Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-2025 Special JDA Agenda PacketJoint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project SPECIAL JDA MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, June 25, 2025, 7:00 p.m. at Arden Hills City Hall 1.Roll Call 2.Approval of Agenda 3.Approval of Minutes 4.Public Input 5.Consent Agenda 6.Old Business 7.Public Hearings 8.New Business a.Consider Request for Preliminary Development Agreement Extension b.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: June 25, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Jagoe and Mitchell SUBJECT: Approval of Agenda The agenda for the June 25, 2025, JDA Meeting is presented for approval. Action Requested: Approve the agenda for June 25, 2025. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Jagoe and Mitchell SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes The minutes for the previous JDA Meeting are presented for approval. Action Requested: Approve the minutes from June 2, 2025. Joint Development Authority Monday, June 2, 2025 Arden Hills City Council Chambers 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), Jenny Boulton (Kutak Rock) Roll call taken. Approval of Agenda Motion by Commissioner McGuire seconded by Commissioner Jebens-Singh to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Weber requested a change to the minutes noting the reference to the groundbreaking was made by Commissioner Monson and not Commissioner McGuire. Motion by Commissioner Weber seconded by Commissioner Jebens-Singh to approve the May 5, 2025 JDA meeting minutes as amended. Motion 4-0-1 (Chair Wicklund abstained). Public Input Gregg Larson, 3377 North Snelling Avenue, explained earlier this month the community lost Bev Apilkowski who was the former mayor from 2002 to 2006. He stated Ms. Apilkowski was a proponent for moving the TCAAP project forward and was a wonderful mayor. He discussed how the term sheet and development agreement with Alatus were nearing the deadline of June 30, 2025. He encouraged the JDA to continue to work towards reaching a preliminary agreement with Alatus before the end of the month. Tom Fabel, 1550 Edgewater, explained he was a 40 year resident of Arden Hills. He stated he took the interests of the City of the highest concern. He stated the community was desperate for additional housing and it was his hope the 2,000 units of housing in Rice Creek Commons would move forward. He understood the JDA would be hearing a presentation from Alatus and he was delighted they would be speaking to their project. Lyle Salmela, 1480 Arden Vista Court, stated he has 62 years’ experience in energy and 33 years with NSP/Xcel. He reported he supported Xcel’s gas utility and maintaining profitability while aiming for net zero by 2050. He indicated he suggested pursuing geothermal within Rice Creek Commons and he believed Option 3 seems to be the optimal heat pump choice as it enables each customer to choose their own system. He explained he would also like to see grid solar within the project. He stated Scenario 2 seems to be the best geothermal system. He indicated he had concerns with the number of customers it would take to make it economical and what the cost would be for installation per customer. Consent Agenda None. Old Business None. Public Hearings None. New Business a. Approve Support Letter for Xcel Thermal Energy Network Demonstration Project Director Mitchell stated in February 2025, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approved Xcel Energy’s Natural Gas Innovation Plan, in response to Minnesota’s 2021 Natural Gas Innovation Act. The plan is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, explore innovative technologies, and support the state’s transition to a lower-carbon energy future. Xcel Energy's plan includes several pilot programs and research and development projects. One of them is a Thermal Energy Network demonstration project for a roughly 500-ton community ground- source heat pump system owned and operated by Xcel that will provide building heating and cooling as an archetype project. Xcel requests interested communities submit a letter of support for the pilot project saying they would help identify an appropriate site for the project and promote and facilitate the project if selected. By submitting this letter, Xcel will consider our community for participation in this demonstration project, but there is no obligation to participate. Commissioner McGuire stated she believed it would be very valuable it Rice Creek Commons were selected as a demonstration project. Commissioner Monson commented if this were to move forward, it would be a $10 million investment in the community. She asked if staff would be bringing this item back to the City and the County for letters of support. Director Jagoe stated this would be staff’s recommendation. Motion by Commissioner Monson seconded by Commissioner McGuire to approve Letter of Support for Xcel Thermal Energy Network Demonstration Project and directing staff to bring this item back to the City and County for letters of support. Motion carried. b. Review Outlot A Lessons Learned Memo Director Mitchell reviewed a memo that was prepared by Ryan Companies that described the lessons that were learned from the approval process of the first phase of development for Outlot A. Commissioner McGuire thanked Ryan Companies for drafting this memo for the JDA. She asked that staff review this memo to see if there was anything to consider for the future. Commissioner Weber stated he would like to further discuss this memo at a future workshop meeting. Commissioner Jebens-Singh indicated she would also like to hear from staff on the lessons learned from the development out Outlot A. Commissioner Monson questioned if Rick Carter reviewed the memo. Director Mitchell reported Mr. Carter had reviewed the memo and had offered several clarifications to the sustainability guidelines, but no changes were being proposed at this time. Commissioner Monson stated she really appreciated the feedback that was provided by Ryan Companies. Chair Wicklund explained his response to receiving the feedback was to make improvements. He encouraged the respective bodies to take this feedback to their respective bodies. Commissioner Weber indicated he appreciated this recommendation, but stated he believed it would be valuable to have a recommendation from the JDA to the City and County. Commissioner McGuire agreed it would be valuable to have a recommendation. Chair Wicklund stated the Council could take a more formal action and pass this item along to the City and County or this item could be brought back for more discussion at a future workshop meeting. He questioned how the JDA wanted to proceed. The consensus of the JDA was to bring this item back to a future workshop meeting. c. Review Term Sheet Director Mitchell reviewed the term sheet with Alatus noting the document had been updated to reflect the current status of terms for a Development Agreement. Commissioner Monson requested staff walk through the term sheet for the public. Director Mitchell presented the term sheet in further detail with the JDA. She commented on how important the timing was for the project, when the land would be conveyed, and who would be responsible for covering assessments. Commissioner Monson asked what portions of the 2018 agreement were being used. Director Mitchell explained there were some pieces of the 2018 agreement that were being used, but previously the development would move forward in tranches, and now there would be a full conveyance. Chair Wicklund inquired if the minimum 20% affordable housing had been agreed upon with the developer. Director Mitchell reported the 20% minimum had been agreed upon with the developer. Commissioner Monson stated the proposed split between owner and rental units within the development was a really big deal to the Arden Hills City Council. Commissioner Monson requested further information on the prevailing wage ordinance and what an amendment would look like. Director Mitchell explained the prevailing wage ordinance requires prevailing wages to be paid for projects that receive more than $25,000 in County funding. She reported an amendment to the ordinance would require staff review and political considerations. She noted a public hearing would also be required. Commissioner Monson understood the prevailing wage ordinance was a concern for the developer and that it would take a bit of time to amend the ordinance. Commissioner Weber asked what the $25,000 investment in County funding applied to. Director Mitchell stated it was her understanding the County’s investment in remediating the site covered the $25,000 investment and therefore the prevailing wage ordinance applied to both the vertical and horizontal construction that would occur on this site. Commissioner Monson inquired how the County would be defining the metric to measure the developers financial capacity to sustain real estate debt and carrying cost for the full build out. Director Mitchell stated she did not have this answer in front of her. Commissioner Monson explained she would like staff to look into this and provide the JDA with an answer to this question. She thanked staff for all of her efforts on the term sheet and for providing a detailed presentation on this matter. Chair Wicklund questioned how the negotiations with Alatus occurred. Director Mitchell reported the JDA Advisory Commission has been meeting weekly for the past several weeks with the developer, staff and attorneys. Commissioner McGuire thanked staff for the detailed presentation. Commissioner Jebens-Singh discussed how complicated this project was and explained she truly appreciated all of staff’s efforts on the term sheet. Director Mitchell reported there were a lot of core items that were being addressed that were interrelated and staff would continue to work through these items. d. Review Road Map Director Mitchell reviewed the updated road map with the JDA noting the JDA Advisory Committee would be meeting on June 4 and June 18. Commissioner McGuire asked when the next JDA workshop meeting would be held. Chair Wicklund suggested this meeting be held on August 4. e. Receive Alatus Presentation Director Mitchell stated Alatus has requested to present to the JDA on the following topics: • Reasoning behind Alatus proposal to privately fund the mass grading for site and how they see it coming together. • Review the value creation and timing worksheet provided to the advisory group. • Housing affordability and current discussions with Habitat for Humanity. • Alatus’s desire to get to a definitive development agreement and purchase agreement for the property so they can start the mass grading in 2025. Bob Lux, Alatus, thanked the JDA for allowing him to make a presentation. He discussed how he believes this was one of the most important projects and opportunities he would ever have an opportunity to work on. He discussed how Alatus was chosen in 2016 for this project based on its vision for this development which included a dense town center, populated with a variety of housing types with a variety of affordability. He commented on the agreement that was reached for structured parking. He was pleased to report the TRC works for the development as proposed, but commented on how a lot of the work he has to complete was front end loaded. Mr. Lux discussed the affordability guidelines that would be followed within the development. He described a recent housing project he completed in St. Paul and invited the JDA to tour this LIHTC (low-income housing tax credit) affordable housing project. Mr. Lux commented on the housing shortage that was occurring in the metro area noting the region was currently 75,000 to 80,000 units short on affordable housing. Mr. Lux discussed the new partner Alatus had in place to assist with the mass grading. He explained the next step for this project would be to finish the engineering for the spine road and once these plans are complete, Alatus will be ready to finalize the development agreement, land purchase agreement and begin the mass grading as early as this fall. He reported he would need to finalize a reverter agreement between Alatus and the County, which was a right of reentry with the County which would allow the County to take the land back if Alatus does not follow through with the agreement as proposed in the timeline. Mr. Lux commented the plan for Alatus was to take down the entire property in one fell swoop in order to complete the mass grading and soils corrections, the TGRS system can be re- plumbed and the monitoring wells can be put in. After this work is completed, the neighborhood roadways could be installed. Mr. Lux explained he has requested a waiver to the County’s prevailing wage policy for any of the vertical development that includes housing. He stated his reason for doing this would be to keep the housing costs in check. He reported he was proposing to have an audit system in place to ensure all subcontractors were paying their employees properly and that no wage theft was occurring. He commented on how the County’s ordinance or pay policy would turn this entire project into a union job and stated local housing builders were not set up to deal with this. He encouraged the County to consider allowing for the waiver. Mr. Lux discussed how all parties would have to work with the Army and MPCA to get their approval. He described how the TGRS system would be plumbed to the new treatment plant and then be diverted back to the existing treatment facility. He reported the JDA Advisory Committee has been great and he asked that they continue to work with him. He asked that this group continue to work with him and to not give up on all of the work that has been done. He asked that the JDA consider an extension to the 90% Kimley Horn deadline. Chair Wicklund thanked Mr. Lux for his detailed presentation and for the reminder of all of the great work that has been completed to date. Commissioner Jebens-Singh thanked Mr. Lux for coming before the JDA. Commissioner Monson asked when the 90% Kimley Horn deadline was. Director Mitchell stated Kimley Horn was expected to have the spine road plans at 90% in August. Administrative Director’s Report Director Mitchell reported the Energy Advisory Committee met on May 16 and the focus of the meeting was on the findings from the clean energy analysis. She indicated there was continued interest in exploring a district wide energy system. She stated staff was also moving forward with the process of receiving the geothermal grant funds from the State Department of Commerce. She provided the JDA with further information on the County’s Environmental Services Center that was recently constructed in Roseville. Commissioner Weber stated he was interested in touring the Environmental Services Center. Commissioner Monson asked how the JDA would be addressing the developer’s request for an extension. Chair Wicklund recommended the JDA Advisory Committee review this request at their June 4 meeting. Commissioner Monson suggested a meeting be held prior to the end of June after the JDA Advisory Committee meets with the developer two more times. Commissioner Jebens-Singh agreed and asked that staff had as much information gathered as possible prior to this meeting being scheduled. Chair Wicklund asked what day the JDA could meet, if a special meeting were required at the end of June. He recommended staff look at the week of June 23 through June 27 be considered. Development Director’s Report Director Jagoe explained City permits have been issued to Ryan Companies for construction on Outlot A and staff was conducting regular inspections on this project. She reported JDA Advisory and Energy Advisory meetings will continue to be posted on the City’s website. Commissioner Updates None. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 6:53 pm. Approved _____________________________________ _______________________ Jon Wicklund, Chair Date Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Jagoe and Mitchell SUBJECT: Public Input The public is invited to provide input. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8a.1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Mitchell and Jagoe SUBJECT: Consider Request for Preliminary Development Agreement Extension On December 4, 2023, the JDA and Alatus executed a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) for the California Parcel at Rice Creek Commons. This PDA outlines the parties’ agreement to attempt to negotiate the terms of a Final Development Agreement by June 30, 2025. The agreement expires by its own terms after June 30, 2025, unless extended by the parties. At the June 2, 2025, JDA meeting, Bob Lux from Alatus verbally requested that the term of the Preliminary Development Agreement between Alatus and the JDA be extended to 30 days past the date that the 90% plans for the Spine Road and related infrastructure are expected. The target date for the 90% plans is August 8, 2025, so 30 days beyond that would be September 7, 2025. As of the publication of this agenda packet on June 20, 2025, the JDA Advisory Committee has not yet met to determine if they will provide a recommendation to the JDA on this item due to scheduling conflicts. They are scheduled to meet on June 23, 2025. An additional memo is anticipated to be provided at the June 25, 2025, JDA meeting. Attachments: Preliminary Development Agreement Action Requested: Consider the request for extension of the term of the Preliminary Development Agreement with Alatus to September 7, 2025. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project BENCH HANDOUT AGENDA ITEM 8a.2 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Mitchell and Jagoe SUBJECT: Consider Request for Preliminary Development Agreement Extension Commissioners Should Consider •Request by Alatus to amend the Preliminary Development Agreement between Alatus and the JDA to extend the term of the PDA to September 7, 2025. At the June 2, 2025, JDA meeting, Bob Lux of Alatus requested that the Preliminary Development Agreement between Alatus and the JDA be amended to extend the term to 30 days past the date that the 90% design plans for the Spine Road and related infrastructure are scheduled to be delivered. The target date for the 90% plans is August 8, 2025, and 30 days beyond that would be September 7, 2025. If the JDA takes no action, the Preliminary Development Agreement will expire by its terms on June 30, 2025. Background On December 4, 2023, the JDA and Alatus executed a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) (Attachment A) for the California Parcel at Rice Creek Commons. This PDA outlined the parties’ commitment to negotiate terms for a final Development Agreement (DA) during the term of the agreement, with an expiration date of June 30, 2025. These terms would provide the nature and timing of the public infrastructure and private improvements to be constructed on the California Parcel. This PDA contained a goal of reaching a high-level term sheet within 90 days of execution of the agreement. At that same December 2023 JDA meeting, the JDA and Alatus agreed to a high-level term sheet (Attachment B), satisfying that goal. This term sheet outlined where agreement had already been reached on core issues and where additional discussion was needed. It also contained a goal to sign a final DA by August 7, 2024. In addition to the term sheet, the parties circulated a more detailed framework for deal points (Attachment C) that would need to be resolved in order to finalize the DA. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project JDA representatives and Alatus began regular meetings in January 2024 to advance a DA. Conversations have been ongoing since. Connection with Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) The DA is closely linked to the structure of a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) for the site. The parties to a PSA would be Ramsey County, as the landowner, and Alatus, as the land buyer. These two agreements (the DA and the PSA) are connected because the mechanisms for ensuring that policy goals (laid out in the DA) come to fruition differ depending on the way the land is conveyed to the developer in the PSA (for example, conveyance in tranches vs. one transaction). A key issue in negotiations of the DA has been the mass grading of the site. Mass grading is an initial stage of site preparation where a site is graded roughly to the level needed for development of public infrastructure and private development. Early estimates from Alatus suggested that the cost to mass grade the site was greater than the value of the land once graded. Identifying an approach to completing the mass grading thus became a key component to coming to agreement on a PSA. Analysis of Deal Structures Between July 2024 and June 2025, five different deal structures were considered. Some of the key differences between these structures included: • Whether the mass grading is financed publicly or privately. • Whether the land is conveyed to the developer in one transaction or in tranches over time. • The purchase price of the land. Changing these items significantly shifts the risk calculation for each party in both the PSA and DA. Due diligence on these deal structures included input by JDA/City/County staff, attorneys, financial consultants and engineers, as well as conversations with elected officials and leadership. County staff and consultants focused on the issues related to the PSA and land conveyance including: right of re- entry by the County in the event of a developer default; environmental regulatory considerations; and public infrastructure financing and timing. JDA, City and County staff and consultants analyzed, in parallel, how the JDA’s policy goals – including housing, jobs and sustainability – would be implemented in a DA under each structure. Current Proposal and Status The current deal structure under review was proposed by Alatus in mid-May 2025. In this proposal, Alatus would purchase the private development portions of the property in one conveyance for $1. Alatus would bring on a private partner to finance and perform the mass grading for the entire site, including the public right-of-way, and perform additional site preparation work for private development Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project areas. This new proposal sparked significant discussion about public bidding, prevailing wage, and the timing of ownership of public improvements, which largely remain unresolved. As of June 25, 2025, the JDA and Alatus have not come to agreement on the essential terms in the term sheet that need to be included in a final DA. Because of this, the JDA and Alatus have not begun discussions in the context of this deal structure on many of the detailed items that must be negotiated to complete the final DA, as outlined in Attachment C. While progress has been made on several key items, it has not been enough to prepare a DA. Commissioners Should Consider • Request by Alatus to amend the Preliminary Development Agreement between Alatus and the JDA to extend the term of the PDA to September 7, 2025. The following are motion language options that the JDA board may consider: • Approval: Motion to grant the request to amend the Preliminary Development Agreement with Alatus, to extend the term to September 7, 2025, and direct staff to draft an amendment for JDA approval. • Approval as amended: Motion to grant the request for an amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement with Alatus, subject to changes or conditions listed below, and direct staff to draft an amendment for JDA approval: [list changes or conditions] • Denial: Motion to deny the request for an extension to the Preliminary Development Agreement with Alatus. The Preliminary Development Agreement will then terminate by its own terms on June 30, 2025. • No action: If no motion is made and seconded, the Preliminary Development Agreement will terminate by its own terms on June 30, 2025. Attachments: • Attachment A: Preliminary Development Agreement • Attachment B: Term Sheet • Attachment C: Deal Point Framework Attachment A TCAAP JOIN-T DEVEI.OPMENT AUTIIORIry By Its: (lhair By: Ils: Administrative Director .-),**tl.F,O;L\-- d Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 12/4/2023 1 Term Sheet -basic requirements and expectations -Parties: Alatus LLC and the Joint Development Authority (JDA) Final Development Agreement -This column represents items that are not covered in the term sheet, but will be expanded upon in the Final Development Agreement, including details like: -more detailed requirements -enforcement mechanisms -financial details Assumptions This Term Sheet is intended to set forth the general terms that the developer and the JDA may be willing to enter into in a definitive final Development Agreement to be negotiated. Neither this Term Sheet nor approval thereof shall constitute an offer or agreement and no agreement with respect to the matters set forth herein shall be effective until the date of execution of a definitive final Development Agreement in writing by all parties thereto. The terms below are predicated on the County receiving funding from the State for site infrastructure ($25M request). If this funding is not allocated, there will be implications both for timing and financing of the project. The Final Development Agreement shall be consistent with the Joint Powers Agreement. 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. •Financial commitments of all parties to infrastructure •Who will be responsible for managing infrastructure project 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. •Financial commitments of all parties to other parts of the development Attachment B Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 12/4/2023 2 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. 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. • Number of units of each housing type planned (single- family, townhomes, multifamily, co-ops, etc.) Housing Affordability The parties share a goal of providing affordable housing on the site and will work toward a minimum of twenty percent of the total housing unit count (392 units at a maximum of 1,960 total units) to consist of affordable rentals at 60% AMI or below. The developer will pursue opportunities for funding and submit applications to make these rental units more deeply affordable, from sources such as Minnesota Housing (low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC)), CDBG-HOME, County HRA levy funds, Local Affordable Housing Aid (metro area sales tax funding), etc. and with partners such as Habitat for Humanity. The parties will additionally work toward constructing ten percent of the owner- occupied units to accommodate Ramsey County down payment assistance, which is accessible to households who make less than 115% of area median income (AMI) (in 2023, that equates to a for-sale price of less than $372,000). • Financial commitments for housing affordability • 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) 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. • Number of homeownership and rental units planned • Mechanism for ensuring this balance comes to fruition Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 12/4/2023 3 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. • Details about job creation goals 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. • Specifics to be determined through energy consultant contract: o Goal for the development (i.e. net zero or all- electric or carbon neutral or other) o Energy technologies to be used to achieve that goal o Metrics • Financing for green energy work • Other sustainability requirements beyond energy 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. • Financial resources to be used • Regulatory process and permissions necessary to move the building 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. • Financial responsibilities of all parties for long-term maintenance and operating costs of the development Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 12/4/2023 4 Ordinances and Policy Applicability The developer will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local ordinances. • Details about other construction standards including green building standards, quality of construction, etc. • Details about job creation goals • Applicability of ordinances including the Ramsey County Prevailing Wage Ordinance No. 2013-329 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. • What exactly each tranche comprises • Order in which tranches will be conveyed Timeline The parties will work together in earnest to negotiate and sign a Final Development Agreement by the August JDA meeting, scheduled for 8/7/2024. • The PDA extends through June 2025 so this timeline is not set in stone but is a goal we would like to memorialize in this term sheet. Talking Points for Discussion of Development Documents 6/20/25 JDA staff markup I.What Is Being developed? A.Block by block – proposed/in discussion B. Thumb parcel – N/A C.Housing units – proposed/in discussion 1.Rental housing – proposed/in discussion 2.Owner occupied housing – proposed/in discussion 3.Affordable housing goals – proposed/in discussion 4.Density – agreed D.Corporate headquarters – no longer expected E.Commercial development – not yet discussed F.Parks – not yet discussed G.Policy Goals 1.Environmental, energy resiliency and construction standards – agreed, details to be discussed 2.Job creation goals and business subsidy law – not yet discussed 3.Progress reports – not yet discussed H.Parking requirements and structures – not yet discussed I.Timing and construction deadlines – proposed/in discussion J.Process for approving development projects – not yet discussed 1.vertical development agreements – not yet discussed 2.escrows – not yet discussed II.Mass grading A.Which party will do it? – proposed/in discussion B.Access to Parcels prior to acquisition – proposed/in discussion C.Specifications and engineering – proposed/in discussion D.Plan for relocation of soil – proposed/in discussion E.Risk of contaminated or poor soils – proposed/in discussion F.Public bidding – proposed/in discussion G.How is cost paid/reimbursed? – proposed/in discussion H.Inspection and acceptance – not yet discussed III.Infrastructure A.Design, specifications and engineering – County infrastructure agreed, remaining infrastructure (including City Trunk Utilities) to be discussed B.Public bidding – County infrastructure proposed, City Assessments for Trunk Utilities in discussion, remaining infrastructure to be discussed Attachment C C. How is cost paid/reimbursed? – County infrastructure proposed, remaining infrastructure to be discussed D. Storm drainage – County infrastructure proposed, remaining infrastructure (including City Trunk Utilities) to be discussed E. Sanitary sewer – County infrastructure proposed, remaining infrastructure (including City Trunk Utilities) to be discussed F. Water mains – County infrastructure proposed, remaining infrastructure (including City Trunk Utilities) to be discussed G. Spine Road – County infrastructure agreed, City Trunk Utilities to be discussed H. Ring Road – concept in planning documents, not yet discussed I. Internal roads – concept in planning documents, not yet discussed J. Town Center roads and utilities – concept in planning documents, not yet discussed K. Natural resources corridor – County infrastructure needs proposed, more to be discussed L. Water Tower – concept in planning documents, not yet discussed M. Geothermal – proposed/in discussion N. Public transit – not yet discussed O. Inspection and acceptance – not yet discussed IV. Conveyance of property A. Timing – proposed/in discussion B. Parcels or phases – proposed/in discussion C. Satisfaction of construction and financing contingencies – not yet discussed D. Right of re-entry – proposed/in discussion E. Purchase price – proposed/in discussion 1. Revenues from sales to Vertical Developers – none under current proposal F. Payment of SAC and WAC – not yet discussed G. Payment of Park dedication – not yet discussed H. Brokerage fees – not yet discussed V. Public financing assistance – What options are on the table? A. Tax increment financing - not yet discussed 1. pro forma analysis of vertical development – not yet discussed B. Tax abatement authority – not yet discussed C. County bonding authority – in discussion D. City bonding authority – not yet discussed E. Discounted purchase price – proposed/in discussion VI. Ongoing and post development efforts A. Recruitment of corporate campus – no longer expected B. Tax base and job creation goals and measurement – not yet discussed C. Policing and security – not yet discussed D. Maintenance of natural resources corridor – not yet discussed E. Maintenance of Public parks - not yet discussed F. Maintenance of common areas – not yet discussed 1. Homeowners association – not yet discussed 2. Town Center association – not yet discussed G. Organized garbage collection – not yet discussed H. Special taxing districts – not yet discussed Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8b MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Jagoe and Mitchell SUBJECT: Review Road Map The Road Map has been updated to reflect future meetings. 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 17 JDA Meeting Outlot A Entitlements Review, Committee Assignments 27 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Agreement 7 JDA Meeting Outlot A Development Agreement, Budget Review 9 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Plans 16 Energy Advisory Committee Meeting Onboarding 1 5 JDA Meeting Budget Amendment 7 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Agreement 14 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Agreement 16 Energy Advisory Committee Meeting District Energy 30 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Agreement 2 JDA Meeting 4 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Agreement 11 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Agreement 18 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Agreement 23 JDA Advisory Committee Meeting Discuss Development Agreement 25 Special JDA Meeting Consider extension to Preliminary Development Agreement 30 Jun Expiration: Preliminary Development Agreement with Alatus Jan Rice Creek Commons 2025 Roadmap Feb Deadline: JDA Annual Report due to City and County Deadline: Draft 2026 JDA Budget Mar Apr May Jul 7 JDA Meeting Aug 4 JDA Work Session 1 Deadline: Coordinate JDA Budget with City and County budget processes 9 JDA Meeting Potential Community Education Event 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 Key JDA Meeting JDA Work Session Advisory Committee Meeting Deadline Other Meeting Nov Sept Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Mitchell 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: June 25, 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