have a need to be
in northern Wisconsin from a feedstock/logistics perspective.
•Please note that are not showing all results in the following pages, but rather the two highlighted examples here (Food and Wood) where Bayfield scores more strongly.
31
Baseline Food: 10-Year Estimated Cost Comparison
Reading the Table
Each cell is highlighted, with
those in green indicating more favorable (lower) costs in each
category, and those in red
indicating higher costs within
each category.
To show cost differentials (both in absolute and
percentage terms), each
market is shown relative to the
lowest cost one.
Again, please note that SSG has made assumptions on
comparison market locations
as needed.
We show the Site Prep category
as blank to give a sense of what level of investment would
impact its overall cost
structure.
Total Costs Operating Costs Capital Costs
Site Name Total Cost Abs. Diff % Diff Wages &
Salaries Benefits Utilities Property &
Sales Tax Land Cost Site Prep Building Capital (M&E)
Bayfield $251,673,912 $0 0.0%$101,637,844 $50,654,105 $29,002,323 $6,641,415 $70,000 $0 $23,668,225 $40,000,000
Marshfield $253,143,328 $1,469,415 0.6%$103,040,118 $50,926,006 $27,750,779 $7,752,400 $200,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Eagle River $253,305,726 $1,631,813 0.6%$100,021,990 $50,340,791 $28,275,733 $6,837,186 $4,356,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Chippewa Falls $254,226,272 $2,552,360 1.0%$104,312,416 $51,172,704 $27,223,416 $6,541,680 $300,000 $0 $24,676,056 $40,000,000
Wisconsin Rapids $254,922,595 $3,248,683 1.3%$102,979,226 $50,914,199 $28,604,410 $8,850,736 $100,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Stevens Point $255,215,466 $3,541,554 1.4%$103,735,019 $51,060,747 $28,174,312 $8,271,363 $500,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Stanley $255,217,767 $3,543,854 1.4%$104,312,416 $51,172,704 $29,227,557 $5,719,032 $110,000 $0 $24,676,056 $40,000,000
Sparta $256,222,671 $4,548,759 1.8%$105,135,872 $51,332,373 $27,750,066 $7,276,054 $300,000 $0 $24,428,306 $40,000,000
Black River Falls $256,900,116 $5,226,204 2.1%$104,491,948 $51,207,516 $29,573,493 $8,053,135 $100,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Beaver Dam Commerce Park $258,179,158 $6,505,246 2.6%$105,503,428 $51,403,642 $28,001,688 $8,392,644 $400,000 $0 $24,477,756 $40,000,000
Menomonie $258,254,369 $6,580,457 2.6%$106,310,819 $51,560,195 $27,200,009 $7,707,290 $800,000 $0 $24,676,056 $40,000,000
Janesville $258,475,239 $6,801,327 2.7%$107,100,446 $51,713,303 $27,270,229 $7,267,660 $720,000 $0 $24,403,600 $40,000,000
Wausau $258,751,688 $7,077,776 2.8%$106,245,949 $51,547,617 $28,405,453 $8,828,644 $250,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Beaver Dam $259,067,052 $7,393,140 2.9%$105,503,428 $51,403,642 $28,001,688 $8,583,288 $600,000 $0 $24,975,006 $40,000,000
Whitewater $259,506,389 $7,832,477 3.1%$103,751,048 $51,063,855 $30,967,618 $8,460,268 $860,000 $0 $24,403,600 $40,000,000
Howard $259,566,780 $7,892,868 3.1%$105,968,027 $51,493,727 $30,556,175 $5,898,224 $400,000 $0 $25,250,625 $40,000,000
Hobart $260,935,395 $9,261,483 3.7%$106,664,425 $51,628,759 $30,122,848 $6,745,538 $523,200 $0 $25,250,625 $40,000,000
West Bend $262,744,730 $11,070,818 4.4%$108,925,201 $52,067,123 $28,065,635 $6,702,265 $1,000,000 $0 $25,984,506 $40,000,000
Deforest $263,479,529 $11,805,616 4.7%$109,436,759 $52,166,314 $26,883,832 $7,990,767 $1,524,600 $0 $25,477,256 $40,000,000
Beloit $265,076,668 $13,402,756 5.3%$107,770,904 $51,843,305 $30,968,484 $9,092,374 $998,000 $0 $24,403,600 $40,000,000
Westport $265,776,740 $14,102,828 5.6%$109,269,020 $52,133,790 $28,061,258 $6,915,416 $3,920,000 $0 $25,477,256 $40,000,000
Verona $265,798,598 $14,124,686 5.6%$109,526,205 $52,183,658 $28,385,159 $7,734,688 $2,491,632 $0 $25,477,256 $40,000,000
Fitchburg $269,483,239 $17,809,327 7.1%$110,088,919 $52,292,768 $26,931,979 $9,465,116 $5,227,200 $0 $25,477,256 $40,000,000
Prescott $272,601,058 $20,927,146 8.3%$115,812,480 $53,402,567 $27,382,815 $9,874,889 $1,700,000 $0 $24,428,306 $40,000,000
32
Baseline Food: Qualitative (Workforce) Comparison
Reading the Table
A score of 100 in any category
represents the average of the group. Each cell is also
highlighted, with those in green
indicating a more favorable
score, and those in red
indicating a less favorable score within each category.
We include scoring for Market
Accessibility (based on general
population access as a proxy
for logistics and air accessibility), and Tax Climate.
SSG would typically include
those categories in a corporate
analysis. However, Market
Accessibility is specific to company requirements (so we
show generic results here), and
Tax Climate is the same score
for all Wisconsin sites.
WEIGHT 15.0%20.0%15.0%20.0%7.5%12.5%10.0%0.0%0.0%
Site Name TOTAL Workforce Demographics (20 Mins)
Workforce Demographics (40 Mins)
Occupational Supply (20 Mins)
Occupational Supply (40 Mins)
Occupational Demand(20 Mins)
Occupational Demand (40 Mins)Union Climate Market Accessibility Tax Climate
Hobart 122%126%117%129%136%98%112%119%103%103%
Howard 116%124%115%126%134%85%113%81%101%103%
Beaver Dam Commerce Park 109%85%90%128%125%115%100%126%113%103%
Beaver Dam 108%85%91%127%124%117%100%125%112%103%
Wausau 106%93%84%123%115%120%123%97%81%103%
West Bend 106%83%100%97%123%118%104%125%120%103%
Stevens Point 104%95%89%98%102%126%128%112%95%103%
Sparta 104%91%99%104%97%122%125%104%97%103%
Stanley 101%96%96%81%100%115%122%113%75%103%
Wisconsin Rapids 101%92%90%92%88%129%131%115%90%103%
Chippewa Falls 99%97%97%90%83%112%119%114%82%103%
Beloit 98%92%97%113%105%95%87%89%150%103%
Janesville 98%99%100%112%107%84%73%91%146%103%
Menomonie 97%89%97%88%86%107%116%115%87%103%
Fitchburg 95%124%115%105%95%54%36%96%132%103%
Bayfield 95%88%90%73%70%122%140%121%32%103%
Prescott 95%97%113%87%93%101%100%56%69%103%
Westport 94%126%117%101%95%44%39%96%132%103%
Whitewater 93%83%76%91%113%99%90%106%134%103%
Deforest 93%117%117%97%96%42%45%96%131%103%
Marshfield 93%88%88%67%73%123%126%121%81%103%
Verona 92%117%116%103%96%36%38%96%129%103%
Black River Falls 90%78%88%65%70%140%128%102%86%103%
Eagle River 89%77%82%70%63%124%130%119%38%103%
33
Stanley
Marshfield
Bayfield
Beaver Dam Commerce Park
Eagle River
Wausau
Sparta
Beaver Dam
Chippewa Falls
Beloit
Deforest
Fitchburg
HowardJanesville
Menomonie
Prescott
Stevens Point
West Bend
Verona
Wisconsin Rapids
Westport
Hobart
Whitewater
Black River Falls
$250M
$255M
$260M
$265M
$270M
$275M
80%85%90%95%100%105%110%115%120%125%
TE
N
Y
E
A
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
C
O
S
T
S
(
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
)
Le
s
s
E
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
M
o
r
e
E
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
QUALITATIVE SCORELess Favorable ---------------------> More Favorable
Lower Quality, Higher Cost Higher Quality, Higher Cost
Lower Quality, Lower Cost Higher Quality, Lower Cost
Baseline Food: Comparing Cost vs. Quality
Reading the Table
This graphic combines the results
of the cost analysis (Y axis),
qualitative analysis (X axis).
Markets to the bottom right have a
more favorable combination of cost and quality. Those to the top
left have a less favorable balance.
34
Wood Products: 10-Year Estimated Cost Comparison
Reading the Table
Each cell is highlighted, with
those in green indicating more favorable (lower) costs in each
category, and those in red
indicating higher costs within
each category.
To show cost differentials (both in absolute and
percentage terms), each
market is shown relative to the
lowest cost one.
Again, please note that SSG has made assumptions on
comparison market locations
as needed.
We show the Site Prep category
as blank to give a sense of what level of investment would
impact its overall cost
structure.
Total Costs Operating Costs Capital Costs
Site Name Total Cost Abs. Diff % Diff Wages &
Salaries Benefits Utilities Property &
Sales Tax Land Cost Site Prep Building Capital (M&E)
Marshfield $179,818,930 $0 0.0%$85,374,892 $45,290,252 $10,395,338 $4,524,033 $150,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Eagle River $180,044,828 $225,898 0.1%$83,209,544 $44,870,391 $10,492,661 $4,120,818 $3,267,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Wisconsin Rapids $180,477,843 $658,913 0.4%$85,321,518 $45,279,903 $10,558,396 $5,158,611 $75,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Black River Falls $180,714,713 $895,782 0.5%$85,746,055 $45,362,221 $10,752,213 $4,694,809 $75,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Stevens Point $180,721,178 $902,248 0.5%$85,613,704 $45,336,558 $10,472,376 $4,839,125 $375,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Beaver Dam Commerce Park $181,585,237 $1,766,307 1.0%$85,865,133 $45,385,310 $10,437,852 $4,910,288 $300,000 $0 $14,686,654 $20,000,000
Howard $182,005,509 $2,186,579 1.2%$86,618,446 $45,531,377 $10,948,749 $3,456,562 $300,000 $0 $15,150,375 $20,000,000
Beaver Dam $182,155,587 $2,336,657 1.3%$85,865,133 $45,385,310 $10,437,852 $5,032,288 $450,000 $0 $14,985,004 $20,000,000
Whitewater $182,188,394 $2,369,463 1.3%$85,572,804 $45,328,627 $11,031,038 $4,968,764 $645,000 $0 $14,642,160 $20,000,000
Stanley $182,586,495 $2,767,565 1.5%$87,802,032 $45,760,875 $10,793,327 $3,342,127 $82,500 $0 $14,805,634 $20,000,000
Chippewa Falls $182,703,003 $2,884,073 1.6%$87,802,032 $45,760,875 $10,282,197 $3,827,265 $225,000 $0 $14,805,634 $20,000,000
Menomonie $182,773,147 $2,954,217 1.6%$86,965,282 $45,598,629 $10,277,516 $4,526,087 $600,000 $0 $14,805,634 $20,000,000
Hobart $183,180,953 $3,362,023 1.9%$87,180,289 $45,640,319 $10,862,083 $3,955,486 $392,400 $0 $15,150,375 $20,000,000
Janesville $183,238,587 $3,419,657 1.9%$87,749,473 $45,750,684 $10,291,560 $4,264,710 $540,000 $0 $14,642,160 $20,000,000
Wausau $183,323,986 $3,505,056 1.9%$87,649,362 $45,731,272 $10,518,605 $5,152,833 $187,500 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Sparta $183,648,367 $3,829,437 2.1%$88,272,186 $45,852,038 $10,387,527 $4,254,633 $225,000 $0 $14,656,984 $20,000,000
Bayfield $184,873,549 $5,054,619 2.8%$89,934,145 $46,174,291 $10,637,979 $3,873,699 $52,500 $0 $14,200,935 $20,000,000
Beloit $185,922,615 $6,103,684 3.4%$88,298,197 $45,857,081 $11,031,211 $5,345,465 $748,500 $0 $14,642,160 $20,000,000
West Bend $187,869,013 $8,050,083 4.5%$90,790,327 $46,340,305 $10,450,641 $3,947,037 $750,000 $0 $15,590,704 $20,000,000
Deforest $187,907,594 $8,088,664 4.5%$90,297,177 $46,244,683 $10,214,280 $4,721,649 $1,143,450 $0 $15,286,354 $20,000,000
Verona $188,900,716 $9,081,786 5.1%$90,369,371 $46,258,682 $10,514,546 $4,603,039 $1,868,724 $0 $15,286,354 $20,000,000
Westport $189,221,014 $9,402,084 5.2%$90,169,593 $46,219,945 $10,449,766 $4,155,357 $2,940,000 $0 $15,286,354 $20,000,000
Fitchburg $192,344,366 $12,525,436 7.0%$90,830,765 $46,348,146 $10,223,910 $5,734,791 $3,920,400 $0 $15,286,354 $20,000,000
Prescott $194,924,844 $15,105,914 8.4%$95,572,992 $47,267,664 $10,314,077 $5,838,128 $1,275,000 $0 $14,656,984 $20,000,000
35
Wood Products: Qualitative (Workforce) Comparison
Reading the Table
A score of 100 in any category
represents the average of the group. Each cell is also
highlighted, with those in green
indicating a more favorable
score, and those in red
indicating a less favorable score within each category.
We include scoring for Market
Accessibility (based on general
population access as a proxy
for logistics and air accessibility), and Tax Climate.
SSG would typically include
those categories in a corporate
analysis. However, Market
Accessibility is specific to company requirements (so we
show generic results here), and
Tax Climate is the same score
for all Wisconsin sites.
WEIGHT 15.0%20.0%15.0%20.0%7.5%12.5%10.0%0.0%0.0%
Site Name TOTAL Workforce Demographics (20 Mins)
Workforce Demographics (40 Mins)
Occupational Supply (20 Mins)
Occupational Supply (40 Mins)
Occupational Demand(20 Mins)
Occupational Demand (40 Mins)Union Climate Market Accessibility Tax Climate
Hobart 118%126%117%128%131%83%97%119%103%103%
Howard 112%124%115%122%130%71%100%81%101%103%
Wausau 108%93%84%128%130%110%114%97%81%103%
Prescott 107%97%113%139%114%108%100%56%69%103%
Chippewa Falls 104%97%97%107%105%100%110%114%82%103%
Stanley 104%96%96%90%112%114%114%113%75%103%
Menomonie 103%89%97%106%107%98%113%115%87%103%
Marshfield 103%88%88%96%101%124%127%121%81%103%
Sparta 102%91%99%100%101%118%115%104%97%103%
Stevens Point 101%95%89%88%101%117%128%112%95%103%
West Bend 101%83%100%91%105%119%102%125%120%103%
Wisconsin Rapids 100%92%90%84%86%133%139%115%90%103%
Beloit 97%92%97%112%103%93%88%89%150%103%
Beaver Dam Commerce Park 97%85%90%90%88%117%110%126%113%103%
Eagle River 97%77%82%104%99%104%108%119%38%103%
Janesville 97%99%100%111%104%73%78%91%146%103%
Beaver Dam 96%85%91%88%87%119%109%125%112%103%
Bayfield 95%88%90%63%71%125%148%121%32%103%
Westport 94%126%117%97%82%63%50%96%132%103%
Black River Falls 94%78%88%71%85%143%127%102%86%103%
Deforest 93%117%117%96%82%63%56%96%131%103%
Fitchburg 91%124%115%87%81%66%46%96%132%103%
Whitewater 89%83%76%84%96%106%89%106%134%103%
Verona 89%117%116%85%81%49%48%96%129%103%
36
Stanley
Marshfield
Bayfield
Beaver Dam Commerce Park
Eagle River
WausauSparta
Beaver Dam
Chippewa Falls
Beloit
Deforest
Fitchburg
Howard
Janesville
Menomonie
Prescott
Stevens Point
West Bend
Verona
Wisconsin Rapids
Westport
Hobart
Whitewater
Black River Falls
$178M
$180M
$182M
$184M
$186M
$188M
$190M
$192M
$194M
$196M
80%85%90%95%100%105%110%115%120%125%
TE
N
Y
E
A
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
C
O
S
T
S
(
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
)
Le
s
s
E
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
M
o
r
e
E
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
QUALITATIVE SCORE
Less Favorable ---------------------> More Favorable
Lower Quality, Higher Cost Higher Quality, Higher Cost
Lower Quality, Lower Cost Higher Quality, Lower Cost
Wood Products: Comparing Cost vs. Quality
Reading the Table
This graphic combines the results
of the cost analysis (Y axis),
qualitative analysis (X axis).
Markets to the bottom right have a
more favorable combination of cost and quality. Those to the top
left have a less favorable balance.
RFI & Site Visit Feedback
38
RFI Feedback
Responsiveness/
Communication
Bayfield County was responsive and professional with site visit
coordination.
Organization/ Ease
Of Reference
Files were organized logically and easy to reference during the
site evaluation.
Graphic Content Maps/visuals were clear and provided enhanced
understanding of conditions at the site.
RFI/Excel Form RFI was filled out with attention to detail.
Thoroughness Utility questionnaires would benefit from more information.
Overall Submission It is obvious that the Bayfield economic development team has
experience responding to RFIs –job well done!
Recommendations
•Ensure alignment between economic
development team and utility partners
regarding the utility infrastructure to serving
the property (size, location, capacities, etc.)
and continue to hone the narrative and
translate messaging into future RFIs as the
property develops.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
39
Site Visit Feedback
Agenda No official agenda was provided, but community shared
details via email ahead of the site visit.
Presentation
Digital content in presentation was not utilized for site visit
meeting. Improving this technology will help enhance the first
impression of the community as you give a prepared pitch of
the community and property.
Overall Visit Great use of time and detailed discussion on the community
and site.
Recommendations
•With an actual project in tow, SSG recommends
formalizing an agenda so company can quickly
reference discussion points, key partners, etc.
•Incorporate an element of digital content in the
community overview along with technical site
discussion (maps, visuals) as well as workforce
details (programs, technical college, etc.).
•Bayfield has crafted a narrative of matching
recent graduates with existing industry. SSG
recommends adding those details to marketing
materials to showcase community’s ability to
connect industry needs with local workforce
talent.
•While some components of site development may
appear cumbersome to a company, SSG
recommends leveraging a recent project (e.g., HV
Builders) that located in community as an
example of navigating the development process.
In our experience, anecdotes sell well to
prospects!
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
8235 Douglas Avenue | Suite 500 | Dallas, TX 75225
siteselectiongroup.com