HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-2025 JDA Work Session Packet
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
JDA WORK SESSION AGENDA
Monday, December 1, 2025, 5:30 p.m. at Arden Hills City Hall
1. Roll Call
2. Public Input
3. New Business
a. Discuss Building 116
b. Discuss Request for Information Feedback
4. Adjournment
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 2
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 1, 2025
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Directors Mitchell and Jagoe, and Larina DeWalt, 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
AGENDA ITEM 3a
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 1, 2025
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Directors Mitchell and Jagoe, and Larina DeWalt, Ramsey County
SUBJECT: Discussion of Building 116
Background and Function
Building 116 was constructed by the U.S. Army in 1942 as a water treatment facility for the Twin Cities
Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) operations. The facility is located on property now owned by Ramsey
County, but the building and related equipment is owned, operated, and maintained by the Army.
In 1987, under the Superfund law (CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act), the EPA and MPCA implemented requirements to investigate and conduct appropriate
remedial action at TCAAP due to the possibility of contamination at the site. The Army, as responsible
party, was required to treat the contaminated groundwater in the underlying and adjacent aquifer and
installed a remediation system on-site, known as the TCAAP Groundwater Recovery System (TGRS), to
do so. The TGRS is composed of multiple components: primarily wells, piping, and remediation
treatment technology. Extraction wells on the property pump contaminated groundwater through a
network of underground pipes to the air stripper system located in Building 116. Once the water is
treated (contaminants of concern removed), it is pumped and discharged to a gravel pit on the Arden
Hills Army Training Site (AHATS) where it infiltrates back into the ground.
When the Army sold 427 acres of land to Ramsey County in 2013, the property still included a variety of
infrastructure, buildings, and equipment related to the past uses of the site. Some of those remaining
site attributes, such as rail lines, sewer lines, buildings, and roads were demolished and removed by
Ramsey County after acquisition. Other minor ancillary items that still remain, such as power poles, will
be removed or relocated as necessary as part of the site preparation work. At the time of land transfer,
it was understood that Building 116 was a component of the necessary existing site infrastructure that
was to remain. Future development plans were expected to accommodate this infrastructure.
Previous Approaches
Building 116 sits in an area zoned for open space within the TRC (TCAAP Redevelopment Code), adjacent
to area planned for district stormwater facilities, known as the natural resources corridor (NRC).
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
In 2015, the Energy Integration and Resiliency Framework (EIRF) acknowledged Building 116 as a
component of the existing infrastructure and proposed it as a potential asset to the future development
of the site. Because the pumping of water through the TGRS produces heat as a byproduct, it presents a
potential renewable energy source for a future district energy system. JDA staff explored this concept
with the Army beginning in 2016, which included favorable conversations and preliminary design
coordination with Army staff and consultants, however conversations paused when project progress
stalled around 2018. The 2024 Clean Energy Analysis Report estimated that utilizing the energy from the
TGRS could meet 30% of heating and 13% of cooling demands for Rice Creek Commons, while saving an
estimated $6.6 million in capital costs by reducing the number of required geothermal wells.
The 2016 solicitation for development partners outlined several existing conditions and said that
redevelopment of the site would require “awareness and expertise” in addressing these constraints. In
this section, Building 116 was described as a “treatment facility” and was expected to be screened and
potentially used as a clean energy source (page 11):
“On-site treatment of contaminated groundwater will continue for several decades. The U.S.
Army controls this groundwater treatment system (known as the TGRS). The County is rerouting
and upgrading some of the TGRS piping. The treatment facility will need to remain in place but
can be screened and integrated into a public space. Pump house stations along the perimeter of
the site will also need to remain in place. The treated water from the TGRS system is an
opportunity for energy resiliency as a heating/cooling source as described in the Energy
Integration Resiliency Framework document on the RCC website.”
The solicitation document also included a statement that responses “constitute agreement by the
responder that it has read and will comply with all provisions in this solicitation document.” In a
previous term sheet, the JDA did not plan to study the feasibility of moving Building 116 itself but
instead agreed to support the developer in leading this exploration, if desired.
Building 116 Concerns
Over the past few years, various concerns about Building 116 have been raised. Understanding the basis
of these concerns can inform discussions about the future of the building.
Location, Space, and Aesthetics
One expressed concern is that the building is an “eyesore.” This comment is difficult to address as it is a
subjective assessment, however, there are some facts about the building itself that can inform this
concern broadly. (Photos are available in the attached presentation)
The building is located in an area zoned for open space near the eastern property line, adjacent to a
portion of the district stormwater system (NRC). This appears to have been an intentional choice when
the zoning for the site was established, so that the building is not mixed in with residential or
commercial areas. The building is about 15,000 square feet out of the 5.9-acre open space parcel where
it sits on the zoning map (less than 6% of the zoned area). The building has not undergone major
updates since it was constructed 1942. The facility is currently composed of a tan brick façade with glass
brick windows, adjacent air stripping towers, and a surrounding fence. The building envelope may be
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
larger than necessary for current system needs, as it formerly housed some Army equipment that was
removed after this portion of the site was decommissioned. Access to the facility will be maintained to
ensure Army and its contractors can continue to maintain the facility and fulfill their remedial
obligations.
Public Health & Safety:
There have also been questions raised about the public health implications of the TGRS existing within a
community. The TGRS emits low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air as the
contaminants are removed from the groundwater, via the air stripping towers at Building 116. This
approved remedial approach was known when the Army sold the site to the County, and all parties,
including regulators, understood that the site was intended for redevelopment, with the majority of the
site planned for housing. To align with the intended uses governed by the TRC, the Army is obligated to
ensure that air emissions levels are below the level of human risk, as established by the EPA and
MPCA.
Prior to the Army’s groundwater remediation system optimization, the Army had begun to explore
alternative treatment methods to address potential air emissions concerns. However, air emissions
modeling data from the Army in 2020 for the TGRS system showed that air emissions were below risk
levels. Further, since the full implementation of the TGRS optimization work in 2023, levels of
contamination in the water being treated in Building 116 have decreased by approximately 80%, leading
to a decrease in air contaminant emissions from the air stripping process.
EPA and MPCA regulators have informally indicated that, based on the current models and this
optimization work, they are not concerned that current emissions would be a public health risk.
However, the Army remains obligated to complete updated emissions modeling and real-time sampling,
under regulatory supervision before any construction occurs at Rice Creek Commons. Regulators will
review all data to ensure air quality does not pose adverse risks in the short term for construction
workers or long term for future residents, employees, and visitors.
Authority and Approvals
In addition to the Army ownership of Building 116, a collection of documents governs all Army cleanup
activities and any proposed changes to the TGRS. These documents include:
• Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA, 1987): A legally binding, three-party agreement among the
Army, EPA, and MPCA, implemented under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund law. It establishes cleanup schedules,
milestones, and penalties for noncompliance.
• Record of Decision (ROD, 1997): The legal document defining the final cleanup plan, including
the design and operation of the TGRS.
• Environmental Covenant (EC): Recorded on the property to manage land use and ensure long-
term awareness of ongoing remediation activities.
• Amended & Restated Quitclaim Deed (Property Deed): Documented transfer of RCC property
from the Army to Ramsey County. Obligations within the deed require the ongoing operation of
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
the TGRS system and outlines specific requirements and roles and responsibilities of both
parties.
Any changes to the system would require formal approval under all these agreements. In addition,
depending on the scale of change, a ROD amendment, including public hearings and comment periods,
could be required.
Feasibility Study
Individuals on the JDA have inquired about a feasibility study exploring options for changes to Building
116.
As background, the County’s Rice Creek Boulevard public infrastructure project included a review of
constraints associated with Building 116 to help inform future conversations with developers if
modifications to Building 116 were desired. This constraint analysis memo began to outline potential
process and alternatives for future analysis by the development team but is not a full feasibility study.
The scope of a feasibility study would directly impact the required cost and timeline for completion. For
example, a study simply analyzing in-place building modifications would require less financial
investment and staff or consultant time but would be limited in alternatives studied and related
conclusions of feasibility. A comprehensive feasibility study could include a much wider range of options,
such as a building size reduction, modifications to the existing structure, energy capture opportunities,
and potential on-site or off-site location alternatives. Any study would require initiating formal
conversations with the Army, National Guard, EPA, MPCA, and potentially other partners and regulators.
A basic study could take as few as 3-6 months, costing an estimated $50k, while a more comprehensive
analysis could take 6-9 months or more and cost an estimated $250k. A consultant could be hired to
lead this type of study, but it would still require significant JDA staff time to manage. While a feasibility
study considered in isolation could provide information about practical options for the future of the
building, there are a variety of potential complications to pursuing a study at this time.
The current Rice Creek Boulevard public infrastructure project is nearing final design stage and has been
engineered with Building 116 remaining in place as an existing condition. Specifically, the TGRS
modifications necessary for the construction of the infrastructure assume the pipes lead to Building 116.
If the equipment inside the building were to move, then additional modifications to the TGRS system
would be necessary. The County may want to postpone construction to wait for this decision to be
made, so as not to need to redo work later. It is also understood that the Army and regulators would
require a remediation system to be in place and fully implemented prior to Building 116 being taken off-
line. If funding were secured for the large expense of pursuing a relocation option, the process for
achieving this could take several years.
A feasibility study would also be an added project expense that has not been budgeted for. Following up
or pursuing any recommendations from a study would generate more additional project expenses at an
unknown scale. The City of Arden Hills typically plans to pay for its project contributions through future
fees at Rice Creek Commons. Ramsey County typically plans to pay for its project contributions through
future land sales at the site. There are numerous other project expenses that are critical to the
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
development that these parties are actively discussing. If it is a priority to consider changes to Building
116, funding for this study and implementation of potential alternatives should be considered in the
context of broader conversations about how public infrastructure for the site is being financed.
Attachment: Building 116 Presentation
RICE CREEK COMMONS
BUILDING 116 OVERVIEW
JOINT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 1ST, 2025
Building 116 -Former Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant (TCAAP)
Building 116
Building 116 – Overview
Originally constructed in 1942 as a water treatment plant
Building 116 is:
Located on Ramsey County property
Owned by the Army, who are also the Responsible Party for groundwater contamination at the site
Operated by contractors for the Army
Building 116 is a primary component of the Boundary Groundwater Recovery System (BGRS) treatment system
BGRS is part of the TCAAP Groundwater Recovery System (TGRS)
Building 116 – Overview
TGRS was established to treat groundwater in 1989
The BGRS captures groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the southwestern boundary of the RCC site
BGRS extraction wells along the southwestern property line send water through a network of pipes to Building 116, which houses the groundwater treatment system – air strippers at bldg. 116 remove the VOCs from the water
Treated water is then piped and discharged to a gravel pit to the east of RCC located on the Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS)
TCAAP Groundwater Recovery System (TGRS)
Building 116
*Exhibit from Army TGRS Optimization Plan
California
Parcel
ARDEN
HILLS
ARMY
TRAINING
SITE
Building 116 – Roles/Responsibilities
Ownership Authority/Approvals Primary Governing Documents
Site Ramsey County
County
JDA
Others as required
Property Deed
Environmental Covenant (EC)
TCAAP Regulating Code (TRC)
TGRS Army
Army
EPA
MPCA
National Guard
Property Deed
Environmental Covenant (EC)
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
Record of Decision (ROD)
Building 116 Army
Army
EPA
MPCA
Property Deed
Environmental Covenant (EC)
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
Record of Decision (ROD)
Building 116 – Development Considerations
Building 116 is an existing condition and was listed as such in
the 2016 RFP for a development partner.
2023 Term Sheet included as an agreed-upon term:
“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.”
Previous development discussions have included the following:
Location
Aesthetics
Space (building size)
Public perception (air emissions)
Energy Capture (district energy)
Building 116 –
Development Considerations
Location – Building 116 is located
in an area zoned for open space in
the TRC
Aesthetics – Building 116 has not
undergone any significant updates
since it was constructed
Space – It is possible that the
building is oversized for the
current system
Building 116 - Development Considerations
Public perception of safety due to air emissions
2023 Army optimization project significantly reduced emissions from
air stripping towers
Only the BGRS (lower levels of impacted groundwater) is pumped to
Building 116
The SGRS treats the more heavily impacted water
The Army is required to complete updated emissions modeling and
sampling before any construction of homes or businesses on Rice Creek
Commons
This work will be overseen by regulators to ensure that emissions will not pose a
risk to construction workers or future residents or visitors of Rice Creek Commons
Building 116 - Development Considerations
Energy Capture
Consistent water flow of TGRS is a potential source of thermal energy
for district energy system
2015 Energy Integration and Resiliency Framework (EIRF)first proposed
and analyzed this concept
Exploratory conversations with the Army were generally favorable, but
paused around 2018
2024 Clean Energy Analysis Report modeled of TRGS energy capture:
This energy capture could meet 30% of site heating load and 13% of site
cooling load
Estimated $6.6 million in capital cost savings due to fewer geothermal
wells needed
Future of Building 116
The groundwater remedy is mandated by the federal government under
a 1997 EPA Record of Decision (ROD) and subsequent amendments.
There is currently no anticipated end date for the operation of the TGRS.
There has been coordination with the Army and regulators as it relates
to TGRS modifications necessary for the Rice Creek Boulevard
infrastructure project.
Any modification of Building 116 would require approval from
Army, EPA, and MPCA, at a minimum
Unknown associated cost and schedule impacts
Feasibility Study
Option Scope Schedule Budget Considerations
Basic Study Focus on in-place
building modifications
only:
•Screening
•Façade upgrades
•Size reduction
•Energy Capture
3-6 months ~$50,000 •Limited alternatives/conclusions
•Requires multi-agency
coordination
•Funding source not identified
Comprehensive
Study
Analysis of wider range
of options:
•In-place modifications
•Alternative locations
(on/off-site)
6-9+ months ~$250,000 •Comprehensive study analyzing
feasibility of all identified
options
•Would require multi-agency
coordination and unknown
process to determine true
feasibility of options
•Funding source not identified
•High risk of project delays
JDA Discussion
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 3b
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 1, 2025
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Directors Mitchell and Jagoe
SUBJECT: Discuss Request for Information Feedback
A Request for Information (RFI) was published by the JDA on September 26, 2025, with an original
closing date of October 24, 2025, and an extended closing date of November 14, 2025. The purpose of
the RFI was to gain information to inform a future solicitation for development partner(s) at Rice Creek
Commons. The RFI was published to DemandStar (Ramsey County’s procurement website) and on the
project website, and it was publicized through the Rice Creek Commons newsletter, City of Arden Hills
newsletter, Commissioner Jebens-Singh’s newsletter and through announcements at meetings including
the October and November JDA meetings and the Sustainability Webinar.
By the close of the RFI window, five responses were received. The name of the respondents are: Lyle
Salmela, SLV Enterprises LLC, Twin Cities Land Development, Maplewood Development Inc/Belair
Sitework Services Inc, and Costco Wholesale Corporation. Staff did hear that some potential
respondents did not have the capacity to respond in this time period. There is a sense that they may
wait to respond to the future competitive development solicitation.
A summary of the findings from these responses is provided below, with select quotes from responses.
This feedback does not necessarily reflect all developer perspectives, and the respondents do not
necessarily represent all developers who may be interested in developing at the site.
This information is provided to the JDA for discussion as they consider a path forward for a competitive
solicitation for new development partner(s). The outcomes of this discussion could include a range of
direction by the JDA to staff, including but not limited to further questions for follow-up with developers
and/or research or next steps for a competitive developer solicitation.
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
What do you see as the opportunities of developing at Rice Creek Commons? What would you
envision at this site?
• Strong vision and plans:
o Once-in-a-generation opportunity for a vibrant mixed-use community.
o Alignment with current real estate trends that favor walkable, mixed-use developments
over proximity to downtowns.
o Strong public spaces and trails, including connections to regional trail networks.
• Clean slate: Opportunity to build a community from the ground-up using 21st century best
practices, including innovative sustainable development practices.
• Range of housing types to meet regional demand:
o Single-family housing options, especially attainable for-sale opportunities.
o Multifamily housing options for working families.
o Housing options for multiple income levels and life stages.
• Location: Close to both downtowns and direct access to highways, especially 35W.
• Governance: JDA’s groundwork of coordination between City and County and other public and
private partners.
• Sustainability: Can be a market differentiator, especially if there are cost-saving features in
addition to the environmental benefit.
What do you see as the challenges to developing at Rice Creek Commons? Are there any significant
factors, requirements, or preferences that you foresee would impact the ability to be financially
successful in this development?
• Regulatory complexity: multiple project partners and governance structure.
• Development timeline
o Extended timeline (15-20 years) for full-build out due to scale and complexity of project.
o Uncertainty of market over an extended development period.
“Younger buyers (Millennials and Gen Z) increasingly prioritize sustainability and are
willing to pay premiums for energy-efficient, environmentally responsible housing.
Rice Creek Commons’ commitment to all-electric, carbon-free development and LEED
for Communities Platinum certification positions it well to capture this market
segment. However, the premium buyers will pay depends on clear communication of
operating cost savings and environmental benefits.”
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
o Creative land acquisition structures such as phased acquisition, ground leases, land
banking, or performance-based pricing (costs vary based on goal achievement) could
help mitigate lead developer risks/carrying costs.
o Flexibility in development agreements such as no requirements for development
timelines, flexibility to adjust product types based on market, ability to pause
development during market downturns without penalty would be appealing to a lead
developer in particular.
• Land use plans (TCAAP Redevelopment Code and Regulating Plan)
o Rigidity and prescriptiveness of code.
o Mismatch between code and current market trends, particularly residential lot
configurations and parking requirements.
• Cost
o Components of the JDA’s vision including affordable housing and sustainability may
have additional cost implications.
o To realize the vision, may require additional public financing tools. Tools mentioned
include tax-increment financing (TIF), low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), state and
federal sustainability grants, local grants (County, Met Council), property tax abatement,
below-market land sale prices.
• Market factors
o Escalating costs including labor, materials, and infrastructure.
“Managing this extended timeline requires careful phasing to ensure that early
phases create momentum and establish the community’s identity while avoiding
oversupply that depresses pricing…. The risk of “ghost town” syndrome in early
phases—where infrastructure is in place but insufficient activity exists to create
vibrancy—must be actively managed through strategic sequencing and potentially
temporary uses or activations.”
“Some of the lot configurations could be challenging with regard to the current tastes
of the consumer. Detached garages, generally speaking, are categorically rejected by
a good portion of the homebuying market in our cold climate. Alleys and rear-loaded
entrances are also out of the norm when it comes to what is considered marketable
product.”
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
o Interest rates are still high, despite recent decreases.
o Broader economic uncertainty.
o Competition with other metro area developments with fewer requirements and less
environmental legacy.
• Prevailing wage
o May be a barrier to developer participation due to increased costs.
o May require additional public subsidy.
o Concern about workforce availability.
o Clarity requested on what components of development it applies to.
• Housing
o Meeting affordability requirements will require public financing solutions.
o Distributing affordable housing around the development is preferable for the
community but increases complexity and cost.
o Ability to design, position, and price the market-rate for-sale housing as a premium
product makes the development more financially feasible.
• Sustainability
o Potential for increased costs due to sustainability goals to conflict with goals for
affordable housing.
o District energy system coordination required may increase complexity.
o Concerns about natural-gas powered equipment/systems that do not have an electric
equivalent.
o All-electric buildings may be unappealing to buyers/tenants if they perceive higher
operating costs or reduced comfort (due to heating/cooling technologies).
• Environmental Risks
o Market perception of environmental history.
o Risk of additional remediation needed during site preparation stage.
o Evolving regulatory requirements from MPCA and EPA.
o Developers may want additional assurances due to history of site.
“While the site’s sustainability vision (to be all-electric and carbon free) along with
affordability goals (20% homes at/below 60% AMI and capped purchase prices on
10% of for-sale units) are admirable and important, they may require careful
coordination with financing tools—such as TIF, grants, and utility cost participation—
to maintain project feasibility.”
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
• Proximity to Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS): questions about desirability of housing in
adjacent neighborhoods and uncertainty about long-term future of site.
Are there any trends in the real estate market that the JDA should be aware of when considering the
future of the site?
• Housing trends:
o Housing shortage and production lag.
o Trend toward “missing middle” housing: townhomes, small multifamily, cottage courts.
o Build-to-rent single family homes are a newer trend for residents who can’t or choose
not to purchase homes.
o Demand for aging-in-place housing options, including single-level living, universal
design, proximity to services and healthcare, and community connection.
• Commercial and mixed-use development trends:
o Mixed-use development as proposed at RCC is more attractive than Lifestyle Centers
(open-air retail centers typically with upscale national chain stores and restaurants) or
office development in today’s market.
o Remote and hybrid work policies are reshaping residential preferences, including home
office space, access to outdoor recreation, walkable amenities, and community
gathering spaces.
o Lack of demand for traditional office development.
o Experiential retail including restaurants, entertainment, fitness, and personal services is
stronger than traditional retail.
“Minnesota’s residential market continues to face a significant housing shortage—
particularly for workforce and attainable single-family homes. Buyers are increasingly
prioritizing livability, walkability, and energy-efficient design, but price sensitivity
remains a critical factor. “
“On the commercial side, demand is strongest for flexible, small-scale mixed-use and
service-oriented retail that supports residential communities, rather than large-
format commercial uses.”
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
• Sustainability
o Despite Xcel Energy’s requirement for a renewable electric grid by 2040, there is
uncertainty around the pace of natural gas phase-out, which may contribute to
resistance to an all-electric development.
o Electric vehicle charging infrastructure is shifting from amenity to baseline expectation
and should be integrated throughout the development.
The JDA and project partners are considering either soliciting for a lead developer or dividing the site
into outlots or neighborhood parcels and soliciting developers for each area individually. As a
developer, which approach would you find more attractive? What do you see as the opportunities or
challenges with each approach?
• Overall:
o Most respondents expressed openness to either configuration and described pros and
cons to each.
o One strongly preferred a lead developer approach. Another preferred to directly
purchase a development parcel but had the ability to work under a lead developer.
o One that was open to either configuration recommended considering hybrid
approaches such as:
▪ A lead developer for core Town Center areas and separate developers for
outlots, such as the single-family neighborhoods and flex office areas.
▪ Starting with a lead developer for core Town Center areas and considering
either expanding their scope based on successful performance or alternately
soliciting new developers for remaining parcels.
• Lead Developer
o Cohesion: Single lead developer can facilitate more cohesive design, consistent quality,
connection, and placemaking, as well as marketing and branding of the development.
o Efficiency and coordination: Lead developer can coordinate phasing of infrastructure
and vertical development, reducing inefficiency, conflict, and delays.
“This is a critical strategic decision that will fundamentally shape Rice Creek
Commons’ development trajectory. Both approaches have merit, and the optimal
choice depends on the JDA’s priorities regarding control, risk allocation, timeline, and
community vision implementation.”
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
o Financial capacity: A qualified lead developer would have financial capacity and could
manage risk across the development site and timeline.
o Reputation: A proven lead developer can attract builders and users.
o Reduced JDA burden: Work with a single entity may reduce JDA administrative burden
in reviewing and approving development proposals.
o Accountability: JDA can potentially more easily hold a single lead developer accountable
for achieving development goals, rather than tracking goals across multiple developers.
o District energy: District energy implementation may be simpler with one lead developer
that can commit individual buildings as customers of the system.
• Individual Developers
o Accelerated timeline: Multiple developers could accelerate development because it may
be less complex to negotiate development agreements for smaller development areas,
and it could also allow for concurrent development in different areas of the site.
o Diverse expertise: Different developers have different expertise; these perspectives and
innovations may benefit the development overall.
o Risk diversification: If one developer has financial issues or isn’t meeting the JDA vision,
development can continue in other areas.
o Flexibility: Flexibility for the JDA to adjust requirements, terms, or pricing as lessons are
learned and market conditions shift, versus the difficulty of renegotiating and amending
an overall development agreement with one lead developer.
o Positive competitive forces: Incentive for quality and competitive pricing in housing due
to competition within the development.
o JDA control: JDA maintains more control over community vision rather than delegating
authority to lead developer.
o JDA administrative burden: JDA staff would need to play an active long-term role in the
development in reviewing development proposals.
Do the planning documents support the JDA’s vision for a vibrant, walkable community that attracts
visitors to spend time in the community? If not, what could be done to further that vision?
• Overall the responses affirmed that the plans in place align with this vision.
The emphasis on connected neighborhoods, mixed-used Town Center areas, and an
integrated park and trails system aligns well with current best practices for walkable,
resilient communities.
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
• Recommendations
o Zoning and design standards: Recommendations here were somewhat contradictory.
Some recommended more flexible zoning to enable developers to adapt to market
forces, while others recommended additional design standards in Town Center to
ensure public space and ground-floor activation.
o Business strategies:
▪ Encourage smaller-scale businesses.
▪ Prioritize experiential retail and local businesses over traditional/chain retail.
▪ Recruit a few anchor tenants to drive foot traffic and establish identity.
o Activation
▪ Program regular events in public spaces to activate Town Center.
▪ Encourage and permit temporary uses on undeveloped parcels.
▪ Complete key amenities like parks and trails early in development.
The JDA is planning for a district energy system to serve portions of the site. What questions or
concerns would you have about district energy as a thermal heating/cooling source for the
development?
• Overall respondents expressed a lack of familiarity with the technology and therefore had many
questions about how it would work, both technically and financially.
• Desire to understand more about:
o Cost: capital costs, connection fees, rate structures
o Reliability: backup systems or performance guarantees
o Flexibility: as technologies evolve
o Requirements: whether it is mandatory or optional to connect
“While the ground-source district energy system represents a significant opportunity
for differentiation and sustainability, it also introduces substantial uncertainty. The
system is still in feasibility study phase (grant awarded April 2025), and key questions
remain unanswered: capital cost allocation between public and private sectors,
connection fees for individual developments, ongoing operating costs and rate
structure, governance and management entity, technology selection and system
capacity, and timeline for system construction and availability. Developers need
clarity on these issues to accurately underwrite projects and communicate value
propositions to end users.”
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
o Reach: implications of a system that only serves portions of a community
o Governance: ownership and management of system
o Comparison: whether costs will be comparable with conventional systems
o Timeline: coordination with development timeline
• Recommendations:
o Emphasis on early coordination with project partners
o Education and demonstration projects for both developers and future
customers/residents
What more information would you need to inform a proposal for development at Rice Creek
Commons?
• Project schedule, especially Rice Creek Boulevard and related infrastructure
• District energy plan details, especially technical and financial information
• Indications about feasibility of changes to zoning code and land use plans (TRC) to reflect
developer input
• Clarification of roles and responsibilities of developer(s) versus JDA/City/County, for example on
the development of parks
• Site information such as environmental reports, geotechnical reports, utility availability, existing
conditions, and other reports, studies, and surveys
• Development agreement template or terms including phasing, timing, development standards,
approval processes
• Financial information such as asking price for land, public financing and incentive availability,
infrastructure cost allocation expectations amongst public partners and developers, fees
required from developers
• Policy requirements such as affordable housing, prevailing wage, and sustainability
• Community information including summaries of past community engagement, information on
key stakeholders, and economic, demographic, and market data
• Information from the JDA on lessons learned from development progress to-date, examples of
comparable projects seen as successful models, vision for the development in the long-term
• Solicitation:
o Opportunity for question-and-answer period
o Timeline and structure of future development solicitation
o Evaluation criteria
o Preferred developer qualifications