Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-05-2024 JDA Agenda Packet Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project JDA MEETING AGENDA Monday, August 5, 2024, 5:30 p.m. at Arden Hills City Hall 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Public Input 5. Consent Agenda 6. Old Business 7. Public Hearings 8. New Business a. Update on Communications b. Recommendation from Energy Advisory Committee on Sustainability Certification c. Review JDA 6-Month Expense Report d. Update on Development Agreement Discussions e. Review Road Map 9. Administrative Director’s Report 10. Development Director’s Report 11. Commissioner Updates 12. Adjournment Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Collins and Perrault SUBJECT: Approval of Agenda The agenda for the August 5, 2024, JDA Meeting must be approved. Action Requested: Approve the agenda for August 5, 2024. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Collins and Perrault SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes The meeting minutes from the April 1 JDA Meeting and July 23 JDA Special Work Session must be approved. Attachment: 4/1/24 JDA Minutes 7/23/24 JDA Minutes Action Requested: Approve the meeting minutes from April 1 and July 23, 2024. Joint Development Authority Monday, April 1, 2024 Arden Hills City Council Chambers Minutes 5:30 pm Roll Call Joint Development Authority: Commissioner Nicole Frethem, Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt, Commissioner Tom Fabel, Commissioner Tena Monson Members absent: Chair Jon Wicklund Also present: Dave Perrault (Arden Hills); Jessica Jagoe (Arden Hills); Ella Mitchell (Ramsey County) Roll call taken. Approval of Agenda Motion by Commissioner Reinhardt seconded by Commissioner Fabel to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Monson seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt to approve the February 5, 2024 JDA meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried. Public Input None. Consent Agenda None. Old Business None. Public Hearings None. New Business a. Update on Communications Ms. Mitchell stated Goff Public worked with Ramsey County to prepare messaging for the Rice Creek Commons public infrastructure development and design request for proposals (RFP). Messaging tools included talking points, website copy and a reactive media statement. There have been no media inquiries or coverage regarding the infrastructure RFP to date. Student journalists with the Mounds View High School student newspaper, The Viewer, wrote an article about the Outlot A purchase and sale agreement and history of Rice Creek Commons in late February: TCAAP land development changes. Goff Public worked with Ramsey County and Arden Hills to coordinate information, clarifications and an interview with Councilmember Monson. Goff Public also worked with Ramsey County and Arden Hills on edits to the Joint Development Authority annual report. One person submitted an inquiry through the microsite contact portal regarding parks and trails, which Ramsey County staff responded to directly. Commissioner Fabel stated he was having trouble with his audio. Acting Chair Frethem called a short recess in order to allow staff to address the audio concerns. Acting Chair Frethem reconvened the JDA meeting at 5:35 p.m. b. Update from the State Legislative Session Ms. Mitchell stated according to the legislative schedule, 2024 is traditionally a bonding year. Speaker Hortman has been consistent with her messaging—the only thing left she wants to accomplish this year is passing a bonding bill. Some speculate that there won’t be a bonding bill and they don’t have the necessary Republican votes to pass a bonding bill as they need a supermajority. Others remain hopeful that they will pass a bonding bill—Senate Capitol Investment chair Senator Pappas (Saint Paul) has certainly expressed a desire to pass one. Going into an election year, conventional wisdom would say most legislators should be motivated to pass the bill so they can talk about projects they’ve been able to deliver on. Ms. Mitchell explained on the House side, HF3510 was introduced on 2/12/24, with Representative Moller as the chief author and Ramsey / Anoka County area Representatives Hussein, Curran, Fischer, Norris, Feist, Kraft, Newton who have signed on as co-authors. On the Senate side, SF3990 as introduced on 2/20/24, with Senator Marty as the chief author and Senators Xiong, Gustafson, and Oumou Verbeten as co-authors. Ms. Mitchell reported Ramsey County commissioners and Government Relations staff have been consistent with all legislators, our Ramsey County delegation, and the Governor’s office that bonding for Rice Creek Commons is our number one issue and we need the full $25 million. Rice Creek Commons has been popular with members and everyone seems to understand the need for investment in this project and that the timing is right. We have been collecting letters of support for the project. Ms. Mitchell stated while the House and Senate Capital Investment committees have been meeting, they have not been hearing individual bills. They have been taking presentations from the various agencies, essentially the Governor’s recommendations which did not contain any local projects. They have also spent committee time taking up lots of technical and clarifying changes related to the 2023 bonding/cash bills. The general thought this year is that if you received a tour stop on the bonding tours, which Rice Creek Commons did on both the Senate and House side, then you do not get a bill hearing. We do not expect a hearing in either body, which again is expected. It makes the need for individual conversations all the more important. Commissioner Reinhardt thanked Commissioner Frethem for her incredible advocacy work. Commissioner Frethem discussed how she has been working to gain letters of support for this new development. Commissioner Monson commented on how she has been working to build support for the project and why now was a good time to offer bonding for Rice Creek Commons. She hoped to gain additional letters of support for this project. c. Update from Energy Advisory Committee Ms. Mitchell provided the JDA with an update from the Energy Advisory Committee. She explained she has been working with green energy consultants. She noted LHB and Ever-Green Energy were part of the green energy team. She stated analysis was being completed on how much energy will be needed to meet the demands on the site. She indicated the Energy Advisory Committee would be meeting next on May 2 where sustainable building design guidelines would be discussed. She stated on Friday she met with Ryan Companies, LHB and Ever-Green Energy to discuss the green energy scope for Outlot A. She indicated the US Green Building Council reached out to Alatus regarding Rice Creek Commons. She reported LHB would be hosting a meeting with Alatus and US Green Building Council to discuss the LEED options for the site. Commissioner Monson explained the Energy Advisory Committee would be coming back to the JDA with clear goals for the project. She stated the implementation of the vision for the project would then have to be considered. She discussed how Xcel Energy was pursuing a goal to have the gas side of their business be net zero and how they wanted to pursue a geothermal facility. She reported she spoke with them and would continue to work with them to understand the full scope of their project. She indicated this would be a $10 million geothermal pilot project opportunity that the Energy Advisory Committee would continue to pursue. d. Update from Development Agreement Discussions Director Perrault provided the JDA with an update on the development agreement. He explained representatives from the County, City and Alatus have been meeting to discuss how to get closer to a development agreement. He stated the majority of the discussions revolve around how to fund the horizontal infrastructure, which includes the spine road, utilities under the spine road, the natural resources corridor and the relocation of remediation infrastructure. He stated mass grading and soil corrections have also been discussed and the financing has yet to be determined. He noted the parties have exchanged multiple iterations of the financial projections, but a gap in the horizontal infrastructure still exists. It was estimated the horizontal infrastructure would cost somewhere between $86 and $100 million. The parties would continue to work on how to fund the infrastructure. He noted the County has pursued $25 million in State funding. He noted the parties have been focused on the horizontal infrastructure and have not yet discussed the term sheet. Director Perrault reported the Met Council has approved the comprehensive plan request to increase the density of the project to 1,960 units. He indicated the energy committee would continue to work with consultants on sustainability efforts. Commissioner Fabel questioned if any Federal funds had been secured for this project. Acting Chair Frethem stated she would address this matter under Commissioner Updates. e. Review Road Map Ms. Mitchell reviewed the Road Map with the JDA. Acting Chair Frethem suggested a green energy worksession be held by the JDA this summer and that community engagement be held to discuss green energy and sustainability efforts. Administrative Director’s Report Ms. Mitchell stated there has been some movement on Outlot A. She explained a conversation was held between Ryan Companies, DEED and Greater MSP. She reported Ryan Companies seems to be very excited about potential end users, but nothing concrete has been shared with County staff. Ms. Mitchell indicated the County public infrastructure RFP for the final design of the spine road was released on March 14. She stated an in person conference was held on March 22 and there were eight firms in attendance. She noted proposals are due April 18 with interviews to be held the week of May 13. She anticipated the contract would start on July 1. Development Director’s Report Director Perrault stated he had nothing to report at this time. Commissioner Updates Commissioner Reinhardt stated the County and its staff was working to make it clear the development agreement was the top priority at this time. She explained she was feeling very optimistic. Commissioner Fabel stated he was encouraged by the County’s optimism, especially after hearing about the horizontal infrastructure funding gap. He anticipated the gap would remain, even if the County receives $25 million in State funding. He indicated this was a concern to him. It was his hope the County could find ways to fill the remainder of the gap in order to move this project forward before the end of the year. Acting Chair Frethem stated she attended the National Association of Counties (NACo) Conference in Washington DC with Commissioner Reinhardt. She explained there was a federal session where she spoke to different agencies regarding potential funding streams for this project. She indicated she was also able to secure a meeting with Senior White House Advisor Tom Perez where federal support for Rice Creek Commons was discussed. She stated he was very excited about the project and was invited to visit the site. She indicated she also met with Senate staff for Senator Smith and Senator Klobuchar as well as staff members for Representative McCollum. She commented on how there was a need to identify grant opportunities and all congressional staff were willing and interested in helping in these efforts. She understood there was a funding gap and noted there were different tools that could be used to move this project along. She discussed how the County would continue to pursue funding sources and thanked Ehlers for being a great consultant. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 6:17 pm. Approved _____________________________________ _______________________ Nicole Frethem, Acting Chair Date Joint Development Authority Work Session Tuesday, July 23, 2024 Arden Hills City Council Chambers Minutes 5:30 pm Roll Call Joint Development Authority: Commissioner Nicole Frethem, Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt, Commissioner Tom Fabel, Commissioner Tena Monson Chair Jon Wicklund was absent. Also present: Dave Perrault (Arden Hills); Jessica Jagoe (Arden Hills); Ella Mitchell (Ramsey County), Larina DeWalt (Ramsey County) Roll call taken. Public Input Lyle Salmela, 1480 Arden Vista Court, discussed the cost of energy with the JDA. He understood the JDA wanted future tenants and homeowners on Rice Creek Commons to save energy, greenhouse gases, and costs. He recommended Rice Creek Commons be an all electric community. He noted the cost per kilowatt hour for electricity has not changed over the past 60 years. He commented further on how kilowatt hours could be reduced per year by eliminating the inefficiency of natural gas. He offered to be an energy advisor to the JDA. Mark Kelliher, 3712 Chatham Court, explained he has lived in the area for almost 40 years. He commented on the lack of progress that has occurred on the TCAAP development noting this has been an embarrassment. He discussed community land trusts (CLTs) noting this may be a way to advance affordable housing within TCAAP. He indicated he was a long-time volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. He reported this year he attended a mortgage seminar and discussed how CLTs were beneficial for affordable housing. He encouraged the County and JDA to use CLTs to advance more affordable housing within TCAAP. He then invited the JDA to participate in the Carter Work Project at the end of September. Rice Creek Commons Project Status Update Ms. Mitchell provided the JDA with a memo that outlined the conversations the County and City have had with Alatus over the past several months. She explained the first section talks about the scope of work and noted the focus has been on the horizontal and site infrastructure. She indicated the second section addresses the obligations of the City and the County within the JPA. She explained there was a financial gap of $38.4 million at this time. She reiterated that the State failed to pass a bonding bill, which meant the project did not receive funding from the State. She was hopeful Alatus would be providing the City and County with a new proposal. Acting Chair Frethem requested an update on the design plans for the spine road. Ms. DeWalt explained the County put out an RFP for the final design of the spine road this spring and received two proposals from Kimley Horn and WSB. Upon review of the proposals, Kimley Horn was chosen for the project. She indicated the design plans for the spine road were currently at 60%. She reported construction of the project would hinge greatly on securing adequate funding, but noted the project remains on schedule. She explained construction was slated to begin in the spring of 2026 into 2027. Commissioner Fabel reported the JDA has met with Ehlers and at one point in the past it was noted the County could bond for the $40 million funding gap and repay the bonds through the sale of the property. He questioned if this proposal has been considered by the County Board. Acting Chair Frethem explained this has not been considered by the Board because this was not something the County CFO recommends. She indicated the number of years the County would be paying debt service would be a hit on the County’s levy. Commissioner Monson indicated Commissioner Fabel was talking about temporary bonds and not GO Bonds. Commissioner Fabel stated he was talking about either temporary or GO Bonds that could be paid off by the sale of the land, which would occur pretty quickly. Bruce Kimmel, Ehlers, explained he was representing the County on this matter. He noted the idea of the bond sale was brought about by his colleague Stacie Kvilvang, who represents the City in this discussion. He reported he took an in depth look at doing bond financing for the mass grading/gap, and, as Commissioner Frethem alluded to what makes that difficult to pencil out was the number of years for the buyer to purchase the land. He stated the debt then ballooned over time. He indicated they looked at TIF and other options to offset the carrying costs, but based on the assumed take-down schedule for the land, this was not something the County finance department was interested in pursuing at this time. He indicated temporary bond options were also considered, noting these could only be issued for three years and then be rolled over into another three years. He commented that the overall finances for the options that had been analyzed at this time would not work. Commissioner Monson stated the land sales may not be completed within six years and she understood this was a risk the County was not willing to take, even though this was something traditional landowners and developers would take. Commissioner Fabel said that the value estimates of the land would more than cover the $40,000,000 payments for the bonds. Mr. Kimmel stated this was not the case. He reported when the accumulated interest is added in, the payments would be higher. Another issue is that the land value estimates assumed that the developer would pay for the neighborhood infrastructure. Using city special assessment bonds instead could help increase the land values to help the overall deal economics. It is a multifaceted deal where we are trying to see what combination of things might work. Commissioner Reinhardt explained she did not believe the land would be sold down in six years. She indicated the land would not be ready for sale until 2027 when the grading was complete. She commented this was not an ordinary development. Rather, this was 400+ acres of development so the timing would be different. Mr. Kimmel stated the extended timeframes for this development were making the finances difficult. He indicated Alatus has been working on a front loading take down of the land that could benefit the economics that would reduce the risks for the public parties involved. He stated he was waiting to see the details of this plan. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if there was a risk to the City to do the special assessment bonds. Mr. Kimmel explained there was a bit of a risk to the City to issue 429 special assessment bonds. He indicated they could be structured in a manner so that there would be some flexibility and the repayment was in sync with the planned development and sale of residential parcels. He commented the developer would be paying the assessments for some amount of time, but it would be better to have the payments to be spread out among multiple property owners. He reported this still has to be worked out and investigated further. He stated the City was already looking to do special assessments for the trunk water and sewer in the amount of approximately $15 million. Commissioner Reinhardt stated she looked forward to learning more about the new plan from Alatus. Director Perrault reported for both parties it comes down to risk tolerance. He explained the County was not willing to bond for $40 million, and neither is the City. He understood Alatus was talking to a private equity partner at this time. Acting Chair Frethem stated the risk reward balance has been a major topic between the three parties, especially given how costs and interest rates have increased. She reported the County’s financial position has changed a great deal. She understood the horizontal infrastructure has to be solved before any other federal and state bonding dollars can be assumed for affordable housing. She discussed how this project would take many years to build out and would come with a price tag of over $100 million. She stated she appreciated all of the work that was being done by the City, County, Alatus and Ehlers. Commissioner Reinhardt appreciated how all three partners were working to spread the risk out for this project in order to move it forward. She believed the City and County could not figure out the options before receiving a proposal from Alatus. Commissioner Monson commented the County has had a verbal delivery from Alatus for a month and the County won’t do anything unless it is in writing. She understood everything so far has been a no from the County. She explained the City’s levy was only $6 million a year so when considering risk and who could take risk, she indicated the City had a different tolerance because they do not own the land. She indicated only the County could cover a $40 million gap. She stated this was the reality. She hoped there would be a quicker turnaround for this project going forward. She was frustrated with the fact this group has not met since April. She feared that things were just spinning and nothing was moving forward. She understood this project would be really hard to complete and that difficult conversations would have to be held. She hoped this group could work through these conversations for the benefit of the development. Commissioner Reinhardt stated the County’s attorneys require things to be in writing and noted the County has not just been saying no. She reported staff has been sitting down with Alatus and maybe that is the message that has been received. She indicated if a verbal agreement has been reached, the County then needs it in writing. She explained the County does not have $40 million for this project. She anticipated all three parties would have to share in the solution to the funding gap. She did not believe it was fair to assume the County could pick up the entire funding gap. She indicated the County has an AAA bond rating and this was achieved because the County was cautious with what it does. She stated the County could not overextend anymore than the City could. Commissioner Monson commented on equity within the project. She reported if the County wanted equitable participation from the City the County had to understand the City’s levy was $6 million while the County’s levy was $800 million. She indicated the City may be able to participate, but the percentage would be a drop in the bucket. While she understood the County did not have $40 million, she believed it was disingenuous for the County to assume the City could solve this problem when the City’s finances were on a completely different scale than the County’s. Mr. Kimmel explained the special assessment idea has been on the table since 2018 for the $15 or $16 million was for the City. He indicated this funding would be used for neighborhood infrastructure and not mass grading. Commissioner Monson stated she didn’t know anything about this. Director Perrault indicated the Council did receive an update on the neighborhood infrastructure, but reported the City was waiting for a written piece on this. He indicated the special assessments were not proposed for the $40 million funding gap. Mr. Kimmel reported this was the case. He explained if the County were to issue $40 million in bonds, this would be unsecured and would be backed by the levy. This funding would be hinged on when the developer would buy the land. If the deal were to go sideways, the County would be stuck with the $40 million in bonds. He discussed how assessment bonds were a first lien that would go above a mortgage if there was a default. He explained there would still be a risk, but there was some security over the GO Bonds. He commented the County needs to understand when the developer would purchase the land and how much up front escrow would be put down as collateral to buy the land. Also, the County needs to understand how cost overruns will be addressed. He stated if a point could be reached where the City is taking part of the load and the County is taking part of the load, hopefully this enables the developer to put more on the table in terms of risk mitigation and a place can be reached to move the project forward. Commissioner Reinhardt stated a verbal agreement or proposal has been offered by the developer. She understood that has to be put in writing. Ms. Mitchell explained what was discussed in June was a conceptual framework. Commissioner Monson asked if Alatus could come forward to speak to the JDA. Bob Lux, Alatus, stated the reason an offer has not been presented is because he was waiting on a contract from Kimley Horn that the County signed a week ago. He reported he needs this because it informs the work that has to be done. He indicated he could not put a number on the table until he has this document. He explained the RFP was written very wisely because it includes the spine road and as well as addressing the geotechnical soil corrections within the development. He commented on how soil would need to be exported and remixed because it was structurally unsuitable. He stated the proposal was in the form of a letter of intent to purchase the property. He explained he was enthused about where this project was at and the equal amount of risk that was being placed on each party. He indicated Alatus would be putting up a significant amount of money, the County would be putting up funding for a three year period and he would have to work out with the City the 429 bonds that would be needed for infrastructure. He discussed how Carla Dunham and Tony Kuechle had been brought in to the project. He indicated he had reshaped his firm in order to be prepared for this development. He described how the TGRS water treatment system has to be moved from the property. He explained the next JDA meeting was scheduled for Monday, August 5 and he should be able to review the contract at that time. Acting Chair Frethem stated she had good discussions with federal representations about moving the TGRS water system and explained there was good support. Mr. Lux commented further on what would have to be done in order to begin the mass grading. He stated the large excavation companies were looking for work. He estimated it would take 12 to 15 months to complete the mass grading work. He was of the opinion this project was further along than all of the parties may realize. Commissioner Reinhardt thanked Mr. Lux for his update. She stated some of her anxiety about the project has been addressed. She indicated it appears the project has pieces in place. She requested further information regarding the contract with Kimley Horn. Ms. DeWalt reported the contract with Kimley Horn was fully executed. She indicated public works was confirming with procurement that everything was good. Commissioner Reinhardt said the County and City should have a better picture of the plans for this development in a short while. She appreciated the proposed timing for the contract. Mr. Lux indicated he was trying to abbreviate the take down period as he understood the City’s and County’s risk tolerance, while balancing that with the cost for private capital. Commissioner Fabel reported the City brought to the table an additional 500 housing units, which was what the County wanted. He commented this came with risk and increased costs down the road for streets, infrastructure, police and fire. He indicated the City was not the property owner and the City should not be assuming the risk of the development, but rather the City should be assuming the risk of operating down the road. Commissioner Reinhardt said more affordable housing was a shared goal between the City and the County. She said she was very grateful for the City’s efforts to provide more affordable housing units within the development. She stated in the long run the development was not just about the number of housing units, but rather about a greater vision for the community with housing, open space and commercial developments. She reiterated that this project would take joint risk on both the City and County’s behalf, noting the County has already taken a great deal of risk. She understood this project has taken longer than expected. She indicated the developer, City and County had to remain partners or this project would not work. Mr. Kimmel commented on the discussions that have been had regarding the water tower funding noting he was cautiously optimistic. Acting Chair Frethem stated this was a hard conversation to have given the fact this was an active negotiation. She understood Alatus was a business and they had bills to pay. She thanked Alatus for working with the City and County through this process. She stated she was looking forward to the August 5 JDA meeting. Mr. Lux commented further on the proposed timeline for the contract and purchase of land. Commissioner Monson recommended the August 5 JDA meeting remain as is and noted a special JDA meeting could be called if necessary. Administrative Director’s Report Director Mitchell stated the Energy Advisory Committee would be meeting on Wednesday, July 24 to discuss a potential recommendation on a sustainability pathway. Ms. DeWalt explained she already provided an update on the Kimley Horn contract. She indicated a feasibility study to move the TGRS was included in the contract. She explained Ryan Companies was continuing to move forward with the development of Outlot A. She noted Ryan Companies was in discussions with a number of tenants and conceptual site design has begun for one of the tenants. She anticipated the closing for Outlot A would be held in early 2025. Commissioner Monson asked if the County would be seeking funding from the State in 2025. Ms. DeWalt reported all of the work that has been done on the project to date would be brought back to the State for another funding request. Commissioner Monson suggested there be a more coordinated effort between the City and the County in 2025 the ensure the City was offering support for the funding request. Ms. Mitchell stated $11 million was penciled in for the Rice Creek Commons project which was a good endorsement for this project. She hoped that great consideration would be given in 2025. Development Director’s Report Director Perrault explained he did not have a report for the JDA. Commissioner Monson noted Director Perrault’s last day with the City would be August 9. Commissioner Updates Commissioner Fabel wished Director Perrault all the best in his new venture and stated he has been an integral part of the City for the past nine years. He explained Community Development Director Jessica Jagoe would be acting as the Interim City Administrator after August 9. Commissioner Reinhardt explained Chair Martinson was stepping down on August 1 and she was elected Chair beginning August 2 and Rafael Ortega would be serving as Vice Chair. She stated even with her additional duties she would remain a constant presence with the JDA through the end of the year. She noted she would not be running for reelection. Acting Chair Frethem indicated she would not be running for reelection either. She stated with the changes on the board, Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire was appointed as the alternate to the JDA. She explained Commissioner McGuire would begin attending JDA meetings in order to assist in getting up to speed on this project. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 6:52 pm. Approved _____________________________________ _______________________ Nicole Frethem, Acting Chair Date Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Collins and Perrault SUBJECT: Public Input The public is invited to provide input. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8a MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Allison Winters and Sara Swenson, Goff Public SUBJECT: Update on Communications In May, Goff Public worked with Ramsey County to prepare a reactive media statement on the conclusion of the 2024 legislative session and lack of infrastructure bonding bill. Given other developments in the final days of session, Rice Creek Commons was not widely mentioned in related media coverage. Finance & Commerce published an article on June 20 with updates on the infrastructure RFP process, energy and sustainability conversations, and Outlot A: Ramsey County plans for Rice Creek Commons infrastructure work. Goff Public worked with Ramsey County to prepare a statement on the infrastructure RFP timeline, which was attributed to Larina Vosika DeWalt of Ramsey County. Goff Public also worked with Ramsey County to prepare and distribute a summer Rice Creek Commons newsletter. The newsletter was sent to 4,639 subscribers on Monday, July 15. Topics included green energy goals, Outlot A, Kimley-Horn’s selection as lead infrastructure engineering partner, main parcel development, and the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) update process. Based on click data, the most popular topic was Outlot A followed by the green energy goals and Ramsey County’s Climate Equity Action Plan. The newsletter had a 4% click rate (about twice the industry average) and a 34% open rate (in line with the industry average). Since the last communications update, there was one inquiry through the Rice Creek Commons microsite contact portal, which County staff responded to. Attachment: None Action Requested: None Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8b MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Commissioner Monson, Energy Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Recommendation from Energy Advisory Committee on Sustainability Certification The Energy Advisory Committee has worked with consultants Ever-Green Energy and LHB to make a recommendation to the JDA on how to implement the Rice Creek Commons Energy Vision. The attached presentation reviews the process for developing this recommendation for pursuing sustainability certification for the site. Attachment: Sustainability Certification Recommendation Presentation Action Requested: Consider Energy Advisory Committee recommendation to direct staff to pursue LEED for Communities certification, with a goal of achieving Gold or Platinum, in addition to sustainable design guidelines for the Rice Creek Commons. Rice Creek Commons Energy Advisory CommitteeSustainability Certification Recommendation August 5, 2024 •Timeline •Energy Vision •Pathways in Support of Energy Vision •Considerations •Recommendation •Next Steps Agenda Timeline January Ever-Green Energy (EGE) and LHB began as the JDA’s green energy and sustainability consultants for Rice Creek Commons February –April EGE and LHB analyzed current plans for RCC May 2: Energy Advisory Committee Meeting Reviewed Energy Vision, sustainability implementation pathways, and initial greenhouse gas (GHG) emission analysis June 3: Energy Advisory Committee Meeting Discussed sustainability implementation pathways June -July Staff and LHB gathered more information based on EAC’s questions July 24: Energy Advisory Committee Meeting Reviewed additional information and decide on sustainability pathway recommendation August 5: JDA Meeting EAC recommendation to JDA for implementation pathway Rice Creek Commons will be a vibrant and unique, climate-forward development that aligns with the goals outlined in the State of Minnesota’s Climate Action Framework: carbon neutrality, clean energy, climate resiliency, equity and innovation. Rice Creek Commons will attract investment and partnership that will create sustainable benefits for the community. GUIDING PRINCIPLES •Develop a resilient community for energy and other utilities using clean energy technologies, reducing consumption, and reusing local resources onsite. •Implement infrastructure solutions that are flexible and scalable over 50 years, including developing the site to be adaptable to future technological needs. •Deliver a model of efficient energy and water usage that minimizes Rice Creek Commons’ impact on the environment. •Create an economically competitive and attractive environment for developers and businesses to create a vibrant community with multi-modal transportation options. Energy Vision Goal Review RICE CREEK COMMONS… Is walkable and sustainable within itself. Achieves ambitious goals without pricing itself out of the market. Is the model for communities across the U.S. Inspires others. Demonstrates trying to go as far as possible. Is financially viable for the City/County. Option 1: Rating system for the whole community + sustainable design guidelines •Third-party certification system •Guidelines fill in gaps and adds specifics Option 2: Sustainable design guidelines only •JDA creates guidelines to address high priority goals Pathways in Support of Energy Vision or •Several certification systems analyzed for fit with RCC – LEED for Communities recommended •LEED for Communities: -For use in planning stage of a new community -Data-driven, comprehensive system addressing natural systems, transportation, water, energy, GHG reduction, materials, resources, quality of life •Note: Differs from LEED Building Design + Construction (BD+C) -For use during design and construction of a new building, certified post-occupancy -LEED for Communities gives points for LEED BD+C certification -Colloquially, this is often what people mean when they refer to LEED Certification System Recommendation: LEED for Communities How LEED for Communities Helps Push Sustainability Requirements for: •Providing public access to green space/wetlands •Including an organics collections service Optional points for: •Certifying buildings to LEED •Reducing light pollution •Including pedestrian and bike infrastructure •Employing strategies to reduce travel by individual car •Designing to reduce GHG emissions •Including on-site renewable energy generation •Participating in utility demand-response programs •Designing paving with recycled content •Employing outdoor air quality monitoring and other health/wellbeing strategies LEED for Communities Scorecard •Preliminary scoring estimates for Rice Creek Commons •Will be refined through pre-certification process •Cost to JDA: ~$245,000  Consultant fees: ~$145,000  US Green Building Council certification fee: ~$100,000 •Estimated timeline: 2 years  Pre-certification: 1 year from registration to precertification, estimated cost ~$92,000  Certification: 1 year from precertification to certification, estimated cost ~$153,000 LEED for Communities Timeline and Costs Sustainable Design Guidelines can complement LEED for Communities to address: •Building certification requirements •Energy efficient design and operations •Electrification •Renewable energy •District energy •Embodied carbon •EV infrastructure •Waste management •Etc. Sustainable Design Guidelines •Accountability and verification •Ambition •Flexibility •Promotional benefits •Staff time •Cost Considerations in Determining Recommendation •All-electric development: -Energy needs analysis still underway -Not required for LEED for Communities certification, but would help earn points •Which points to pursue under LEED for Communities -Part of the pre-certification process To Be Decided •Recommendation: the Energy Advisory Committee recommends that the JDA pursue LEED for Communities certification, with a goal of achieving Gold or Platinum, in addition to sustainable design guidelines for Rice Creek Commons Recommendation •Ever -Green Energy finalizing analysis of energy needs at site •Community energy system life cycle cost analysis •Continued discussions with Xcel regarding potential pilot project •Energy plan report Next Steps Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8c MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Review JDA 6-Month Expense Report At the December 2023 JDA meeting, a 6-month report of JDA expenses was requested. These expenses are below. JDA Expenses 2024 Budget Actuals (Jan 1-July 31) Public Finance Consultant $ 60,000.00 $ 29,700.00 Legal $ 60,000.00 $ 9,182.50 Communications and Community Engagement $ 50,000.00 $ 10,116.25 Green Energy Consultant $ 125,000.00 $ 41,687.75 Insurance $ 2,035.00 $ 2,038.00 Meeting Expense $ 3,600.00 $ 1,911.25 Contingency $ 5,000.00 $ - Total $305,635.00 $ 94,635.75 Attachment: None Action Requested: None Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8d MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Perrault and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Update on Development Agreement Discussions Staff will provide a verbal update on the Development Agreement discussions. Attached is the Term Sheet approved in December 2023 with status updates. Attachment: Term Sheet – Progress Update Action Requested: None Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 8/5/2024 Working Draft 1 Term Sheet Parties: Alatus LLC and the Joint Development Authority (JDA) Current Status To Be Determined A. Assumptions This Term Sheet is intended to set forth the general terms that the developer and the JDA may be willing to enter into in a definitive final Development Agreement to be negotiated. Neither this Term Sheet nor approval thereof shall constitute an offer or agreement and no agreement with respect to the matters set forth herein shall be effective until the date of execution of a definitive final Development Agreement in writing by all parties thereto. The terms below are predicated on the County receiving funding from the State for site infrastructure ($25M request). If this funding is not allocated, there will be implications both for timing and financing of the project. The Final Development Agreement shall be consistent with the Joint Powers Agreement. Bonding bill not passed; no state funding received for site infrastructure. Alternate funding options being explored. B. Infrastructure Financing The parties understand that the infrastructure funding for the project is critical to its advancement and will work collaboratively to ensure the infrastructure financing is achieved in a manner mutually agreeable to the parties. The City’s goal is to have their respective infrastructure financed and paid for by the development and not burden existing residents. Contract with Kimley-Horn for final design of spine road and related infrastructure fully approved on 7/11/24. Infrastructure financing analysis underway. • Financial commitments of all parties to infrastructure • Who will be responsible for managing infrastructure project(s) Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 8/5/2024 Working Draft 2 C. Public/Private Financing The parties understand from financial analysis that there are funding gaps in the project. The parties will actively pursue both public and private sources of funding with the goal of identifying a path to filling these gaps by the end of 1Q 2024. The parties understand that beyond infrastructure financing, there may be opportunities to leverage financing tools available to the site, which may include City, County, State, Federal, and/or private funds. The parties will work collaboratively to explore funding opportunities and find mutually agreeable solutions. The County expects to invest money in affordable housing on the site through its funding sources, such as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority levy, CDBG, and HOME. Financial analysis underway. Proposal for public- private financing solution sent by Alatus to Ehlers on 7/31/24. Review underway. • Financial commitments of all parties to other parts of the development D. Housing Density The parties will work toward developing a maximum of 1,960 housing units on the site, pending final approval of the necessary regulatory changes. Lesser densities may be considered upon mutual agreement. Housing will include a range of types, including but not limited to single-family houses, townhouses, and apartments. TRC updated to reflect these changes. • Number of units of each housing type planned (single-family, townhomes, multifamily, co-ops, etc.) E. Housing Affordability The parties share a goal of providing affordable housing on the site and will work toward a minimum of twenty percent of the total housing unit count (392 units at a maximum of 1,960 total units) to consist of affordable rentals at 60% AMI or below. The developer will pursue opportunities for funding and submit applications to make these rental units more deeply affordable, from sources such as Minnesota Housing (low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC)), CDBG-HOME, County HRA levy funds, Local Affordable Housing Aid (metro area sales tax funding), etc. and with partners such as Habitat for Humanity. Goal affirmed. Terms and funding to be discussed. • Financial commitments for housing affordability – will be part of future discussions at the individual development level • Number of units of affordable rental housing planned and affordability/AMI level • Number of units of affordable for-sale housing planned (i.e. eligible for down payment assistance) • Affordability terms • Rental policies (e.g. projects must accept Section 8 vouchers) Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 8/5/2024 Working Draft 3 The parties will additionally work toward constructing ten percent of the owner-occupied units to accommodate Ramsey County down payment assistance, which is accessible to households who make less than 115% of area median income (AMI) (in 2023, that equates to a for-sale price of less than $372,000). F. Housing Ownership versus Rental The parties share a goal of providing opportunities for homeownership opportunities in the development, and as part of the final development agreement will come to a mutually agreeable ratio of owner-occupied units to rental units. To be discussed. • Number of homeownership and rental units planned • Mechanism for ensuring this balance comes to fruition G. Commercial/Industrial Development and Job Creation The parties understand that new employment at well-paying jobs is an important objective for Rice Creek Commons, for which reason certain areas have been zoned for commercial or industrial usage. Accordingly, the parties agree to pursue appropriate buyers or tenants for such areas as will maximize the opportunities for such employment. Affirmed. • Details about job creation goals H. Green Energy Goals and Infrastructure The parties share the goal of building an ambitious, sustainable development. The parties endorse the Rice Creek Common Energy Vision, as adopted by the JDA on 10/2/23, and will collaborate in alignment with the guiding principles therein. As part of working toward this vision, the parties will explore the feasibility of an all-electric development and work with the selected energy consultant to create metrics to be included in the final development agreement to achieve these goals. Green energy consultant under contract. Recommendation for sustainability certification to be considered at 8/5/24 JDA meeting. Additional analysis underway. • Specifics to be determined through energy consultant contract: o Goal for the development (i.e. net zero or all-electric or carbon neutral or other) o Energy technologies to be used to achieve that goal o Metrics • Financing for green energy work • Other sustainability requirements beyond energy Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 8/5/2024 Working Draft 4 I. Building 116 The JDA will support the developer’s exploration of the feasibility of moving Building 116 off the site, including identifying a way to pay for the relocation. Strategy underway. • Financial resources to pay for potential relocation • Regulatory process and permissions necessary J. Maintenance and Operating Costs/Responsibilities The parties understand that ongoing maintenance and associated costs will need to be addressed in the final development agreement. Furthermore, each party may have its own goals in the short and long term. The parties will work collaboratively to address these in the final development agreement. For example, it is important to the City to ensure the Rice Creek Commons does not put undue financial risk or burden on the entire City and will seek to have short-term and long-term funding gaps addressed. Analysis underway. • Financial responsibilities of all parties for long-term maintenance and operating costs of the development K. Ordinances and Policy Applicability The developer will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local ordinances. To be discussed. • Other construction standards including green building standards, quality of construction, etc. • Applicability of ordinances including Ramsey County Prevailing Wage Ordinance No. 2013-329 L. Conveyance of Property The property will be conveyed to the developer in tranches. The parties will establish performance metrics, and the JDA will assess performance on these metrics prior to the conveyance of the next tranche. Analysis underway. • What exactly each tranche comprises • Order in which tranches will be conveyed M. Timeline The parties will work together in earnest to negotiate and sign a Final Development Agreement by the August JDA meeting, scheduled for 8/5/2024. Timeline delayed due to financial constraints. • PDA extends through June 2025 so this timeline is not set in stone but is a goal. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8e MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Review Road Map Staff will review scheduled JDA meetings and work sessions. Attachment: 2024 JDA Road Map Action Requested: None Month Date Meeting/Action or Deadline Topics or Notes Jan 2 JDA Meeting JDA Schedule, Development Agreement Schedule, Infrastructure and Traffic Updates 2 JDA Advisory Committee Prep for February JDA 5 JDA Meeting 2023 JDA Annual Report, Development Agreement Progress Report 15 Mar 31 Term Sheet Goal: Financial Sources Identified Apr 1 JDA Meeting Development Agreement Progress Report 1 2 Energy Advisory Committee Review initial green energy analysis Jun 3 Energy Advisory Committee Discuss sustainability implementation pathways 23 JDA Work Session Development Agreement Progress Report 24 Energy Advisory Committee Decide on recommendation for sustainability certification Aug 5 JDA Meeting Development Agreement Progress Report, EAC Sustainability Certification Recommendation, JDA 6-month Expense Report 1 Deadline: Coordinate JDA Budget with City and County budget processes Potential Community Engagement Green Energy and Sustainability 10 JDA Work Session Potential Community Engagement Spine Road Infrastructure 7 JDA Meeting 4 JDA Work Session 15 Deadline: Report back on City/County approval of JDA budget Dec 2 JDA Meeting Adopt 2025 JDA budget Rice Creek Commons 2024 Roadmap Oct Feb Deadline: JDA Annual Report due to City and County Deadline: Draft 2025 JDA Budget May Jul Nov Sept Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Administrative Director’s Report A verbal update will be provided by staff. Attachments: None Action Requested: None Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 10 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2024 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Perrault SUBJECT: Development Director’s Report A verbal update will be provided by Director Perrault. Attachments: None Action Requested: None