Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-2025 JDA Agenda PacketJoint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project JDA MEETING AGENDA Monday, March 17, 2025, 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 a.Appoint JDA Attorneys b.Approve Committee Assignments 6.Old Business 7.Public Hearings a.Planning Case 25-002 and Resolution 2025-001 - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Site Plan Review – Outlot A – Ryan Companies US, Inc. 8.New Business a.Consideration of Ryan Companies US, Inc. Outlot A Phase 1 Sustainability Design Guidelines Waiver Request b.Review Term Sheet c.Discuss Community Engagement d.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: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Approval of Agenda The agenda for the March 17, 2025, JDA Meeting must be approved. Action Requested: Approve the agenda for March 17, 2025. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes The meeting minutes from the previous two JDA Meeting are presented for approval. Attachment: 1/21/25 Special JDA Minutes 2/3/25 JDA Minutes Action Requested: Approve the meeting minutes from January 21, 2025, and February 3, 2025. Joint Development Authority Tuesday, January 21, 2025 Arden Hills City Council Chambers Special Meeting Minutes 5:30 pm Roll Call Joint Development Authority: Chair Jon Wicklund, Commissioner Tara Jebens-Singh, Commissioner Kurt Weber, Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire, Commissioner Tena Monson Also present: Jessica Jagoe (Arden Hills); Ella Mitchell (Ramsey County), Rachel Tierney (Kennedy & Graven) Roll call taken. Approval of Agenda Motion by Commissioner Monson seconded by Commissioner McGuire to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Monson seconded by Commissioner Weber to approve the December 2, 2024 JDA meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried. Public Input Lyle Salmela, 1480 Arden Vista Court, stated he supported the sustainability guidelines, noting they were well written. He appreciated the all electric LEED design standards stating this would be a strong asset for this community. He indicated he did have concerns with the Ever-Green report and commented further on the various types of heat pumps. He recommended there be a way to waive the rooftop solar requirements by using grid solar. Consent Agenda None. Old Business None. Public Hearings None. New Business a. Approve Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Mitchell stated per the Bylaws of the JDA, the JDA Board shall have a Chair and a Vice Chair. The Chair presides over the meetings of the JDA Board, and in the absence of a Chair, the Vice Chair shall assume the Chair's duties. The Chair and Vice Chair must be elected annually by the JDA Board. The Chair shall be a non-elected official member appointed by the City; the Vice Chair shall be appointed by the Ramsey County Board from its members on the JDA Board. Arden Hill City Council appointed Jonathan Wicklund for a two-year term (2025-2026) as Chair at the December 9, 2024, council meeting. Ramsey County Board appointed Tara Jebens-Singh as Vice Chair for a one-year term (2025) at the January 7, 2025, County Board meeting. Motion by Commissioner McGuire seconded by Commissioner Weber to confirm the appointment of Jonathan Wicklund as JDA Chair and Tara Jebens-Singh as Vice Chair of the TCAAP Joint Development Authority for 2025. Motion carried. b. Review Road Map Ms. Mitchell reviewed the scheduled meetings for 2025 and TCAAP Road Map with the JDA. She reported a special worksession meeting was scheduled for Monday, February 3. She asked that the March JDA meeting be rescheduled. Commissioner Monson recommended the deadline for the preliminary development agreement be placed in the Road Map. Ms. Mitchell stated she would put the June 30, 2025, deadline into the Road Map. Chair Wicklund requested staff discuss how communications are managed for the JDA. Ms. Mitchell explained the County works with Goff Public on the PR strategy and communication efforts for Rice Creek Commons. Chair Wicklund questioned what date should be selected for the March JDA meeting. Director Jagoe reported the Arden Hills City Councilmembers would be available March 17 or March 24. The JDA supported holding the March JDA meeting on March 17. c. Review JDA Budget Ms. Mitchell reviewed the budget for 2025 with the JDA noting this was approved by the JDA on November 4, 2024. Commissioner Monson asked how the JDA did at the end of 2024. Ms. Mitchell reported she could provide this information to the JDA at the February meeting. Commissioner Monson questioned if there was an increase or decrease in funding from the County in 2024. Ms. Mitchell stated she believed the County had provided a similar amount of funding in 2024 and 2023. d. Approve Sustainability Design Guidelines Ms. Mitchell stated in late 2023, the JDA engaged Ever-Green Energy and LHB to analyze implementation strategies for the JDA’s Green Energy Vision. This analysis consisted of a comprehensive energy analysis to understand the energy demands of the planned development, a description of strategies to reduce that energy demand (primarily through high- performance building design), and analysis of renewable energy technologies to meet the remaining energy demand. As a part of this process, consultants and staff met with project developers to discuss sustainable development and clean energy strategies. Ever-Green Energy and LHB presented their initial findings at the October 2024 JDA work session and their final report, the Clean Energy Analysis Report, was accepted by the JDA at the November 2024 meeting. At the November meeting, the JDA approved a Clean Energy Policy: Rice Creek Commons seeks to be an all-electric, carbon-free community. Ms. Mitchell commented that included in the Clean Energy Analysis Report was a draft of Sustainability Design Guidelines (SDG) (Appendix I), which describes feasible development standards that tangibly support the Green Energy Vision and Clean Energy Policy. These include standards for LEED certification, building energy efficiency, all-electric buildings, photovoltaic (PV) system installation, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and reporting. At the November 2024 meeting, the JDA expressed a desire to understand the waiver process and implications of SDG standards for the development prior to approval. Staff subsequently worked with the consultants at LHB and the JDA attorneys to address these items, and the SDG have been updated to describe implementation and compliance (Section 3), including the waiver approval process. Ms. Mitchell reported as described in Section 3 of the Sustainability Design Guidelines, the compliance process would run concurrently with other JDA review processes and be supported by the consultant team at LHB. LHB would help developers align with the SDG (identifying alternative technologies, strategies, and financing tools), manage the waiver process (including JDA review and approval), and provide a memo describing the development’s SDG compliance measures. The JDA staff would incorporate these measures into the development agreement for JDA approval. Rick Carter, LHB, provided the JDA with a high-level overview of the sustainability design guidelines noting they support the development being all electric, carbon free and certified LEED for communities. He suggested each building within the development receive the LEED silver certification. He explained the development would have all electric buildings, and commented on how exceptions would be considered. Ms. Mitchell further discussed the implementation and compliance section in the guidelines document. She noted the guidelines would provide clear expectations for developers and a starting point for negotiations for sustainability items for a development agreement. She reported by approving the sustainability guidelines this would further the green energy vision for this development while also providing staff direction on acceptable sustainability terms. Commissioner McGuire requested comment on the air source heat pumps that were not in the report, as was noted by Mr. Salmela. Mr. Carter stated he had spoken to Mr. Salmela and noted the district energy analysis options portion of the report was completed by Ever-Green. He explained Ever-Green was not excluding the use of air source heat pumps but noted the funding sources were less favorable. He commented at The Heights, there were three different types of heat sources. He anticipated this development would also have a variety of heat sources, including air source heat pumps. Commissioner Weber stated if this development was as successful as predicted there be an accumulation of energy credits. He questioned who would benefit from the energy credits. Mr. Carter stated he was not an expert in this area. He noted if credits were created, they would be owned by the building owners, unless there was some sort of arrangement in place. Commissioner Weber discussed how affordable housing units would be created within this development and he hoped lower energy costs would be possible for these units. Commissioner Monson commented typically excess energy from solar typically goes back to Xcel Energy. In addition, renewable energy credits typically went back to Xcel as well. Commissioner Weber discussed the waiver process and asked what standards would be applied to the waivers. Ms. Mitchell indicated this still had to be worked out. She explained the direction from the JDA has been to pursue a carbon free community, which was a very high standard. She explained staff would have to consider the impact waiver requests would on carbon emissions. She noted the County was pursuing LEED for Communities, which had a scoring system the JDA and staff would have to take in consideration. Commissioner Weber inquired of the development would be carbon free or carbon neutral. Mr. Carter stated the development would be carbon free per the LEED for Communities guidelines. Commissioner Jebens-Singh questioned which guidelines would be the most difficult to achieve. Mr. Carter discussed the components of exceptions that had been considered within The Heights development. Commissioner Jebens-Singh asked how often the guidelines would have to be revisited given the changing environment. Mr. Carter anticipated the guidelines may have to be revisited, but noted The Heights guidelines have not been changed over the past four years. Commissioner Monson discussed how the electrification requirements would eliminate emissions within this development. She commented on how tax credits may be able to be pursued individually but not as an overall district. She explained a $10 million funding opportunity would be pursued by the JDA to assist with the footprint of the district heating system. She requested further information on what it would look like to bring gas into the development. Mr. Carter stated the plan was to consider allowing gas on the perimeter, but otherwise gas would not be available within the development. He reported hydrogen fuel cells may be another option for users in the future. Commissioner Monson commented on how important it would be for Ryan Companies to move fast with an organized plan for their project. Chair Wicklund stated staff was asking the JDA to adopt the Sustainability Design Guidelines. He indicated the JDA would have to have the understanding adjustments or modifications may be necessary in the future. He suggested the waiver section be placed on the Road Map in order to allow the JDA to discuss this matter in further detail at a future meeting. Commissioner McGuire supported this recommendation noting she did not want precedent to be set with the waivers and wanted a more clear understanding on how or when waivers would be considered. Commissioner Weber supported moving the guidelines forward with the understanding there would be further discussions regarding the waiver process. Commissioner Jebens-Singh indicated she supported the guidelines moving forward as well with the understanding the JDA wanted a very good project that was not downgraded to fair through concessions or waivers. Commissioner Monson stated she was comfortable with moving the guidelines forward. Chair Wicklund asked that the Energy Advisory Committee meet and provide the JDA with recommendations on how the waivers should be considered. Commissioner Monson noted she was only member on the Energy Advisory Committee at this time, but explained she would be willing to make recommendations for the JDA to consider in February. Chair Wicklund requested a representative from the County consider serving on the Energy Advisory Committee. Motion by Commissioner Monson seconded by Commissioner Jebens-Singh to approve the Sustainability Design Guidelines for Rice Creek Commons. Motion carried. e. Outlot A Phase 1 Concept Review Director Jagoe stated the Joint Development Authority (JDA) should consider a request for a Concept Plan Review for a proposed office and manufacturing use development on the north side of the existing Outlot A located off of Old Highway 8. Ryan Companies US, Inc (Applicant), is seeking feedback from the JDA on the concept plan in advance of the full submittal which would include a land use application for items such as Subdivision Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Permitted Adjustment Requests, and Building Permit Review. The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the JDA to provide comments and questions regarding proposed developments and permitted adjustment requests. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the JDA and Applicant. No formal action can be taken regarding the application, aside from determining if the application meets the regular process or must be referred to the City TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) Amendment Request process. A formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing. She provided further comment on the proposed plans for Outlot A noting the applicant would have to revise their plans in order to comply with the TRC or seek a TRC amendment based on deviations with respect to off street parking, storage area, ceiling height requirements, building façade and shading requirements. She explained the applicant is seeking feedback from the JDA on their approach to sustainability for this project. Eddy Wolf, Ryan Companies, thanked the JDA for considering his concept plan. He explained he had a targeted groundbreaking date of April 1, 2025 noting time is of the essence for Ryan Companies and his future tenants. He indicated this project would create a 157,000 square foot newly constructed build to corporate headquarters for Micro Control Company, which was currently housed in Fridley. He noted this business would provide over 240 jobs and anticipates 20% growth over the next five years and offers strong wages/benefits. He indicated 90% of the proposed building would be comprised of office, R&D and manufacturing spaces. He stated Ryan Companies believes this was the type of project the JDA has been waiting for on Outlot A and was consistent with the stated goals within the TRC. Chad Lockwood, Associate Director of Engineering for Ryan Companies, spoke to the site plan further. He described how the building would be oriented on the parcel noting shared access would be provided to the south. He reviewed how the building would be broken down into office, storage, R&D and manufacturing space. It was noted the building would be accessed from Old Highway 8. He indicated the site would have 300 parking spaces and outdoor amenities were being proposed on the south side of the building. Kaitlin Veenstra, Ryan Companies (joined the meeting remotely), commented on the sustainability vision for this project. She discussed the parameters for Outlot A noting cost and feasibility are being taken into consideration for the tenants operation and must also work within the tenants schedule requirements. She indicated a hybrid geothermal approach may have to be considered for this site given the size of the land area and due to the fact Darcy may not be available to drill the needed wells. She reported she had a great solar company she was working with noting a roof structure would be installed. She stated she looked forward to working with the City and County to assist with making this dream a reality. Commissioner Weber thanked Ms. Veenstra for her presentation and for showing how Ryan Companies was working to meet the JDA’s sustainability design guidelines. Chair Wicklund asked for further comments or questions from the JDA. Commissioner McGuire thanked Ryan Companies for finding a good tenant for this site. She asked if the proposed sustainability efforts would be new for this tenant. Mr. Wolf reported this would be very new to the proposed tenant. He indicated it was his goal to reach these standards, but commented on how difficult it would be to meet all eight requirements. Commissioner McGuire stated she wanted to see the development on Outlot A being a good example for the remainder of the Rice Creek Commons development. She thanked Ryan Companies for the information that was presented to the JDA. Mr. Wolf thanked both City and County staff for being great to work with. Commissioner Weber thanked Ryan Companies for all of their efforts to bring a corporate headquarters to this site. He appreciated how this development would show that Rice Creek Commons was open for business. He supported this project adhering to the sustainability design guidelines as closely as possible. He commented on how this project would be a feather in the cap of the future tenant, especially as this business grows. Commissioner Jebens-Singh thanked Ryan Companies for meeting the JDA’s short meeting deadline. She appreciated how Ryan Companies was working to meet the sustainability design guidelines. She questioned what would prohibit a project from hitting the guidelines, asking if this would be cost, technical feasibility, availability of materials or the expedited timeline. She inquired if a project goal was set for the number of jobs on Outlot A. Ms. Mitchell stated a number had not been targeted, but stated a corporate campus was anticipated for this site. She discussed how the office market had changed over the past five years and noted the focus now has been on high quality jobs. Commissioner Monson requested further comment on the division of meeting these goals for Ryan Companies versus the tenant. Mr. Wolf explained Ryan Companies was the developer and the third party contractor for the site and shell of the building. He noted the tenant has hired their own contractor for the inside of the building. Ms. Veenstra commented her intention was that there would be a joint effort to meet the sustainability design guidelines. Commissioner Monson inquired how much time was a factor in not being able to meet the goals. Mr. Wolf reported time was very critical for this deal. He stated he was working on executing a lease with the tenant that should be finalized in the next few weeks. He explained breaking ground on April 1 was critical for them. Commissioner Monson requested further information regarding the process that would have to be followed by Ryan Companies in order to amend the TRC. Director Jagoe explained if the applicant chooses to seek a TRC amendment, this would be a 60 day process. She indicated a TRC amendment would also have to be approved by the County, which will add a couple more weeks to the process. She stated a final approval would also be needed from the JDA, which may add another 30 days to the process. She reported final plans would be needed in order to consider a TRC amendment. She explained a public hearing would have to be held by the City and JDA. Chair Wicklund asked if there were any project stopping comments from the JDA. Chair Wicklund requested an example of a TRC code that the JDA could modify within a certain percentage. Director Jagoe discussed the TRC parking requirements and noted the JDA could approve a deviation of 10%, otherwise a TRC amendment would have to be considered by the City. Chair Wicklund commented on how the TRC deviations were built into the code in 2016 in order to allow for minor variances without having to go back to the City for consideration. Commissioner Monson reported she supported the proposed variances in Attachment C. She suggested Ryan Companies provide staff with feedback on potential development hurdles. Commissioner McGuire stated she would welcome any feedback Ryan Companies had regarding any difficulties they were having with the TRC. She commented she was more concerned with the sustainability goals than the requested variances. Commissioner Weber indicated he did not have any issues with the proposed variance requests. He was of the opinion the EV parking information was very short within Ryan’s proposal and asked that this be further investigated in order to meet the sustainability guidelines. Commissioner Jebens-Singh questioned if the TRC was too stringent in order to meet the practical application for building materials. She stated it would be helpful to understand how much of this project was deviating from traditional building codes and sustainability standards. Mr. Wolf stated he would try and quantify this for the JDA. Commissioner Weber suggested Ryan Companies attend a future JDA worksession meeting in order to provide an update on the plans. Administrative Director’s Report Ms. Mitchell noted the County was working on an amendment for the purchase and sale agreement for the first ten acres of Outlot A and the remaining portion would be closed on later. She then provided the JDA with a legislative update noting Ramsey County would be requesting $25 million in grant funding for the spine road within Rice Creek Commons. She stated the final design of the spine road was on schedule and the County hopes to have a community engagement event this spring to display the plans. She explained the County was working with Sustainable Investment Group (SIG) on the LEED for Communities precertification process. She reported Kari Collins has been appointed as the Deputy County Manager for Economic Growth and Community Investment. Development Director’s Report None. Commissioner Updates Commissioner Jebens-Singh stated it was great to see movement in this development. Commissioner Monson welcomed the new members to the JDA. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:29 pm. Approved _____________________________________ _______________________ Jon Wicklund, Chair Date Joint Development Authority Monday, February 3, 2025 Arden Hills City Council Chambers Special Worksession Minutes 5:30 pm Roll Call Joint Development Authority: Chair Jon Wicklund, Commissioner Tara Jebens-Singh, Commissioner Kurt Weber, Commissioner Kelly Miller, Commissioner Tena Monson Also present: Jessica Jagoe (Arden Hills); Ella Mitchell (Ramsey County), Rachel Tierney (Kennedy & Graven) Roll call taken. Public Input Lyle Salmela, 1480 Arden Vista Court, congratulated resident Audrey Partridge for being appointed as a Public Utilities Commissioner. He discussed how requiring solar on every home with Rice Creek Commons may be burdensome for homeowners given the cost. He questioned if this requirement was prudent. He suggested residents be allowed to purchase their own batteries and grid energy from Xcel at the renewable rate. He commented further on the expense for geothermal heat pumps and suggested changes be made to the design criteria. He was of the opinion Scenario 3 was the best model for the project. New Business a. Review Communications Update Ms. Mitchell stated Goff Public is working with Ramsey County to develop content for a winter 2025 newsletter to be sent via email to the Rice Creek Commons subscriber list in February. The newsletter will share updates on Joint Development Authority board membership and organization, development updates and sustainability guidelines. Goff Public continues to discuss communications opportunities with county staff for future development updates. There have been no media inquiries since the December update. Rice Creek Commons development updates were featured in Ramsey County Board Chair Rafael Ortega’s January column in the Community Reporter. There have been two inquiries through the Rice Creek Commons microsite contact portal that staff responded to. Commissioner Monson requested further information on what was included in the recent column. Ms. Mitchell explained she had not read the column in full, but understood it provided a status update on the development. Commissioner Miller asked if the contract with Goff Public was paid for by the County. Ms. Mitchell reported this was the case, but noted County Communications staff works with Goff on communication efforts. b. Review JDA Annual Report Ms. Mitchell stated per the Joint Power Agreement (JPA), the JDA must prepare an annual report at the end of each calendar year and submit to the City and County no later than February 15 of the following year. The JDA Annual Report for 2024 was presented to the JDA for discussion. Chair Wicklund asked if the JDA members had comments or questions on the annual report. Commissioner Monson recommended the traffic report that was completed by the County for Highway 96 be referenced within the report. She suggested a small section speak to what was ongoing and what the JDA was working towards. Commissioner Miller agreed with this recommendation. Chair Wicklund recommended the financials be added as well. c. Discuss Sustainability and Clean Energy Ms. Mitchell stated to accommodate the implementation of the Sustainability Design Guidelines and community engagement around sustainability and clean energy, staff have worked with LHB to develop a new scope of work. The JDA will be asked to consider a budget amendment at the next meeting. As a follow-up from the approval of the Sustainability Design Guidelines at the January JDA meeting, staff would like further direction on the waiver process from the JDA. Planned topics of discussion: • Acceptable and unacceptable justifications for waivers • Threshold for staff approval of waivers • Waiver request rubric concept Ms. Mitchell reported a draft of the Sustainability Design Guidelines Documentation Package was provided to the JDA. It was noted this document further describes the compliance process and includes worksheets for developers to provide technical details on their proposed project and a waiver request form. Rick Carter, LHB, commented further on the sustainability and clean energy guidelines noting the exceptions were rare. He reported the goal would be to pursue LEED Silver Certification. He discussed the funding and that that would be needed to achieve the proposed goals. Commissioner Monson described on the work that has been done by the Energy Advisory Committee (EAC) since 2023. She explained sustainability and electrification was the main focus as well as figuring out how much carbon was on the site. She reported one of the main goals was to not heat the space with gas because it was carbon intensive. She stated a big decision will have to be made on whether or not to do a big district or small district heating system. Chair Wicklund asked if the TRC code lines up with the energy goals for the project. Commissioner Monson indicated the TRC code lines up with the energy goals but noted more efficient materials may be coming forward. She commented housing affordability issues with the TRC may have to be addressed in the future. Chair Wicklund questioned if the EAC was still meeting. Commissioner Monson indicated the EAC was meeting ad hoc. She indicated solar and waivers were being considered by this group. Mr. Carter reported the group has done the math and was working to get to zero carbon by having this project become all electric. Commissioner Monson reported if a district energy source were not pursued, the developer would have to consider how to provide energy. She indicated the EAC energy agnostic aside from the district energy. Chair Wicklund asked if the JDA had any further comments or questions regarding the waiver process. Commissioner Weber inquired if the EAC was an appointed group by the JDA. Commissioner Monson reported this was the case, noting at this time the group was comprised of herself and staff. Ms. Mitchell explained a Ramsey County member would be appointed to the EAC in March. Commissioner Jebens-Singh thanked staff for providing more detailed information on how the waivers will be considered and for having specific thresholds in place. Commissioner Monson questioned if programmatic waivers would be allowed for a business that brought in a ton of foot traffic and jobs, but was fully gas. Mr. Carter stated there were two over arching metrics, one being the score for LEED Communities and the other was the greenhouse gas balance. He indicated he would be able to tell what the impact of a project was when it was presented and he could provide the JDA with data points. Commissioner Weber stated he would be curious to know what the legal implications were for the JDA and City and if they could pick and choose which businesses go in. Commissioner Miller did not want to see the standards being hypocritical, noting the same standards should be followed for business owners and homeowners. Commissioner Jebens-Singh stated it appears there are two separate decisions that need to be made whether or not a project meets the sustainability guidelines and is it appropriate to take in consideration other goals. Chair Wicklund asked if the JDA was supportive of the proposed waiver process. The JDA was supportive of the proposed waiver process. Chair Wicklund stated he believed it would be helpful for Goff Public to create an article that helps the public understand what a waiver is and how a business or residential home would go through the waiver process. Ms. Mitchell stated she could work to address these expectations and prepare an article for an upcoming newsletter. Commissioner Jebens-Singh discussed how the proposed sustainability guidelines would be new to some developers and she wanted to see the JDA providing assistance with how to meet these guidelines. Mr. Carter stated this was a very good point noting he would be helping people accomplish the guidelines to the fullest extent, whether an individual or business owner. d. Review Developer Agreements Ms. Mitchell stated the JDA requested to review agreements in place with developers for Rice Creek Commons. She reported there are currently two agreements in place. • Outlot A: Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) o Parties: Ramsey County and Ryan Companies o Term: January 17, 2024 to March 31, 2025 o Status: amendment for Phase 1 development at Outlot A under negotiation • California Parcel: Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) o Parties: JDA and Alatus LLC o Term: December 3, 2024 to June 30, 2025 o Status: currently in place Ms. Mitchell explained in addition, there is a term sheet that the JDA and Alatus agreed to in December 2023. This is a nonbinding document that outlines terms the parties agree should be included in a development agreement. Chair Wicklund discussed the timelines for the proposed agreements and asked if there were any questions from the JDA. Commissioner Weber questioned what would happen on June 30, 2025. Ms. Tierney reported the PDA agreement terminates, unless there was an extension. Commissioner Monson explained the County has been working for the past 13 months to negotiate an agreement with Alatus and now there was only five months left. She stated once a purchase agreement was reached, this would go to the County Board for approval. Ms. Mitchell reported this was the case and noted the JDA would not have an official role. Commissioner Monson discussed how the purchase agreement would assist the JDA in reaching the sustainability goals for this project. She was of the opinion it would be challenging to reach a purchase agreement in five months. Commissioner Jebens-Singh questioned what would have to happen in order to keep the project on the proposed timeline. Mr. Tierney stated an extension could be negotiated if the timeline needed to be extended. She reported this was quite common, especially for a project this complicated. Commissioner Monson asked if the JDA would want staff to make the JDA aware a substantial agreement has not been met in order to give the developer 30 days’ notice, or should the JDA push this. Chair Wicklund recommended the JDA bring this back for further discussion at the next meeting. Commissioner Weber indicated he would like to hear from the developer if it was feasible to reach a purchase agreement in five months. Commissioner Monson anticipated the developer wanted to make this work, but noted Commissioner Frethem made the JDA aware of the fact at the end of 2024 that she did not believe an agreement would be reached. Ms. Mitchell explained she had spoken with Alatus for a timeline on how to reach the agreements and noted she had received a draft timeline. Commissioner Miller reviewed the term sheet that was provided by Alatus and noted the items that had been completed to date. Chair Wicklund stated it appears the JDA should further discuss this item at the March meeting. Director Jagoe indicated staff could have the timeline refined and presented to the JDA in March. Ms. Tierney commented the JDA would have to direct staff to have a consultation with the developer in order to put the 30 day notice in place. She indicated the JDA could discuss this process further in March. She stated the JDA could give staff direction on the consultation at this meeting, unless the JDA wanted additional information from staff regarding this matter. Commissioner Monson stated this item could be dragged out until June or the JDA could drive this project. She questioned the manner in which the JDA should proceed. Chair Wicklund reported Alatus has given a purchase agreement to the County. Ms. Mitchell indicated the County was in negotiations with Alatus. Chair Wicklund explained the JDA was nearing the June 30 deadline and stated staff could have a consultation with Alatus to ensure this project was moving forward or the JDA could sit back and allow the negotiations to continue. Commissioner Monson stated she believed it was important for the JDA to understand how the next five months proceed. She did not want the JDA to just sit back and cross its fingers but rather wanted to see an agreement being reached. Commissioner Jebens-Singh questioned if discussions could be held between the JDA and the developer. Ms. Mitchell explained this was what the term sheet was. Ms. Tierney cautioned the JDA from going too far noting the County was tasked with negotiating in good faith and if this fails, then the JDA can move on. Commissioner Monson stated negotiations have been going on for so long, she wanted to see this project moving forward. She supported giving staff the direction to pursue the consultation with the developer and see what happens in March. Chair Wicklund commented he hears Commissioner Monson’s concerns. He indicated he brought this item forward to address the timeline and the impact of the timeline. He encouraged the City Council and County Board to fully understand the tone and demeanor of what has been discussed at this meeting because it could impact both elected bodies. Director Jagoe stated a presentation in March on the timeline might address some of the JDA’s concerns. e. Review Road Map Ms. Mitchell reviewed the updated Road Map with the JDA. Chair Wicklund asked if the JDA supported a community engagement event this spring and if so, what should be the purpose. Commissioner Monson suggested holding a community engagement open house event to address the sustainability efforts being proposed for this development. Commissioner Weber and Commissioner Miller supported this recommendation. Commissioner Jebens-Singh stated she was concerned about the timeline and messaging if this event were held in the spring. Ms. Mitchell explained Kimley-Horn also had information to pass along to the public regarding this development. Director Jagoe recommended the JDA discuss this matter further at the March JDA meeting. Administrative Director’s Report Ms. Mitchell stated she would be connecting with the County representatives regarding committee appointments. Development Director’s Report Director Jagoe stated City staff met with Ryan Companies today to discuss the specifics on their project. Commissioner Updates None. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm. Approved _____________________________________ _______________________ Jon Wicklund, Chair Date Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County 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 5a MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Appoint JDA Attorneys Per the Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws, the JDA has the authority to contract for a variety of services, including legal services. Since 2013, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, has served as the JDA attorney. Ramsey County, as fiscal agent of the JDA, originally procured the services of Kennedy & Graven and has held the contracts with the firm on behalf of the JDA since then. Two attorneys from Kennedy & Graven have supported the JDA in recent years. Jenny Boulton has advised the JDA since 2015 and provides critical historical knowledge of the project. Jenny provides counsel on public finance and the negotiation of assistance for development. Rachel Tierney has supported the work of the JDA since 2023 and has focused on the operational, municipal, and quasi- judicial aspects of the JDA including interpretations of the Joint Powers Agreement and TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC). Jenny Boulton notified City and County staff that as of February 3, 2025, she was no longer with Kennedy & Graven and had joined Kutak Rock LLP. In this notice, she informed County and City staff that the firms had mutually determined that the JDA could choose to continue to work with both attorneys at their respective firms, or the JDA could explore other options including continued representation solely by Kennedy & Graven. County and City staff recommend continuing to work with both Jenny Boulton, now at Kutak Rock LLP, and Rachel Tierney, at Kennedy & Graven. Each attorney provides essential historical expertise and continuity that are critical to keeping the project forward as development begins. The JDA should select its preferred attorney(s) and authorize Ramsey County to continue to manage the contract(s) for legal services for the JDA. Attachment: Agreement between Ramsey County and Kutak Rock, LLP Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Action Requested: • Appoint Rachel Tierney with Kennedy & Graven and Jenny Boulton with Kutak Rock LLP as the JDA Attorneys. • Authorize Ramsey County to enter into attached agreement with Kutak Rock LLP on behalf of the JDA. Agreement Between Ramsey County and Kutak Rock, LLP. This is an agreement between Ramsey County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the Ramsey County Attorney ("COUNTY") and Kutak Rock LLP, 60 South 6th St Suite 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402 ("ATTORNEYS"). WHEREAS, the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant Joint Development Authority, a joint powers board of the State of Minnesota (“JDA”), on behalf of the City of Arden Hills (“City”) and COUNTY, has the need for general legal services for all non-bond legal matters relating to the JDA’s activities in support of the redevelopment of the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant Site (“TCAAP Site”) provided for in the Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) by and between the City and the COUNTY dated December 17, 2012 (“Development Legal Services”); and WHEREAS, the JDA has determined that outside counsel to provide Development Legal Services to the JDA can be retained, on behalf of the JDA, by the COUNTY, and the COUNTY has agreed to retain said outside counsel on behalf of the JDA; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a duly-made resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the JDA (the “JDA Board”), the JDA Board has authorized and empowered the COUNTY to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the JDA; and WHEREAS, the County has agreed to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the JDA; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has also agreed to make payments under this Agreement in its capacity as the JDA’s Fiscal Agent (as defined in the JDA’s Bylaws), with payment to be made in accordance with the JPA, from authorized funds as stated in the JDA’s annual budget. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the COUNTY and ATTORNEYS agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services. The COUNTY, on behalf of the JDA, hereby retains the ATTORNEYS to provide the Development Legal Services to the JDA. The scope of the Development Legal Services is set forth on (and limited by) Exhibit A (the “Scope of Services”). The Development Legal Services shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein. With regard to all services described herein, the ATTORNEYS’ primary points of contact shall be Kathleen Ritter, Assistant County Attorney, and Jada Lewis, Civil Division Director. 2. Cost/Payment. A. ATTORNEYS’ services under this Agreement shall be performed at the government rate of: $310.00 per hour for Jenny Boulton (and up to $310.00 per hour for other shareholders); $270.00 per hour for associates; and $195.00 per hour for paralegals and law clerks, plus actual expenses incurred. The ATTORNEYS shall submit an itemized bill and invoice monthly. B. The COUNTY, as Fiscal Agent for and on behalf of the JDA, shall cause ATTORNEYS to be reimbursed for all services and expenses in connection with legal matters handled by ATTORNEYS in accordance with this Agreement. The COUNTY will only pay actual and reasonable expenses without any premiums or markup. The COUNTY will not pay any expenses for computerized legal research in excess of $100 unless approved in advance. Actual copies of receipts for expenses over $100 must be attached to your billing statement. The ATTORNEYS shall promptly notify the COUNTY when total fees, costs, and/or expenses aggregate $5,000 and each multiple thereof. Upon receipt of the invoice and review of the charges by the County Attorney, payment shall be made by the COUNTY to the ATTORNEYS within 35 days following the receipt of the invoice. 3. Independent Contractor. It is agreed by the parties that at all times and for all purposes within the scope of this Agreement, the relationship of the ATTORNEYS to the COUNTY is that of an independent contractor and not that of employee, and that the ATTORNEYS shall be entitled to none of the rights, privileges or benefits of Ramsey County employees. 4. Insurance. It is the responsibility of the ATTORNEYS to purchase and maintain such insurance as will protect the ATTORNEYS from claims which may arise out of or result from legal services provided under the terms of this Agreement. Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Coverage, shall be no less than $1,500,000 per claim and $2,000,000 aggregate. The ATTORNEYS will provide copies of all insurance policies to the COUNTY upon written request of the COUNTY. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver by the COUNTY of any statutory or common law immunities, limits or exceptions to liability. 5. Termination. COUNTY may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving written notice to the ATTORNEYS. In the event of termination, the ATTORNEYS will be paid by the COUNTY for all services provided in a satisfactory and timely manner up to the date of termination. ATTORNEYS shall immediately transfer to the COUNTY all work product in a method directed by the COUNTY. 7. Workplace Violence Prevention. The ATTORNEYS shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the ATTORNEYS' employees, officials and subcontractors do not engage in violence while performing under this contract. Violence is defined as words and actions that hurt or attempt to threaten or hurt people: it is any action involving the use of physical force, harassment, intimidation, disrespect or misuse of power and authority, where the impact is to cause pain, fear or injury. 8. Audit. Until the expiration of six years after the furnishing of services pursuant to this Agreement, the ATTORNEYS, upon written request, shall make available to the COUNTY, the State Auditor, or the COUNTY'S ultimate funding source, a copy of this Agreement, and the books, documents, records, and accounting procedures and practices of the ATTORNEYS relating to this Agreement. 9. Data Practices. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose in the course of the ATTORNEYS' performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, or any other applicable state statutes, any state rules adopted to implement the Act and statutes, as well as federal statutes and regulations on data privacy. 10. Unavailability of Funding. The purchase of goods or services from the ATTORNEYS under this Agreement is subject to the availability and provision of funding from the United States, the State of Minnesota, or other funding sources, and the appropriation of funds from the Board of County Commissioners. The COUNTY may immediately terminate this Agreement if the funding for the contracted goods and services is no longer available or is not appropriated by the Board of County Commissioners. Upon receipt of the COUNTY'S notice of termination of the Agreement, the ATTORNEYS shall immediately discontinue the provision of legal services to the COUNTY in the above captioned matter. Termination shall be treated as termination without cause and will not result in any penalty or expense to the COUNTY. 11. Term. This Agreement is effective commencing February 3, 2025 and shall expire December 31, 2025 unless extended by the COUNTY. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede all prior oral or written negotiations. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the last date written below. RAMSEY COUNTY Kutak Rock LLP BY: _____________________________ BY: _______________________________ John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney _______________________________ Office of the Ramsey County Attorney Print Name and Title Date: ____________________________ Date: _______________________________ Employer Identification Number: ____________________________________ Approved as to form and insurance: _________________________________ Civil Division Director Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 5b MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Approve JDA Committee Assignments The Bylaws of the JDA allow the JDA to create advisory committees. In 2023, the JDA established two committees: a JDA Advisory Committee and an Energy Advisory Committee. The JDA Advisory Committee was created to review and make recommendations to the JDA on business items. The Energy Advisory Committee was created to research the energy infrastructure for the Rice Creek Commons site and to bring information and recommendations back to the JDA. Each committee consists of one representative each from the County and City Joint Development Authority's Representatives, with staff support. The committees meet on a schedule determined by each committee itself. The members of the JDA Advisory Committee for 2025 will be Tena Monson from Arden Hills and Tara Jebens-Singh from Ramsey County. The term for each member will last until December 31, 2025. The members of the Energy Advisory Committee for 2025 will be Kurt Weber from Arden Hills and Mary Jo McGuire from Ramsey County. The term for each member will last until December 31, 2025. Attachment: None Action Requested: Appoint Tena Monson and Tara Jebens-Singh to the JDA Advisory Committee and appoint Kurt Weber and Mary Jo McGuire to the Energy Advisory Committee. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8a MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County Rick Carter, LHB SUBJECT: Consideration of Ryan Companies US, Inc. Outlot A Phase 1 Sustainability Design Guidelines Waiver Request This is a summary of the waivers to the Sustainability Design Guidelines that Ryan Companies has requested for the Phase 1 development of Outlot A. For each requirement from the Sustainability Design Guidelines, the “Request” is taken from Ryan Companies’ Outlot A Sustainability Summary. Response and Recommendations are from staff and LHB, the JDA consultant. 1. Sustainability Certification a. Request: This waiver requests to delay the decision for pursuing LEED certification for the proposed project until a later stage. Representative scorecards have been provided for reference of both anticipated points that the proposed design may achieve, as well as a scorecard that shows a path to Silver using the representative features of the Sustainable Design Guidelines that are outside of the scope of the proposed design. The challenge with achieving LEED certification at even a Certified level for this project is two-fold; there are both limitations on available points to pursue based on location at the current time (such as density & transit access, bicycle paths) and the manufacturing typology (such as thermal comfort, daylight, & views). Collectively, more than 15% of the 110 total points are unachievable for this project which means more credits must be achieved in other categories. Further time will allow the project team to work with the County’s sustainability consultant on better understanding the location-based credits’ viability as the greater Rice Creek Commons development proceeds, and to further advance understanding of credits possible from the tenant build-out. At a later stage, the project team will also be able to confirm whether there are funds available to cover the soft costs associated with the pursuit of LEED certification, but at this time it is anticipated that funds are entirely needed to cover the cost of the ground-source heat exchange system and associated equipment premiums. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project b. Response: It appears that Silver certification could be within reach. Even without the automatic No’s for the site (inapplicable credits, some of which we would need further study), the testing items (which are a good value for the owner), and the increases by meeting the electrification, photovoltaic (PV) and electric vehicle (EV) guidelines (at least to some additional degree), if they were able to move half of the Maybes into the Yes column, they could be at Silver. c. Recommendation: The JDA should grant a waiver to delay the decision to pursue LEED certification until costs for other required sustainability features are finalized. The JDA should encourage the developer to seek Silver certification, understanding it is not guaranteed to be achievable. 2. Electrification and Energy Efficiency a. Request: This waiver requests to substitute the full electrification goal to an operational carbon reduction goal for the project, with a target of 65% or greater reduction against the typical “cost base” system that would have been proposed if the Guidelines were not in place. Energy modeling conducted to date demonstrates that this is feasible with the proposed design (currently showing 67%), and the team believes it prudent to include a slight buffer for the same reasons described in the efficiency narrative. Additional efficiency measures to reduce interior loads such as lighting, equipment, and processes will continue to be studied through the Xcel EDA process and as the tenant interior design develops further. While all-electric designs were studied by the team and are reflected on the Energy & Carbon Results table, the rough-order-of-magnitude pricing that the team has provided based on real subcontractor estimates of these conceptual systems demonstrate that the all-electric designs are both out of the project’s budget and do not provide a feasible payback period when IRA incentives are not included, as in the case of this deal structure. The cost increase for the all-electric option (2B) compared to its similar option which includes natural gas heating (1A) is due to both slight premiums on equipment itself, but primarily the increased requirements for electrical services to be supplied to the site for this equipment. Substitution of air- source heat-pump rooftop units in lieu of gas-fired DX rooftop units, for example, will require an additional dedicated service, as will the substitution of gas boilers for electric boilers of a similar efficiency. Pursuit of the IRA incentives is not believed to be viable with Option 1-A both due to the same deal structure limits mentioned above, but also due to the lowered contribution of the ground-source system towards the project’s overall energy load. The team will continue to review the viability on both counts but at this time does not believe the IRA incentives could be pursued in any option on this project. b. Response: Knowing that the County is considering a reduction in the cost of the land (up to $3.5M), which could completely fund the proposed Option 1-A, we feel this is the Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project best approach. We also know that Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding (tax credits resulting in up to a 50% cost reduction) could make both Option 1-A and the all-electric option 2-B cost neutral from the cost base, but we understand that this is not likely for this project. The developer would either need to hold the building for five years or establish a tax entity that can take advantage of the IRA, which is not the developer’s typical business model. We also suggest that there should be strategies with cost and energy impacts shown for Equipment Loads in the two scenarios mentioned above which may get Option 1-A to or closer to the 50% reduction from MN Code in the Guidelines. c. Recommendation: The JDA should grant a waiver to allow the developer to pursue Option 1-A, contingent on the County reducing the land cost, and require the other Guidelines to be met, per this memo. The JDA should also request that the developer to do a full cost analysis of what it would take to get the IRA benefits and to evaluate both Options 1-A and 2-B through the Xcel EDA Analysis currently underway. If the IRA were able to work, the developer would hold the full benefit, regardless of which Option is implemented. Any fossil fuels must offset an equivalent amount of carbon emissions each year. 3. Renewable Energy a. Request: This waiver requests to change the requirement to providing a “PV-ready” roof in lieu of providing onsite renewable energy of a certain scale within the proposed design. The structural and electrical provisions will be incorporated into the shell building. Ryan will also work with a local solar provider to study the viability of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) solution and present the option to the tenant for consideration. We have provided preliminary calculations that demonstrate a rough estimate of 70-75% of the building’s annual energy load may be met by a maximized PV array, on the separate PDF showing total roof area available for PV after rooftop equipment, clearances, required fire access paths and perimeter safety setbacks have been incorporated. We cannot guarantee the final amount possible or whether the electricity purchase rates and terms will be favorable to signing a final PPA contract. Even though the rooftop cannot provide the 120% requested, we do not believe implementation of carports on the site to further increase generation potential would be practical or cost effective both due to the orientation of the employee parking (long axis N-S which would cause the PV to face either E or W rather than the ideal S exposure) and due to shading from the many trees incorporated into the parking areas. Carport PV is already more expensive per watt than rooftop arrays, and lower generation from these conditions further decreases the payback these systems would achieve to offset their initial costs with energy savings either if purchased or if implemented in a PPA solution. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project b. Response: Making the roof solar/PV-ready is the best way to allow for the future addition of PV panels. The cost of making the roof PV ready is small compared to the overall project costs and would be reduced if the IRA were to be achieved. Based on conversations with solar developers, who finance and build solar installations in situations like this, we believe that a PV system maximizing the available roof area of between 100% and 120% of the total demand could be installed at a cost neutral to the developer. We would encourage the developer to reach 100% of the electricity used, if possible. c. Recommendation: The JDA should grant a waiver to require Ryan to make the rooftop solar/PV-ready. They should also work with a solar developer to explore the potential for cost-neutral PV system that maximizes the available roof area. 4. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure a. Request: This waiver requests to lower the 30% electric vehicle stall requirement for the project to 2%. The tenant will be installing 4 Level 2 EVSE chargers and will seek to provide an additional 4 EV-capable stalls (8 total), but the project cannot provide the full extent of EV-ready and EV-capable stalls due to the electrical service increase required to support these. An additional, dedicated electrical service is required to power the full scope of EV parking spaces in the Guidelines, in addition to what is required for the tenant’s operation. The additional cost and electrical infrastructure are unable to be accommodated within the budget given the other sustainability features the project is striving to incorporate. The estimated cost was sourced through market subcontractors to be higher than $500,000. b. Response: The Design Guidelines require stalls to be EV ready and/or Capable, not fully functional. In the Request we are getting 4 fully functional and 4 EV-capable. c. Recommendation: The JDA should grant a waiver and recommend further analysis and installation of as many chargers as possible that can be added to be EV-ready or capable within the current electrical service capacity. Overall Assessment Understanding that this is the first project at RCC and will set a precedent, and that it is especially important to the JDA that development progresses and the vision for Rice Creek Commons is advanced, staff and the consultant recommend that the JDA grants the above-described waivers. A summary of the resulting sustainability recommendation for Phase 1 of Outlot A is: 1. If funds are available after other required sustainable features are implemented, the developer should register the project with LEED v4 and seek Silver certification. 2. The project as proposed will be at least 65% electric (reduced carbon emissions) compared to the typical cost base. The developer should evaluate strategies for Interior Equipment and Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Process Loads, and the possibility of financial incentives from the IRA to reach further carbon emissions and energy use reduction. This is based on a system that includes ground-source heat exchange and air source heat pumps for the majority of the building with gas for back-up systems. 3.The project will make the rooftop solar/PV-ready. The developer should also evaluate a maximized rooftop PV system based on a solar developer proposal and implement it if it is cost neutral to the developer. 4.The project will provide 4 EV level 2 charges and 4 EV capable spaces. 5.As indicated in their submittal, the project will to meet the Design Guideline for Embodied Carbon Reduction and Reporting of Energy and Water data over time. 6.As originally proposed, this project would have a negative impact on the credits the JDA is seeking to reach LEED for Communities Platinum level, and the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) balance (all-electric/carbon neutral). With the recommendations above, those impacts would be minimized. This extent of waivers is recommended for approval largely because the proposal for this building came in around the same time that the Sustainability Design Guidelines were approved. Future projects will be required to meet the Sustainability Design Guidelines, with waivers granted for justifiable exceptions. Attachment: Ryan Rice Creek Commons Outlot A Building #1: Sustainable Design Guidelines Approach Action Requested: Approve the recommended Sustainability Design Guidelines waiver requests, with the conditions described. Rice Creek Commons Outlot A Building #1 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES APPROACH March 14, 2025 Prepared by: Kaitlin Veenstra, Assoc. Director of Architecture – Sustainability, Ryan A+E, Inc. Supporting information provided by: Ryan A+E Civil Engineering and Ryan Companies Preconstruction Teams Emanuelson-Podas Consulting Engineers Horwitz LLC Terra Construction Project Details Submit this completed form in advance of the kickoff meeting. Project name Rice Creek Commons Outlot A Building #1 Project owner Ryan Companies US, Inc. Design firm Core & Shell: Ryan A+E, Inc; Tenant Build-Out: NELSON Worldwide, Emanuelson-Podas, Inc; Sustainability point person Kaitlin Veenstra, Ryan A+E, Inc. General Contractor Core & Shell: Ryan Companies US, Inc. Tenant Build-Out: Terra Construction Project Building Area (GSF) 157,618 GSF Start data of schematic design December 2024 Anticipated occupancy date June 2026 Building Use Type Manufacturing Energy Efficient Design/Operations and Electrification Worksheet: RCC Outlot A Building #1 Option A & Option 1 At design development review, submit this worksheet, energy model report, and mechanical plans documenting all- electric systems and district energy connection. Re-submit if changes are made. Per Guideline 2.2.1, all buildings and tenant improvements shall provide an energy model report showing achievement of 50% better energy efficiency than the applicable Minnesota Energy Code. ☒ Design Development Submittal ☐ Final Design Submittal ☐ Close-out Submittal Industrial/Commercial/Multifamily Buildings What is the building area (GSF)? 157,618 GSF What code baseline is being used? (e.g., ASHRAE 90.1-2022) ASHRAE 90.1-2019 ECB Path Metric Code Baselinea Proposed Design Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/sf-year) 72.4 45.5 Percent better efficiency of proposed design compared to code baseline EUI ---- 26% Electric energy use (kWh) 2,272,924 1,852,654 Other fuel use (MMBtu) 1 Please specify: natural gas 3,564 747.3 [Optional] Unregulated process loads (kBtu/sf-year) 2 17.41 13.05a 1 Use of fossil fuels may only be incorporated with written consent through the waiver process. If granted, submit documentation showing offset of an equivalent amount of carbon emissions from offsite sources. 2 In addition to providing their total energy use, projects that would like to be evaluated based only on the energy loads that are regulated in ASHRAE 90.1 may provide a separate estimate of their unregulated process loads. Clarifications for Proposed Design: a. Numbers provided represent Process Load, Interior Equipment, and Process Chilled Water. b. All numbers are from the Emanuelson-Podas energy model at this time; Xcel EDA report is provided separately and associated HVAC Bundles are identified on the Energy & Carbon Results table for comparison, but further coordination is needed to bring these numbers into closer alignment as the EDA process progresses. Proposed Design Narrative and Clarifications The Proposed Design (highlighted in green on the Table provided on next page) was selected from among all scenarios studied because it achieved the best balance of all variables sought after by the project team: reduction in operational carbon (greenhouse gas emissions), energy efficiency by %, annual energy cost reduction against the typical design (“cost base”), and total system cost within budgetary constraints of the project deal. There were further scenarios considered both as all-electric and gas/ground-source hybrid options, but these were excluded from the table to avoid confusion as they were not replicated in the Xcel EDA study. Clarifications for Proposed Design : 1. Key metrics for reviewer’s note are in bold & shaded rows. 2. Simple ROI calculations factor only federal incentives and year 1 energy cost savings without utility cost inflation, demand charges, maintenance costs, etc. at this time. Should Xcel EDA bundle incentive information be available before submission date, the values will be amended to factor in as well. 3. Deal structure of the proposal does not allow for capture of the federal IRA Tax Credits for ground-source heat pump (geothermal) or renewable energy systems. Therefore, while the value has been shown for representative purposes, the simple payback calculations without IRA are the most relevant values to this project. Energy & Carbon Model Results Table Description ASHRAE 90.1 Baseline ECB Path w/ Gas Cost Base / Typical ASHRAE 90.1 Baseline ECB Path w/ Elec (NEW) Option 1A - Gas Backup (sim. to 2/20 draft) Option 2B - All Electric EDA HVAC Scenario & Bundle #--Scenario A Bundle 1 --Scenario B Bundle 4/5 Scenario C Bundle 7/8 System Design -- Gas/DX RTUs w/ Elec Reheat + Process Chiller -- Office/Process Geothermal w/ ASHP DOAS & Gas Boilers; Warehouse ASHPs Whole-Bldg + Process Geothermal, w/ Elec. Boilers Process Loads 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Interior Equipment 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Exterior Lighting 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Interior Lighting 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 Domestic Hot Water 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 Pumps 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 1 Fans 3.6 3.1 5.5 2 4.8 Heat Rejection 0.1 - 0.3 - - Cooling 2.1 1.9 3.2 2.9 1.4 Heating 25.59 22.69 26.09 18.95 3.75 Process Chilled Water 4.81 4.81 4.81 0.45 0.45 Total EUI 57.3 53.5 61.4 45.5 32.2 Electricity EUI 31.21 38.91 61.4 40.6 32.3 Natural Gas EUI 26.09 14.59 0 4.8 0 Total Energy Use in kBtu/year 8,921,380.8 8,329,736.0 9,559,734.4 7,084,168.0 5,013,411.2 Operational Carbon (metric tons)4,062.67 2,272.30 1.10 748.07 0.58 % vs ASHRAE ECB Path - 44.1% --67665.7%47.4% % vs Cost Base/Typical -78.8%- 100.0% 67.1% 100.0% PV Generation (kWh/yr) PV Generation (kBtu/yr) % of Energy Use 56.36%60.36%52.60%70.98%99.71% Roof Area Available Roof Area Req'd for 100%167,561.83 156,449.53 179,551.42 133,055.21 94,162.15 Total Energy Cost ($/yr)$216,000.4 $242,102.0 $347,141.8 $236,819.4 $182,617.0 Electricity Cost ($/yr) $176,450.9 $219,985.0 $347,141.8 $229,543.3 $182,617.0 Natural Gas Cost ($/yr) $39,549.5 $22,117.0 $0.0 $7,276.1 $0.0 Energy Cost Savings vs ASHRAE ECB Path ($/yr) -$26,101.6 $110,322.5 $164,524.9 (percentage)-12%32%47% Energy Cost Savings vs Cost Base/Typical ($/yr) $26,101.6 -$105,039.8 $5,282.6 $59,485.0 (percentage)10.8%-43.4%2.2% 24.6% Total System Cost (approx $)-$5,800,000.0 -$9,300,000.0 $11,500,000.0 Premium over Cost Base (approx. $)-$0.0 -$3,500,000.0 $5,700,000.0 IRA Credit Value n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,600,000$ Premium post IRA - - - $3,500,000.00 $1,100,000.00 Simple ROI w/ IRA (yrs) - - - >50 18.5 Simple ROI w/o IRA (yrs)--->50 >50 Energy Use Savings over ASHRAE ECB Path -7% CA R B O N & P V 92,356 92,356 26%-48% EN E R G Y A N D E F F I C I E N C Y FI N A N C I A L -- - NEARLY & ALL-ELECTRIC OPTIONSNATURAL GAS OPTIONS 1,473,686 5,028,217 1,473,686 5,028,217 Renewable Energy Worksheet: Proposed Design At design development review, submit this worksheet, a roof plan showing PV system coverage (for multifamily buildings), PV system specifications showing efficiency rating, and PV system sizing documentation confirming guideline compliance. Re-submit if changes are made. Per Guideline 2.2.3, all buildings shall include PV systems to generate on-site renewable energy. Refer to the Guideline for detailed requirements. ☒ Design Development Submittal ☐ Final Design Submittal ☐ Close-out Submittal Industrial/Commercial Buildings Proposed Design PV system size (kW) 0 kW Predicted annual electricity generation (kWh) 0 Percentage of annual energy use generated by the PV system (120% required) 0% PV panel efficiency (%) To be determined Owner of the renewable energy credits generated from the PV system To be determined REFER TO THE PLAN AND CALCULATIONS PROVIDED AT END OF REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL. Embodied Carbon Worksheet: Proposed Design At design development review, submit this worksheet and documentation of LEED points. Re-submit if changes are made. This worksheet is not required for single family homes or tenant improvements. Per Guideline 2.4, projects shall conduct a whole building life-cycle assessment and achieve at least a 10% reduction in global warming potential using the calculation methods established in LEED BD+C: New Construction. This section does not apply to single family homes or tenant improvements within commercial buildings. Impact category Baseline Building* Proposed Building % Change Global Warming Potential (kg CO2e) 4,048,689.94 3,572,842.64 11.75% Depletion of stratospheric ozone layer (kg CFC- 11e) 0.17 0.13 23.5% Acidification of land and water sources (moles H+ or kg SO2e) 17,691.26 12,528.60 29% Eutrophication (kg nitrogen eq or kg phosphate eq) 2,886.66 1,893.93 33.7% Formation of tropospheric ozone (kg Nox, kg O3 eq, or kg ethene) 229,220.67 143,467.6 37.4% Depletion of nonrenewable resources (MJ using CML/depletion of fossil fuels in TRACI) 40,697,699.23 15,262,275.89 62.5% Number of LEED points pursuing 3 *Baseline building shall be of comparable size, function, orientation, and operating performance to the proposed building. REFER TO THE CHARTS PROVIDED ON NEXT PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL. Embodied Carbon Results The table below shows the Global Warming Potential (GWP) results of the baseline building, with the proposed results overlaid in blue, to demonstrate both which parts of the building are the most carbon-intensive and where the team believes reduction is viable to achieve the 10% goal. Reduction in exterior walls (insulated precast) and the roof construction (single-ply membrane with insulation and gravel ballast) is not feasible because local manufacturer EPDs show a global warming potential at or over the industry average available in the OneClick LCA database. The proposed design does incorporate GWP reduction in the slab-on-grade, which is a major contributor, but only to the extent that the current specifications permit (a maximum of 20% fly ash) due to performance and finishing concerns. The other major area for reduction is the structural steel components of the roof, however these reductions are only possible if the team sources from a single manufacturer (NUCOR) whose manufacturing is largely domestic and uses more renewable energy than others. Through early bidding and coordination efforts, the construction team has coordinated with subcontractors to establish this procurement goal. The final construction documents report for the project will be updated if needed based on submitted products. 20% fly ash 20% fly ash no change no change no change improved aluminum storefront NUCOR steel NUCOR steel Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Worksheet: Proposed Design At design development review, submit this worksheet and a site plan indicating EV-supported parking spaces. Re- submit if changes are made. Per Guideline 2.5, all parking areas shall include infrastructure to support electric vehicles. Refer to the Guideline for detailed requirements. ☒ Design Development Submittal ☐ Final Design Submittal Total number of parking spaces 343 Percentage of EV-installed parking spaces 1.2% (4) Percentage of EV-ready parking spaces 0% Percentage of EV-capable parking spaces 1.1% (4) ☐ Construction Close-Out Submittal Was electric vehicle supply equipment installed? Y/N Terminology guidance: Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE): The conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded and equipment grounding conductors, and the EV connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, power outlets, or apparatuses installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the EV. EV-installed: A designated parking space that has all the infrastructure and a charging station to charge an electric vehicle on the day the building permit is approved. The EVSE shall be Level 2 or greater. EV-ready: A designated parking space which is provided with a minimum 40-amp, 208/240-volt, dedicated branch circuit for future dedicated Level 2 EVSE servicing EVs. The circuit shall terminate in a suitable point such as a receptacle, junction box, or an EVSE, and be near the proposed location of the EV parking spaces. The circuit shall have no other outlets. The service panel shall include an over-current protective device and provide sufficient capacity and space to accommodate the circuit and over-current protective device and be near the proposed location of the EV parking spaces. For two adjacent EV-capable spaces, a single branch circuit is permitted. EV-capable: A dedicated parking space which is provided with electrical panel capacity and space to support a minimum 40-amp, 208/240-volt branch circuit for each EV parking space, and the installation of raceways, both underground and surface mounted, to support the EVSE. For two adjacent EV-capable spaces, a single branch circuit is permitted. REFER TO THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED AT END OF REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL. Waiver Request Form – Proposed Design The requirements of the guidelines may be modified by the JDA only for reasons of hardship. Hardship includes the inability to physically achieve the standard due to circumstances unique to the property. Economic reasons alone do not constitute a hardship. Approved modifications must show demonstrable and quantifiable progress towards the Green Energy Vision. Acceptable · Full Waiver – Programmatic: conflict with the intended use of the project · Full Waiver – Technological: limitation of available technologies or methodologies · Provisional Exemptions: Pass-through to the next phase for guidelines without enough information to determine compliance Waiver type (Full or Provisional) Guideline number Reason (Programmatic, Technological, or Pass- Through) Describe request for modification and how the project will remain in harmony with the intent of the sustainability guidelines Provisional Waiver 2.1 Sustainability Certification Pass-Through This waiver requests to delay the decision for pursuing LEED certification for the proposed project until a later stage. Representative scorecards have been provided for reference of both anticipated points that the proposed design may achieve, as well as a scorecard that shows a path to Silver using the representative features of the Sustainable Design Guidelines that are outside of the scope of the proposed design. The challenge with achieving LEED certification at even a Certified level for this project is two-fold; there are both limitations on available points to pursue based on location at the current time (such as density & transit access, bicycle paths) and the manufacturing typology (such as thermal comfort, daylight, & views). Collectively, more than 15% of the 110 total points are unachievable for this project which means more credits must be achieved in other categories. Further time will allow the project team to work with the County’s sustainability consultant on better understanding the location-based credits’ viability as the greater Rice Creek Commons development proceeds, and to further advance understanding of credits possible from the tenant build-out. At a later stage, the project team will also be able to confirm whether there are remaining fees in the County’s land reduction budget available to cover the soft costs associated with the pursuit of LEED certification, but at this time it is anticipated that the value of that reduction is entirely needed to cover the cost of the ground-source heat exchange system and associated equipment premiums. Full Waiver 2.2.1 Energy Efficiency Technological This wavier requests to lower the required efficiency percentage from 50% to 25%. Through energy modeling conducted by the tenant MEP Engineering team, multiple HVAC system options have been evaluated and while one all-electric ground-source coupled option does demonstrate that 50% is achievable, the initial cost premium and payback period for that option is not favorable to this project’s conditions. The team proposes the lowered goal above in alignment with the current energy model results of the proposed design (highlighted in green on the Energy & Carbon Results table), with a buffer to allow for further unknowns as design continues to develop. There are opportunities for greater efficiency that the team intends to pursue, such as lighting power density reductions, but there are also potential increases to the energy load as more information becomes available both regarding the process loads of the tenant’s operations and the temperature and soil conditions of the site for the Darcy well operation. The current design assumes that the Darcy wells connected to the office & process loops can achieve the full cooling needs of the project, but should the test well in the future prove that is not possible, a supplementary chiller may need to be added which would increase the electricity usage of the project above what the current results represent. For these reasons, we believe the proposed % target is a fair assessment that reflects both the design team’s best efforts to achieve the goal of the Sustainable Design Guidelines with real conditions factored in. Full Waiver 2.2.2 Electrification Technological This waiver requests to substitute the full electrification goal to an operational carbon reduction goal for the project, with a target of 65% or greater reduction against the typical “cost base” system that would have been proposed if the Guidelines were not in place. Energy modeling conducted to date demonstrates that this is feasible with the proposed design (currently showing 67%), and the team believes it prudent to include a slight buffer for the same reasons described in the efficiency narrative above. Additional efficiency measures to reduce interior loads such as lighting, equipment, and processes will continue to be studied through the Xcel EDA process and as the tenant interior design develops further. While all-electric designs were studied by the team and are reflected on the Energy & Carbon Results table, the rough-order-of-magnitude pricing that the team has provided based on real subcontractor estimates of these conceptual systems demonstrate that the all-electric designs are both out of the project’s budget and do not provide a feasible payback period when IRA incentives are not included, as in the case of this deal structure. The cost increase for the all-electric option (2B) compared to its similar option which includes natural gas heating (1A) is due to both slight premiums on equipment itself, but primarily the increased requirements for electrical services to be supplied to the site for this equipment. Substitution of air-source heat-pump rooftop units in lieu of gas-fired DX rooftop units, for example, will require an additional dedicated service, as will the substitution of gas boilers for electric boilers of a similar efficiency. Pursuit of the IRA incentives is not believed to be viable with Option 1-A both due to the same deal structure limits mentioned above, but also due to the lowered contribution of the ground-source system towards the project’s overall energy load. The team will continue to review the viability on both counts but at this time does not believe the IRA incentives could be pursued in any option on this project. Full Waiver 2.2.3 Renewable Energy Technological This waiver requests to change the requirement to providing a “PV- ready” roof in lieu of providing onsite renewable energy of a certain scale within the proposed design. The structural and electrical provisions will be incorporated into the shell building. Ryan will also work with a local solar provider to study the viability of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) solution and present the option to the tenant for consideration. We have provided preliminary calculations that demonstrate a rough estimate of 70-75% of the building’s annual energy load may be met by a maximized PV array, on the separate PDF showing total roof area available for PV after rooftop equipment, clearances, required fire access paths and perimeter safety setbacks have been incorporated. We cannot guarantee the final amount possible or whether the electricity purchase rates and terms will be favorable to signing a final PPA contract. Even though the rooftop cannot provide the 120% requested, we do not believe implementation of carports on the site to further increase generation potential would be practical or cost effective both due to the orientation of the employee parking (long axis N-S which would cause the PV to face either E or W rather than the ideal S exposure) and due to shading from the many trees incorporated into the parking areas. Carport PV is already more expensive per watt than rooftop arrays, and lower generation from these conditions further decreases the payback these systems would achieve to offset their initial costs with energy savings either if purchased or if implemented in a PPA solution. Full Waiver 2.5.1 Electric Vehicles – non- residential parcels Programmatic This waiver requests to lower the 30% electric vehicle stall requirement for the project to 2%. The tenant will be installing 4 Level 2 EVSE chargers and will seek to provide an additional 4 EV-capable stalls (8 total), but the project cannot provide the full extent of EV-ready and EV-capable stalls due to the electrical service increase required to support these. An additional, dedicated electrical service is required to power the full scope of EV parking spaces in the Guidelines, in addition to what is required for the tenant’s operation. The additional cost and electrical infrastructure are unable to be accommodated within the budget given the other sustainability features the project is striving to incorporate. The estimated cost was sourced through market subcontractors to be higher than $500,000. The project team does not request waivers for the Embodied Carbon and Annual Reporting requirements of the Sustainable Design Guidelines as the project intends to fulfill both of these per the criteria that is written. LEED v4 / v4.1 BD+C Project Checklist Project Name: RCC Outlot A Building #1 - PROPOSED DESIGN Date: 3/01/2025 Y ? N 1 Credit Integrative Process (design narrative)Items in blue are likely alignments with JDA Draft Sustainability Requirements Bold Text items = high priority for ROM pricing & feasibility analysis 1 2 2 12 16 Credit v4.1 LEED for Neighborhood Development Location 16 1 Credit v4 Sensitive Land Protection Maybe can count as 'previously developed'; research & documentation of past use req'd. 1 2 Credit v4 High Priority Site and Equitable Development TCAAP site is brownfield.2 5 Credit v4.1 Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses WalkScore of 9 (using DMV address) but is <1mi from I35W on-ramp. No points for prev. developed land under NC scorecard instead of Warehouse.5 5 Credit v4.1 Access to Quality Transit Southern-most parcels are w/in walking distant of Park&Ride, but not enough trips per week. Micro would need to run a company shuttle to achieve any credit.5 1 Credit v4.1 Bicycle Facilities Ryan could provide bike racks & covered secure storage, but Micro would need to provide lockers & showers within TI. No space in current plans.1 1 Credit v4 Reduced Parking Footprint Carshare? 1% of stalls. 2-year commitment. Signage cost & Zipcar or sim contract 1 1 Credit v4.1 Electric Vehicles (JDA) 4 EVSE per tenant requirements does not meet LEED minimum.1 2 1 7 10 Y Prereq v4.1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention SWPPP plan with Construction site photos.Req. 1 Credit v4.1 Site Assessment Ryan to complete narrative with Civil/LA team assistance.1 1 1 Credit v4.1 Protect or Restore Habitat Assuming 0% greenfield, confirmed that borders of site + landscaping in larger areas near building is sufficient. Native pollinator grass mix to be specified.2 1 Credit v4.1 Open Space Insufficient land area left 'open'; parking will not count.1 3 Credit v4.1 Rainwater Management Storm pond not located on MCC property.3 2 Credit v4.1 Heat Island Reduction Site paving & roofing ballast will not comply without material change (cost premium, not in scope) 2 1 Credit v4.1 Light Pollution Reduction Current fixture selection exceeds max G value; change likely requires additional poles (cost) 1 3 3 5 11 Y Prereq v4.1 Outdoor Water Use Reduction Should be easy win based on Ryan A+E standard design practices.Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Indoor Water Use Reduction Tenant plumbing & appliance selections will impact points earned.Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Building-Level Water Metering (JDA) Utility-grade metering + tenant commitment to share annual usage data.Req. 1 1 Credit v4.1 Outdoor Water Use Reduction 50% possible; no irrigation or greywater to earn 2pts not feasible.2 2 2 2 Credit v4.1 Indoor Water Use Reduction 30% based on placeholder assumptions for tenant fixtures; to be refined in later design. 6 2 Credit v4.1 Optimize Process Water Use N/A because no cooling tower or large process use.2 1 Credit v4.1 Water Metering Submetering for 2 end-uses, recommend DHW & irrigation systems (not in current scope). 1 13 12 8 33 Y Prereq v4 Fundamental Commissioning and Verification MN Energy Code requirement; small added scope for LEED form completion. Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Minimum Energy Performance (JDA) MN Energy Code req (ASHRAE 90.1-2019) exceeds LEED baseline (90.1-2016).Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Building-Level Energy Metering (JDA) Utility-grade metering + commitment to share annual usage data.Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Req. 6 Credit v4 Enhanced Commissioning No additional commissioning services in scope.6 12 4 2 Credit v4.1 Optimize Energy Performance (priority)(JDA) Based on efficiency & operation carbon reduction of Option 1A per Energy & Carbon Results table vs. ASHRAE 90.1-Standard G baseline, but no renewables.18 1 Credit v4.1 Advanced Energy Metering Aligns with MN Energy Code requirement; LEED may require slightly more meters depending on tenant process & plug loads.1 2 Credit v4.1 Grid Harmonization Tenant-dependent; Xcel offers demand response program but participation would be required. 2 5 Credit v4.1 Renewable Energy (JDA) Onsite not possible due to roofing type; purchase of offsite Tier 2 (up to 50%), or offsite Tier 3 (up to 100%) not currently in budget.5 1 Credit v4.1 Enhanced Refrigerant Management Dependent on HVAC-R system selections and manufacturers.1 7 3 3 13 Y Prereq v4.1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Provide space for recycling both in dock/site collection area and inside TI. Req. 3 2 Credit v4.1 Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction (JDA) LCA to be included as Ryan A+E addt'l services 3pts = min 10% reduction in GWP (embodied carbon) + 2 other categories 5 1 1 Credit v4.1 Environmental Product Declarations 1pt: 10 EPDs from 3 mftrs = easy win; 2pts: possible but requires closed spec for select products (rigid board insulation, acoustical batt, drywall, and/or paint)2 1 1 Credit v4.1 Sourcing of Raw Materials Focus on structural steel with high recycled content, recycled content in hardscaping/concrete where possible within performance requirements.2 1 1 Credit v4.1 Material Ingredients 1pt: 10 HPDs from 3 mftrs = easy win with design coordination; 2pts: possible but will limit interior manufacturers/product selections to achieve more Declare/C2C Silver certificates 2 2 Credit v4 Construction and Demolition Waste Management 75% diversion goal is Ryan standard, but some waste haulers have struggled. Will require collaboration with Terra Construction.2 3 4 9 Indoor Environmental Quality 16 Y Prereq v4.1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance ASHRAE 62.1 compliance, typical in MN Energy Code Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Landlord policy & signage.Req. 2 Credit v4.1 Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies 1pt: DCV CO2 sensors to office break/conf rms + MERV13 filters on outside & recirc air souces; 2pts: requires fully enclosed chem storage areas (jan closets), more IAQ sensors + walk-off mats (still to be confirmed in later stages of tenant design development) 2 2 1 Credit v4.1 Low-Emitting Materials Low-cost/easy win with careful design coordination, but recommend hold 1pt as contingency. 3 1 Credit v4.1 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan Best practice for construction but mostly in Terra Construction's court to execute. 1 2 Credit v4.1 Indoor Air Quality Assessment Whole-building flush-out or IAQ testing in field; not typical tenant requirements or Ryan scope. 2 1 Credit v4 Thermal Comfort Tenant-dependent; requires HVLS fans/radiant flooring/passive venting in warehouse + ASHRAE 55 reqs in office (not required by code).1 1 1 Credit v4.1 Interior Lighting Possible to achieve either Lighting Controls or Surf. Reflectance but dependent on further tenant design development.2 3 Credit v4.1 Daylight Not possible without significant skylights, which are not preferred in manufacturing spaces. 3 1 Credit v4.1 Quality Views Tenant-dependent and challenging if any regularly occupied space in center of footprint. 1 1 Credit v4.1 Acoustic Performance Atypical for acoustician on Industrial projects, and LEED is additional scope. 1 6 0 0 Innovation (recommendations below can be substituted on each project for other options)6 1 Credit Innovation #1: Purchasing - Lamps All-LED purchases for new construction & tenant policy 1 1 Credit Innovation #2: O+M Starter Kit IPMP and Green Cleaning to be incorporated into management plans.1 1 Credit Innovation #3: Green Building Education 2 of 3: case study, guided tour, and/or signage (LEED consultants/A+E can help develop) 1 1 Credit Innovation #4: Pilot Possible options include Heat Island: Cool Walls or Social Equity (owner) (note: available options depend on project registration date)1 1 Credit Innovation #5: Exemplary Performance Recommend EPDs or LEM, but may be tenant-dependent.1 1 Credit LEED Accredited Professional Kaity Veenstra is LEED AP.1 1 2 1 Regional Priority: 55112 4 1 Credit Regional Priority: Outdoor Water Use Reduction (1/2)(see notes above for all items in this category)1 1 Credit Regional Priority: Enhanced IAQ (2/2)1 1 Credit Regional Priority: Renewable Energy (1/5)1 1 Credit Regional Priority: Sourcing of Raw Materials (2/2)1 Regional Priority: Reduced Parking Footprint (1/1) Regional Priority: Protect or Restore Habitat (2/2) 38 27 45 TOTALS Possible Points: 110 Certified: 40 to 49 points, Silver: 50 to 59 points, Gold: 60 to 79 points, Platinum: 80 to 110 38 (insufficient to achieve Certified Level) Location and Transportation Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Energy and Atmosphere Materials and Resources LEED v4 / v4.1 BD+C Project Checklist Project Name: RCC Outlot A Building #1 - PATH TO SILVER Date: 3/1/2025 Y ? N 1 Credit Integrative Process (design narrative)Items in blue are likely alignments with JDA Draft Sustainability Requirements Bold Text items = high priority for ROM pricing & feasibility analysis 1 3 2 11 16 Credit v4.1 LEED for Neighborhood Development Location 16 1 Credit v4 Sensitive Land Protection Maybe can count as 'previously developed'; research & documentation of past use req'd. 1 2 Credit v4 High Priority Site and Equitable Development TCAAP site is brownfield.2 5 Credit v4.1 Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses WalkScore of 9 (using DMV address) but is <1mi from I35W on-ramp. No points for prev. developed land under NC scorecard instead of Warehouse.5 5 Credit v4.1 Access to Quality Transit Southern-most parcels are w/in walking distant of Park&Ride, but not enough trips per week. Micro would need to run a company shuttle to achieve any credit.5 1 Credit v4.1 Bicycle Facilities Ryan could provide bike racks & covered secure storage, but Micro would need to provide lockers & showers within TI. No space in current plans.1 1 Credit v4 Reduced Parking Footprint Carshare? 1% of stalls. 2-year commitment. Signage cost & Zipcar or sim contract 1 1 Credit v4.1 Electric Vehicles (JDA) Assuming increased EV-ready stalls above JDA 8% goal to LEED 10% target.1 2 1 7 10 Y Prereq v4.1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention SWPPP plan with Construction site photos.Req. 1 Credit v4.1 Site Assessment Ryan to complete narrative with Civil/LA team assistance.1 1 1 Credit v4.1 Protect or Restore Habitat Assuming 0% greenfield, confirmed that borders of site + landscaping in larger areas near building is sufficient. Native pollinator grass mix to be specified.2 1 Credit v4.1 Open Space Insufficient land area left 'open'; parking will not count.1 3 Credit v4.1 Rainwater Management Storm pond not located on MCC property.3 2 Credit v4.1 Heat Island Reduction Site paving & roofing ballast will not comply without material change (cost premium, not in scope) 2 1 Credit v4.1 Light Pollution Reduction Current fixture selection exceeds max G value; change likely requires additional poles (cost) 1 4 2 5 11 Y Prereq v4.1 Outdoor Water Use Reduction Should be easy win based on Ryan A+E standard design practices.Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Indoor Water Use Reduction Tenant plumbing & appliance selections will impact points earned.Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Building-Level Water Metering (JDA) Utility-grade metering + tenant commitment to share annual usage data.Req. 1 1 Credit v4.1 Outdoor Water Use Reduction 50% possible; no irrigation or greywater to earn 2pts not feasible.2 2 2 2 Credit v4.1 Indoor Water Use Reduction 30% based on placeholder assumptions for tenant fixtures; to be refined in later design. 6 2 Credit v4.1 Optimize Process Water Use N/A because no cooling tower or large process use.2 1 Credit v4.1 Water Metering Submetering for 2 end-uses, recommend DHW & irrigation systems (assuming add to scope). 1 27 3 3 33 Y Prereq v4 Fundamental Commissioning and Verification MN Energy Code requirement; small added scope for LEED form completion. Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Minimum Energy Performance (JDA) MN Energy Code req (ASHRAE 90.1-2019) exceeds LEED baseline (90.1-2016).Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Building-Level Energy Metering (JDA) Utility-grade metering + commitment to share annual usage data.Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Req. 3 3 Credit v4 Enhanced Commissioning Assumes enhanced commissioning can be added to project scope.6 18 Credit v4.1 Optimize Energy Performance (priority)(JDA) Based on efficiency & operation carbon reduction of Option 2B per Energy & Carbon Results table vs. ASHRAE 90.1-Standard G baseline and onsite renewables.18 1 Credit v4.1 Advanced Energy Metering Aligns with MN Energy Code requirement; LEED may require slightly more meters depending on tenant process & plug loads.1 2 Credit v4.1 Grid Harmonization Tenant-dependent; Xcel offers demand response program but participation would be required. 2 5 Credit v4.1 Renewable Energy (JDA) Assumes onsite rooftop PV were possible, likely via PPA where tenant retains RECs.5 1 Credit v4.1 Enhanced Refrigerant Management Dependent on HVAC-R system selections and manufacturers.1 7 3 3 13 Y Prereq v4.1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Provide space for recycling both in dock/site collection area and inside TI. Req. 3 2 Credit v4.1 Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction (JDA) LCA to be included as Ryan A+E addt'l services 3pts = min 10% reduction in GWP (embodied carbon) + 2 other categories 5 1 1 Credit v4.1 Environmental Product Declarations 1pt: 10 EPDs from 3 mftrs = easy win; 2pts: possible but requires closed spec for select products (rigid board insulation, acoustical batt, drywall, and/or paint)2 1 1 Credit v4.1 Sourcing of Raw Materials Focus on structural steel with high recycled content, recycled content in hardscaping/concrete where possible within performance requirements.2 1 1 Credit v4.1 Material Ingredients 1pt: 10 HPDs from 3 mftrs = easy win with design coordination; 2pts: possible but will limit interior manufacturers/product selections to achieve more Declare/C2C Silver certificates 2 2 Credit v4 Construction and Demolition Waste Management 75% diversion goal is Ryan standard, but some waste haulers have struggled. Will require collaboration with Terra Construction.2 3 4 9 Indoor Environmental Quality 16 Y Prereq v4.1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance ASHRAE 62.1 compliance, typical in MN Energy Code Req. Y Prereq v4.1 Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Landlord policy & signage.Req. 2 Credit v4.1 Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies 1pt: DCV CO2 sensors to office break/conf rms + MERV13 filters on outside & recirc air souces; 2pts: requires fully enclosed chem storage areas (jan closets), more IAQ sensors + walk-off mats (still to be confirmed in later stages of tenant design development) 2 2 1 Credit v4.1 Low-Emitting Materials Low-cost/easy win with careful design coordination, but recommend hold 1pt as contingency. 3 1 Credit v4.1 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan Best practice for construction but mostly in Terra Construction's court to execute. 1 2 Credit v4.1 Indoor Air Quality Assessment Whole-building flush-out or IAQ testing in field; not typical tenant requirements or Ryan scope. 2 1 Credit v4 Thermal Comfort Tenant-dependent; requires HVLS fans/radiant flooring/passive venting in warehouse + ASHRAE 55 reqs in office (not required by code).1 1 1 Credit v4.1 Interior Lighting Possible to achieve either Lighting Controls or Surf. Reflectance but dependent on further tenant design development.2 3 Credit v4.1 Daylight Not possible without significant skylights, which are not preferred in manufacturing spaces. 3 1 Credit v4.1 Quality Views Tenant-dependent and challenging if any regularly occupied space in center of footprint. 1 1 Credit v4.1 Acoustic Performance Atypical for acoustician on Industrial projects, and LEED is additional scope. 1 6 0 0 Innovation (recommendations below can be substituted on each project for other options)6 1 Credit Innovation #1: Purchasing - Lamps All-LED purchases for new construction & tenant policy 1 1 Credit Innovation #2: O+M Starter Kit IPMP and Green Cleaning to be incorporated into management plans.1 1 Credit Innovation #3: Green Building Education 2 of 3: case study, guided tour, and/or signage (LEED consultants/A+E can help develop) 1 1 Credit Innovation #4: Pilot Possible options include Heat Island: Cool Walls or Social Equity (owner) (note: available options depend on project registration date)1 1 Credit Innovation #5: Exemplary Performance Recommend EPDs or LEM, but may be tenant-dependent.1 1 Credit LEED Accredited Professional Kaity Veenstra is LEED AP.1 2 1 1 Regional Priority: 55112 4 1 Credit Regional Priority: Outdoor Water Use Reduction (1/2)(see notes above for all items in this category)1 1 Credit Regional Priority: Enhanced IAQ (2/2)1 1 Credit Regional Priority: Renewable Energy (1/5)1 1 Credit Regional Priority: Sourcing of Raw Materials (2/2)1 Regional Priority: Reduced Parking Footprint (1/1) Regional Priority: Protect or Restore Habitat (2/2) 55 16 39 TOTALS Possible Points: 110 Certified: 40 to 49 points, Silver: 50 to 59 points, Gold: 60 to 79 points, Platinum: 80 to 110 55 Path to Silver (for representative purposes only, not proposed design) Location and Transportation Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Energy and Atmosphere Materials and Resources PROVIDED FOR REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT REFLECTIVE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CO U N T Y S T A T E A I D H I G H W A Y N O . 1 3 ( O L D H W Y . 8 ) OWNER: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PID: 093023220003 T X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG B I T U M I N O U S P A T H B E N C H (8 0 F T . W I D E P U B L I C S T R E E T ) BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PROPOSED BUILDING 157,820± GSF 343 AUTO STALLS 10 LOADING DOCK DOORS 1 DRIVE-IN DOOR EV EV EV EV GE N T MOTORCYCLE PARKING (8) DR I V E - U P R A M P 262' 602' RETAINING WALL PATIO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 50' SETBACK (SCREEN W/VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING) GENERAL FRONTAGE 10' SETBACK (SCREEN PARKING) RETAINING WALL BIKE RACKS (9 TOTAL, 18 SPACES) GENERATOR PAD TRANSFORMER PAD EVSE STALLS (TYP., 4 TOTAL) MOTORCYCLE PARKING (8 STALLS) DARCY GEOTHERMAL WELLS W/SEPARATION CLEARANCES EV READY STALLS (TYP., 35 TOTAL) EV CAPABLE STALLS (TYP., 64 TOTAL) OUTDOOR GATHERING AREA EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EVEV SCALE IN FEET 40 800 Rice Creek Commons/Outlot A • EV Site Plan • 02.28.2025 EV INCLUDED IN PROPOSED PROJECT SHOWN FOR REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSED PROJECT PARKING CALCULATIONS PER SDG: Total parking stalls = 343 EV-installed or EV-ready spaces required (8%) = 27.44 (28) spaces Total EV-installed/ready/capable required (30%) = 102.9 (103) spaces EV-installed provided = 4 spaces (1.2%) EV-ready/capable provided = 4 spaces (1.1%) INCLUDED IN PROPOSED PROJECT EV-installed provided = 4 spaces (1.2%) EV-ready provided = 29 spaces (8.5%) EV-capable provided = 70 spaces (20.4%) FOR REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES ONLY NOTE: Full extents of EV-ready/capable stalls would trigger the addition of 5 additional parking spots for the entire facility, based on the 5% requirement in 2021 IBC and the ADAAG recommendation for "use last" approach prohibiting for EV-ready accessible stalls to take the place of otherwise provided accessible stalls, but rather be provided in addition to those stalls. The proposed project site plan shown has not accommodated these spaces in the representation. ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING DIAGRAM EV EV EV EV EV 66 29 EV CAPABLE STALLS (TYP., 4 TOTAL) 50' 600' 50' 600' 10 0 101 103 10 4 105106107108109 11 0 11 1 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 20 0 1. SEE SHEET A600 FOR EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY INFORMATION. DIMENSIONS: 1. COORDINATE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF OMISSIONS, DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS WITH DIMENSIONS. 2. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, DIMENSIONS GOVERN. 3. GRIDLINES ALIGN WITH EXTERIOR FACE OF CONCRETE/CMU/ SHEATHING, TYPICAL. 4. DIMENSIONS ARE TAKEN: A. 4'-0" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR, UNO. B. TO EXTERIOR FACE OF CONCRETE/CMU/SHEATHING AT EXTERIOR WALLS, UNO. C. TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD/CMU AT INTERIOR WALLS, UNO. D. TO CENTERLINE OF WALL SEPARATING UNITS (PARTY/ DEMISING) . E. TO CENTERLINE OF FIXTURES/OPENINGS, UNO. GENERAL NOTES 1 A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B C D E F 24' - 0 3/8"8' - 0"24' - 0 3/8"32' - 0 3/8"24' - 0"15' - 10 7/8"7' - 0"8' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"7' - 0"8' - 6"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"7' - 0"8' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"7' - 0"8' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"7' - 0"24' - 0" 8' - 0"15' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 0"108' - 0"64' - 0"120' - 0"144' - 0"96' - 0"33' - 0" 7' - 6 " 24 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 40 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 16 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 21 2 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0"601' - 6"1' - 0" 18' - 0"32' - 0"24' - 0"16' - 0"16' - 0"16' - 0"16' - 0"12' - 0"12' - 0"38' - 0"38' - 0"12' - 0"36' - 0"14' - 0" 2' - 0" 32' - 0" UTILITY 200 26 4 ' - 6 " 50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0" 60 ' - 0 " 50 ' - 0 " 50 ' - 0 " 50 ' - 0 " 50 ' - 0 " 10 0 101 103 10 4 105106107108109 11 0 11 1 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 20 0 A01 A01A01 A01 A02 A02 A02 OFFICE : AVERAGE CEILING HEIGHT = 10 FT MANUFACTURING : OPEN TO STRUCTURE ABOVE 24 FT CLEAR STORAGE : OPEN TO STRUCTURE ABOVE 24 FT CLEAR SHIPPING & RECEIVING : OPEN TO STRUCTURE ABOVE 24 FT CLEAR OCCUPANCY DIAGRAM LEGEND 0 1 " 3 " 2" VE R I F Y S H E E T S C A L E H E R E RYAN A+E, INC. 533 South Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612-492-4000 tel 612-492-3000 fax REGISTRATION NO. NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N WWW.RYANCOMPANIES.COM P R E LI M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N © 2025 RYAN A+E, INC. PROJ. NO. CONSULTANTS OWNER KEY PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION ERIC MORIN 49323 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 2 5 7 : 1 0 : 4 4 P M A100 701 837 OVERALL PLAN RICE CREEK COMMONS OUTLOT A BUILDING 1 1" = 20'-0"A100 1 LEVEL 1 OVERALL PLAN 0 20' 40' 60'10' N KEYNOTES - ARCH PLANS A01 CONCRETE APRON- REF. STRUCTURAL A02 FSL-V TYPE USED IN GRAY POCHE AREA ISSUE RECORD ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION P2 01-17-2025 SD SET P3 02-14-2025 JDA SUBMITTAL P4 02-21-2025 DD SET 15 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 0 " 15'-0" 15'-0" 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6'-0"6'-0" 4'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0"6'-0" 4'-0" 6'-0" 5,927.06 sf 6'-0" 15,799.95 sf 6'-0" 6'-0" 13 1 ' - 0 " 9,723.12 sf 146'-7 1/4" 11,776.93 sf 116'-2 1/4" 11,582.13 sf 92 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 117'-10 3/4" 10,848.4 sf 141'-11 1/2" 3,307.37 sf 3,089.89 sf 6,223.18 sf 9,311.31 sf 131'-5 1/2" TOTAL SOLAR-READY AREAS = approx. 92,356 GSF 12W per 1 GSF = 1,108,272 W array (1.1MW) Estimated Annual Generation = 1,473,686 kWh/year (generation results via PVWatts) 4,769.41 sf RENEWABLE ENERGY DIAGRAM LEGEND EXHAUST FAN ROOFTOP MECHANICAL UNIT ROOF ACCESS HATCH ROM COST CALCULATIONS: SOLAR-READY ROOF ASSEMBLY UPGRADES (COVER BOARD + TPO IN LIEU OF EPDM W/ BALLAST) COST = $300,000 PHOTOVOLTAICS (OWNED) - APPROX. $3/W COST = 3 x 1,108,272 = $3,324,816 TOTAL COST (IF OWNED) = $3,624,816 Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8b MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Review Term Sheet The Term Sheet that was agreed to with Alatus in December 2023 is provided for discussion. Attachments: Term Sheet Action Requested: None Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement March 2025 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 Final Development Agreement shall be consistent with the Joint Powers Agreement. 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. Kimley-Horn submitted 60% construction plans for spine road and related infrastructure signed on 2/14/25. Design and engineering on track for completion by end of 2025. 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 March 2025 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. • 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. A minimum of 20% of the total housing unit count (392 units based on the maximum buildout of 1,960 total units) will consist of affordable rental housing units 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 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 March 2025 Working Draft 3 Affordable Housing Aid (metro area sales tax funding), etc. and with partners such as Habitat for Humanity. The parties will additionally work toward constructing 10% 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 • Contracting 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. Carbon-free is the stated goal of the JDA. Results of clean energy analysis to be incorporated into agreement. Sustainability Design Guidelines will apply. • Energy technologies to be used to achieve carbon-free • Metrics • Financing for green energy work • Other sustainability requirements beyond energy Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement March 2025 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 Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement March 2025 Working Draft 5 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 8c MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Discuss Community Engagement The JDA has discussed planning a community engagement event in 2025. Further discussion is needed to determine details such as timing, format, and content. Attachments: None Action Requested: None Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8e MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Review Road Map The Road Map has been updated to reflect future meeting topics. Attachments: 2025 JDA Road Map Action Requested: None Month Date Meeting/Action or Deadline Topics or Notes JDA Commissioner Onboarding City/County onboarding of respective new commissioners 21 JDA Meeting Organizational Items, Sustainability Design Guidelines, Outlot A Concept Review 3 JDA Work Session 2024 JDA Annual Report, Legislative and Communications Update 15 Mar 17 JDA Meeting Outlot A Entitlements Review, Committee Assignments 7 JDA Meeting Outlot A Development Agreement, Budget Review Potential Community Engagement New Commissioner Intros, Infrastructure, Sustainability 1 5 JDA Meeting 2 JDA Work Session 30 Jul 7 JDA Meeting Aug 4 JDA Work Session 1 Deadline: Coordinate JDA Budget with City and County budget processes 9 JDA Meeting Oct 6 JDA Work Session 3 JDA Meeting 15 Deadline: Report back on City/County approval of JDA budget Dec 1 JDA Meeting Adopt 2026 JDA budget Jan Rice Creek Commons 2025 Roadmap Feb Deadline: JDA Annual Report due to City and County Deadline: Draft 2026 JDA Budget Sept Apr Nov May Jun Expiration: Preliminary Development Agreement with Alatus Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2025 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: March 17, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe SUBJECT: Development Director’s Report A verbal update will be provided by Director Jagoe. Attachments: None Action Requested: None