The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAd Hoc Business Park Planning Committee - Agenda - 6/21/2023K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Agendas\2023 Agendas\03 JUNE 21 2023\JUN 21 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 Wednesday June 21, 2023, 1:30 p.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 Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: 275 987 635 586 Passcode: TegdEQ Download Teams | Join on the web Or call in (audio only) +1 715-318-2087,,239624230# United States, Eau Claire Phone Conference ID: 239 624 230# Find a local number | Reset PIN Learn More | Meeting options 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. K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Agendas\2023 Agendas\03 JUNE 21 2023\JUN 21 2023 BUSINESS PARK AGENDA.doc AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Introductions 3. Public Comment 4. Minutes from February 14, 2023 5. Cooper Engineering Utility Feasibility Study Update 6. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding KV BUILD Welcome 7. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Sign Installation on Hwy 137 and State Farm Road 8. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Replacing the Existing Business Park Banner 9. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding SSG Pilot Program 10. Xcel Lease Update 11. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Business Park Road Extension 12. Discussion Regarding Shipping Warehouse Needs in Wisconsin 13. Closed Session: 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: a) Discussion Regarding Future Land Sale Negotiations 14. Adjournment, next meeting, August 16, 2023, 1:30pm 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. K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Agendas\2023 Agendas\03 JUNE 21 2023\JUN 21 2023 BUSINESS PARK AGENDA.doc cc: Bayfield County Board of Supervisors The Daily Press, via email BUSINESS PARK COMMITTEE NARRATIVE JUNE 21, 2023 Item 5: Bruce Markgren with Cooper Engineering will present work to date on the business park utility study. Attached is the contract and a summary below: Item 7: Review of previous sign bid for the corner of State Farm and 137. Main sign price old quote around $4,000. Sign, installation, brackets, etc. No tenant signs included. Prices have changed and increased since then. Unsure of how much of an increase there is. Copy that is willing to provide a quote if we are going to move forward with the process and hire this summer/fall. Item 8: Banner signs on the poles are in disrepair. The banner on State Farm/137 cannot be rehung. We do receive calls from individuals who mention seeing the banner signs and writing down the information. We will have a price quote for materials and installation. Banner Pricing: no cost included for straps/ratchets(recommended hanging) 2 - 2'x8' heavy duty banners - $155.20 + tax 2 - 2'x8' medium duty banners - $123.20 + Tax Does not include the price of ratcheting straps which may help them last longer. Item 9: This topic relates to the Business Site Selection Group (SSG). Bayfield County agreed to join this effort and made the cost share requirement payment. Attached is the document produced together with the SSG requirements. SSG has since notified us that there are many more requirements with significant additional costs. Attached in the packet is a summary detail from Cole. I question whether we can comply with this extensive listing. Item 12: Cole attended a regional program about expansion of manufacturing warehouse/distribution centers. K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Minutes\2023 Minutes\FEB 14, 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 Tuesday, February 14th, 2023 – 10:00 a.m. Meeting Held at the Town of Eileen Town Hall 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 Call to Order: The Bayfield County Ad Hoc Business Park Planning County was called to order at 10:09 a.m. by Committee Chairman Rabska. Members Present: Ken Disher, Mark Abeles-Allison, Cole Rabska, and Marty Milanowski Members Excused: Leo Carlson, Preston Mikula, and Jake Hipsher Others Present: Bruce Markgren- Cooper Engineering President Introductions: Introductions of committee members were made. Public Comment: None Minutes from January 18, 2023: Motion by Milanowski, seconded by Abeles-Allison to adopt the minutes of the January 18, 2023 Bayfield County Ad-Hoc Business Park meeting as presented. Motion Carried. Discussion with Cooper Engineering Regarding Utility Feasibility Study: Bruce Markgren, Cooper Engineering President, reviewed the plans and options available for the utilities. The committee discussed the following topics: • Utilizing a smaller pipe pressure sewer along the right-of-way • Running a sewer line along Highway 137 that would end at the golf course located in the City of Ashland. There is a narrow right-of-way along Highway 137. • The Sadjak area in Bayfield County currently does not have a sewer but there may be a strong interest in the area due to the existing holding tanks. K:\Ag Station Business Park Planning Committee\Minutes\2023 Minutes\FEB 14, 2023 MINUTES Business Park.doc • A possible alternate route along the natural gas line that will then run north parallel to the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. • Other sewer options include a group mound or individual mounds/septic. • Options for water include shallow wells. Individual wells would be cost-effective; however, well testing may prove to be a hassle for park residents. Discussion Regarding Ribbon Cutting: The committee discussed holding a ribbon cutting in either May or June 2023. Chairman Rabska will determine the date of the ceremony at a later time and get back to the committee. Discussion Regarding Business Park Policy Regarding Storage: Chairman Rabska stated that current policy does not allow storage units. Rabska explained that the topic will be discussed with the other businesses at the park. Discussion Regarding SSG/WEDC Update of Site Selection Pilot Program: Chairman Rabska delivered a summary of the Site Selection Pilot Program to the committee and stated that the next meeting will occur on March 31, 2023. Discussion Regarding Items Needed to Establish Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions for the Bayfield County Business Park: Abeles-Allison will be providing documentation at a later date. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before the Bayfield County Ad-Hoc Business Park Planning Committee, Committee Chairman, Rabska adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Mark Abeles-Allison Mark Abeles-Allison, Bayfield County Administrator WISCONSIN CERTIFIED SITES PROGRAM 1 1 WISCONSIN CERTIFIED SITES PROGRAM MATERIALS JULY 2022 WISCONSIN CERTIFIED SITES PROGRAM 2 8235 Douglas Avenue Suite 500 Dallas, Tx 75225 siteselectiongroup.com AN EXIS PARTNER TABLE OFCONTENTS o OVERVIEW 3 o INSTRUCTIONS FOR 5 SUBMISSION o EVALUATION INFORMATION 8 o REQUESTED ATTACHMENTS 10 3 PROGRAM OVERVIEW As companies make decisions about where to locate, the timeline for making those decisions is getting tighter.Recognizing this trend, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) implemented the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program to help communities proactively assess and prepare properties for industrial development. Site Selection Group (SSG) has been engaged by WEDC to evaluate properties and assess the strengths and weaknesses of a property for development. SSG’s philosophy to product development is to take a comprehensive approach, understanding the community assets and surroundings to make meaningful recommendations to improve the property within the context of which it operates. To that end, SSG has also been engaged to do a high level, property-specific, labor and target industry analysis to complement the review of the site’s physical characteristics. The goal of the evaluation is to gauge the potential for corporate investment at the property, make recommendations for development for the community to consider, and to gather detailed site information for WEDC and the community to effectively market the property. Another key aspect of the program is to ensure appropriate due diligence files are available to support industrial recruitment. The program is designed to be similar to a real corporate project. The following pages include instructions for submission, an outline of evaluation guidelines, and a list of requested attachments. SSG is excited to partner with WEDC and your community on this exciting product development initiative. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to our team at any point in the process if you have questions. MARKETING WORKFORCE / AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ADEQUACY 4 PROGRAM OVERVIEW Methodology for Applicant Prioritization •Three (3) properties will be selected in 2022 to move forward based upon: •Potential economic impact (ROI) •Likelihood of project success •Diversity of options •Regional diversity •Established industrial park vs. raw land •Rural vs. urban •Rail vs. non-rail served Overall Program Objectives •No overly burdensome criteria to meet •Common-sense approach to due diligence •Leverages key workforce and target industry data •Customized strategic development plans •Comprehensive site and community analysis •Keen eye towards return on investment Applicant Eligibility •Property must be a minimum of 20 contiguous, developable acres •Publicly or privately owned •Municipalities •EDO’s •Private landowner/developer •Available for sale or lease (with a documented price and terms) to prospective industrial investors •Property has not been previously certified under the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program INSTRUCTIONSFOR SUBMISSION 6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION •Please fill out the RFI Questionnaire (Excel file attached) and provide all readily available Requested Attachments, listed in this document beginning on Slide 11. If property is selected to proceed with certification, SSG will work with community to ensure any outstanding documentation is submitted following the site visit. •SSG is requesting an electronic copy only of the RFI Questionnaire and Requested Attachments. Applicants should please upload submission to WEDC’s SharePoint folder and SSG will download the files –no need to send hard copies! •Please submit all items in the order requested in separate files, with the appropriate file names (see Slide 11). •Please send the link to the electronic submission no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 10th 2022 to: •SSG will conduct a desktop evaluation of the RFI Questionnaire and Requested Attachments. SSG will also contact the community to clearly outline expectations for the site visit (attendees, agenda, schedule, etc.). •Please submit any relevant past work completed on the property or community (e.g.target industry analyses, workforce analyses, due diligence reports, etc.). SSG will incorporate existing work and consider the property in the broader context of the ED organization’s goals and strategies. Josh Bays (SSG) jbays@siteselectiongroup.com 214-271-0587 Beth Land (SSG) bland@siteselectiongroup.com 214-271-0623 Dewey Evans (SSG) devans@siteselectiongroup.com 214-238-0569 Chris Schwinden (SSG) cschwinden@siteselectiongroup.com 214-238-0576 Patrick Roetker (WEDC) patrick.roetker@wedc.org 608-210-6747 Heather Smith (WEDC) heather.smith@wedc.org 608-210-6740 •Please see the schedule at right for critical dates. Please mark these important dates on your calendar! Schedule Dates Program Materials Distributed Week of July 11th Deadline for RFI Submission Wednesday, August 10th Applicants Invited to Proceed Friday, August 19th Site Visits Week of September 12th EVALUATION GUIDELINES 8 EVALUATION GUIDELINES Property Availability 1.The property should be available for sale or lease (with a documented price and terms) to prospective industrial investors. If the property is only available for lease, the lease term should be a minimum of 25 years. The community should either own the property or have an exclusive option on the property. Property Developability 2.The property must be a minimum of 20 contiguous, developable acres. The developable acreage for each property must be clearly defined. “Developable” acres are those that have no impediments to development, or mitigation for any known impediments can be accomplished in less than 90 days. The property’s developable acreage should: •Be located outside of the 100-and 500-year flood zone. •Be free of recognized environmental conditions. •Be free of wetlands or be able to be mitigated within 90 days. •Be free of state and federal threatened, and endangered species or be able to be mitigated within 90 days. •Be free of areas of archaeological or historical significance or be able to be mitigated within 90 days. •Have soils compatible with industrial development. The Wisconsin Certified Sites Program evaluates properties at varying levels of development. A property does not need to meet all of the following Evaluation Guidelines to participate in the program, but the below will be used as guidelines as SSG evaluates the property. These guidelines are typical of a corporate site selection project. Please note that properties previously certified under the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program are not eligible for participation in the 2022 round of the program. 9 EVALUATION GUIDELINES (Continued) Zoning 3.The property should be zoned appropriately or be able to be rezoned for industrial use within 90 days (if applicable). The surrounding properties should also be compatible with industrial uses. Transportation 4.The property should be directly served or be able to be served by a road(s) that is compatible with standards for tractor- trailer access (80,000 pounds / 20,000 pounds per axle). 5.To market the property as rail-served, the property should be served or be able to be served within 12 months by rail. Utility Adequacy 6.Electric: The property should be served or be able to be served by electric infrastructure. 7.Natural Gas:The property should be served or be able to be served by natural gas infrastructure. 8.Water:The site or park should be served or be able to be served by water infrastructure and a public water system. 9.Wastewater:The site should be served or be able to be served by wastewater infrastructure and a public wastewater treatment plant. 10.Telecomm:The site or park should be served or be able to be served by fiber telecommunications infrastructure. REQUESTED ATTACHMENTS 11 REQUESTED ATTACHMENTS To assist SSG in efficiently reviewing all the critical materials, please submit items in the order listed in this below. Please submit electronic attachments as separate files, clearly labeling each file with the Attachment number and title listed below. For example, the first attachment should be named “1 –RFI Questionnaire”, and the second attachment “2 –General Location Map”. All maps should show a scale, a directional arrow, clear boundaries of the site (boundaries should clearly show only the property being proposed for evaluation), and a date. All letters should be on the appropriate letterhead and include a date and a signature. General Requirements 1.RFI Questionnaire –(please complete and submit this excel file that includes several tabs as one collated excel file –please do not PDF.) 2.KMZ/KML File –KMZ/KML file that has the property boundaries outlined (SSG can assist if community has questions.) 3.General location map. 4.Aerial photograph -with property boundaries clearly identified. 5.USGS quadrangle map -with property boundaries identified. 6.General transportation map -including roads, rail, ports, and commercial service airports within a 45-mile radius of the property. 7.Map of adjoining and nearby businesses -with businesses identified (if applicable). 8.Topographic map –with clearly defined contour intervals of 2 ft. or less and property boundaries identified. To assist SSG in efficiently reviewing all the critical materials, please submit items in the order listed in this below. Please submit electronic attachments as separate files, clearly labeling each file with the Attachment number and title listed below. For example, the first attachment should be named “1 –RFI Questionnaire”, and the second attachment “2 –KMZ File”, etc. Important! It is essential that key characteristics of the site (boundaries, size, buildable area, etc.) be clearly specified and consistent throughout the application including in all technical studies conducted by outside parties (Environmental Site Assessment, wetlands study, etc.). 12 REQUESTED ATTACHMENTS Property Availability 9.Property availability -Documentation that ensures that the property is available. This should be one of the following: •An appropriate real estate listing agreement authorizing an agent to offer the property for sale; •An exclusive option to purchase; -or- 10.Owner letter with price -Letter from the owner or controlling entity stating a price and conditions of a sale or lease. (This letter can be combined with documentation in Attachment 9, if applicable.) 11.Copy of the present deed(s) -indicating the current ownership of the property. 12.County tax parcel map -with tax parcel identification numbers depicting the location and property boundaries. Site Developability 13.FEMA flood map(s) -with panel number indicated and property boundaries identified. 14.National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map -with property boundaries identified. 15.County soil survey -with property boundaries identified. Transportation 16.Transportation map -Map indicating the route from the property to the closest interstate. 17.Rail -Plan (including the route, a cost, and a schedule) for providing rail service to the property (if marketing the property as rail-served). Letter from rail provider indicating provider’s willingness to serve the property. 13 REQUESTED ATTACHMENTS Zoning 18.Zoning map -Map illustrating the current zoning for the property and surrounding area with property boundaries identified. If there is no zoning in the jurisdiction, attach a comprehensive or long-range plan and/or map. 19.Zoning description -If there is zoning in the jurisdiction, provide the property’s current zoning description and outlines the acceptable uses. If the zoning for the area surrounding the property is different than the zoning for the property itself, a description of allowable uses under current zoning classifications for surrounding property should also be submitted. 20.Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CCRs) –Copy of CCRs that are governing the property (if applicable). Utilities 21.Infrastructure map(s) -Infrastructure map(s) with property boundaries identified indicating the following: •The location and voltage of the nearest electric infrastructure serving the property. •The location and size of the nearest natural gas distribution line(s) serving the property. •The location and size of the nearest water line(s) serving the property. •The location and size of the nearest wastewater line(s) serving the property. •The location of the nearest telecommunication infrastructure serving the property. Please note that Attachment 1 –RFI Questionnaire has several tabs that include Electric, Natural Gas, Water, Wastewater, and Telecomm Questionnaires, that should be completed by the utility providers to ensure accurate information. 14 REQUESTED ATTACHMENTS Due Diligence Documentation (Please provide what is readily available, and SSG can work with community to ensure any outstanding documentation is submitted following the site visit.) 22.Wetland Stream and Flood Plain Data: Report by a qualified professional which delineates all streams, bodies of water, wet- lands, floodplains, and other features of the site that may be covered by the “Waters of the United States” Rule. Please note that such features are defined not by just permanent or periodic flowing or standing water, but also by the presence/absence of certain vegetation, soil types, and physical or hydrological conditions. If such water features are present on or close to the site, the report must provide preliminary indication of their impact on future development. Desirable but not essential for delineation to have been approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers; in any case, the detail and quality of data must be adequate to submit to the Corps. 23.Geotechnical Investigation: If geotechnical studies have been conducted, they should be provided. If such specific studies are not available, the applicant may provide a letter from a qualified engineer stating a general professional opinion that, from a soils and subsurface perspective, the site is believed capable of being developed for industrial uses. This opinion may be based on general data about the area, the engineer’s past experience, and similar background data. If a qualified specialist provides such a statement, it is not necessary to conduct an actual geotechnical study for purposes of this application. The geotechnical assessment must include a minimum of five (5) soil borings/soundings and Seismic Site Classification. 24.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment report by a qualified professional that meets all US Environmental Protection Agency standards in effect at the time the assessment was conducted, specifies if “Recognized Environmental Conditions” (REC’s) were found, and definitively recommends no further action. If any environmental conditions or concerns were identified by the Phase 1 ESA or other studies, the actions conducted as follow- up and results must be specified. For instance, a Limited Phase II ESA may be recommended and need to be completed prior to certification. SSG will discuss with community as issues arise on a case-by-case basis. 15 REQUESTED ATTACHMENTS Due Diligence Documentation 25.Cultural Resources Study: A report by a qualified professional documenting appropriate study of the site to determine presence of cultural resources, historic significance of the site, and other similar findings in accord with all current US and state laws, regulations, and standards. 26.Threatened & Endangered Species Study: A report by a qualified professional (DNR or other Certified Reviewer) documenting appropriate study of the site to determine presence any animal or plant species designated as endangered of threatened under US and state laws. 27.Master Development Plan: Master Site Plan that illustrates the location of park access roads, rail, easements, utilities (existing and proposed), and proposed lot locations and sizes (total and developable acreage). The Master Site Plan should take into consideration and illustrate the location of development limitations, such as wetlands, floodplains, and permanent easements. 28.American Land Trust Association (ALTA) Survey: Boundary survey covering the entire acreage of the property that adheres to standards developed by the American Land Title Association (ALTA) and the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS). 29.Title Search: Title attorney opinion or title insurance must be submitted that shows clear title to the property (the title search must encompass at least the prior 50-year history). Documentation must indicate: i. The owner has a saleable interest in the property. ii. Any restrictions on the use of the property covenants or easements); and iii. Any liens that may exist against the property 30.Fire Rating: Fire Insurance Classification Rating Letter 31.FAA Flight Plan: FAA produced flight path map or letter from FAA indicating maximum building height on site (if site is less than two (2) miles from airport.) HEADQUARTERS 8235 Douglas Avenue Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75225 GREENVILLE, SC OFFICE 201 RiverPlace, Suite 500 Greenville, SC 29601 siteselectiongroup.com 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