Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-25 JDA WSJoint Development Authority Work Session Monday, December 1, 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 Kelly Miller, Commissioner Tena Monson Also present: Jessica Jagoe (Arden Hills); Ella Mitchell (Ramsey County) Roll call taken. Public Input Lyle Salmela, 1480 Arden Vista Court, commented on the Building 116 study. He noted the Army has done a good job removing contamination from the BGRS. He indicated studies do not improve the remediation system, but rather delay the project one to two years. In order to get the economic tax benefits from the Big Beautiful Bill passed in 2025, the spine road needs to be built in 2026 and Rice Creek Commons from 2027 to 2030. He said this law could save the development of Rice Creek Commons. New Business a. Discuss Building 116 Director Mitchell stated 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. Director Mitchell reported 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. Director Mitchell explained 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. Larina DeWalt, Ramsey County, reviewed a slideshow, shared photos of Building 116, commented on development considerations and asked for comments or question from the JDA. Commissioner Jebens-Singh asked if the building had to be moved for emissions purposes. Ms. DeWalt reported there were no concerns raised by regulators or the Army that the building had to be moved due to emissions. She indicated the emissions have been consistently below the levels of health risk as indicated by the EPA and MPCA, along with the implementation of the SGRS system. Commissioner Jebens-Singh inquired how often the emissions were tested. Ms. DeWalt explained the Army was required to test the emissions twice a year. Commissioner Jebens-Singh questioned if testing would have to be conducted prior to the construction of the spine road. Ms. DeWalt stated this would be done. She indicated the MPCA, EPA and Army were all aware of the timeline and proposed schedules for the spine road infrastructure project. Further discussion ensued regarding the potential of installing a heat pump as a potential district-wide heating and cooling source for the Rice Creek Commons development. Director Mitchell indicated the County would like to have an overall plan for the potential district-wide heat source and the plans for Building 116 prior to approaching the Army. She explained she was uncertain if the Army would allow the development to capture the energy if Building 116 were moved. Ms. DeWalt reviewed the cost and timeline for a feasibility study noting the cost was estimated to be $50,000 to $250,000 depending on the depth of the study. She indicated a study of this type would require multi-agency coordination and could delay the development of Rice Creek Commons. She commented further on the complexity of putting a district wide energy system in place and how numerous lines and wells would be impacted. She noted she has been working with the Army for the past nine to twelve months on this infrastructure project to determine what can and cannot be moved. Commissioner Weber asked if the County had funding to build a district wide energy source. Director Mitchell reported the County did not have funding in place for a district wide energy source. Commissioner Weber stated this was the first time he has heard that the County was working with the Army on the TGRS system in the past 11 years. Commissioner Jebens-Singh explained she did not recall previous conversations about the width of the spine road taking into consideration the pipes that would be needed for the energy system. Director Jagoe reported the 140 feet of right of way for the spine road does not include the district energy corridor. She indicated the district energy would be an additional private easement outside of the private easement. Ms. DeWalt stated a final decision has not been made on this topic. Commissioner Weber explained the information for Building 116 addresses the concerns he had at the last JDA meeting and noted the order of this information was a concern to him. He was of the opinion the information on Building 116 should have been provided to the JDA prior to the plans for the spine road going forward. Chair Wicklund asked what the JDA’s appetite was for solving the Building 116 issue. He believed solving the issue could be solved by doing nothing, by moving Building 116 or by covering it up. He questioned how the JDA wanted to proceed. Commissioner Monson indicated she had concerns with the timing of the air sampling and inquired if air samples could be completed now. Ms. DeWalt reported the Army does not want to complete the air samples until the full optimization has been approved, but the Army was required to complete the sampling before anyone was on site. Commissioner Monson stated there would be nothing worse than the spine road project being ready to begin and the air sample testing could hold up this project. She urged the County to push for this testing to be completed sooner rather than later. She questioned when the decision was made to not have Building 116 included in the TGRS system relocation. Chair Wicklund explained, historically, Building 116 has been viewed as being so complicated due to the numerous layers of governmental approval, that the JDA made Building 116 the developer’s concern. Commissioner Monson commented over the past two years the developer has stated Building 116 was a problem and the JDA was never explicitly asked to do something with it. Chair Wicklund indicated there has not been an owner to drive what needs to be done for Building 116 because multiple government agencies are involved. Director Mitchell reported the 2023 term sheet that was agreed to with Alatus, stated the JDA will support the developers exploration of removing the building. Commissioner Jebens-Singh inquired if the plan was to keep Building 116 in place and the development would work around it or was the idea, Building 116 was an issue and the developer was to address this issue. Director Mitchell stated it was her understanding the Building 116 was expected to be worked around, the building would remain in place and the developer would have to create a vision for this building. Commissioner Monson questioned if the County were to take the lead to move the building, how long would this take and what would be the cost. Ms. DeWalt stated the County would have this information once the study was completed. She indicated the Army would require an operational system to be in place prior to Building 116 being moved. She anticipated it would take years to get Building 116 moved. Commissioner Monson asked if the County had spoken with the Army about taking the thermal properties from the water. Ms. DeWalt reported she has not had this conversation. Commissioner Monson indicated she would like to know if the JDA has this option as soon as possible. She questioned if SGRS system could be rerouted and then the BGRS system could be abandoned. Ms. DeWalt stated she was uncertain if this was explored by the Army. She noted this was a different remedy and indicated the Army would not do anything that they are not required to do. Commissioner Monson explained she believed it would be a shame if Building 116 remains in place. She stated it does not appear there are any viable options for the JDA at this time. It was her hope the building could at least be screened or repainted. Commissioner Jebens-Singh inquired if Building 116 were within the AHATS property would the JDA be having this conversation. She stated this was not a building she wanted in her neighborhood, but she anticipated this public works structure could be properly screened. Chair Wicklund commented he was not concerned with the timeline and believed it would be a disservice to not properly address Building 116. He encouraged the JDA to be the owner of this issue. He was of the opinion the building be pushed back to the Army or to have it properly screened. Commissioner Weber agreed this was an issue the JDA should be pursuing. He did not believe a developer would have any additional clout with the Army. Commissioner Jebens-Singh discussed how the County Board has created a transportation plan that has allocated dollars to begin the construction of the spine road this summer and now she was hearing the sound of brakes. This was a concern to her. She questioned if Building 116 and the spine road were connected and should put this project be put on pause. Ms. DeWalt reported if the direction from the JDA was to move Building 116, then the infrastructure plans would be put on pause. Chair Wicklund stated his first inclination was to move Building 116, but if this delays the project a year or two he would be changing his opinion. He suggested Building 116 be properly screened in order to keep this project moving forward. Commissioner Miller inquired if this parcel should not be sold as part of the Rice Creek Commons development, but rather be retained by the County and maintained by the Army. Director Mitchell noted this would be a 5.9 acre parcel. Chair Wicklund stated this would be a determination made by the County because Ramsey County owns the land. Commissioner Monson reported she was not willing to derail the plans for the spine road for Building 116. However, she hoped the JDA would be committed to helping a developer if they wanted to move Building 116 in the future. Chair Wicklund asked if the consensus of the JDA was to move forward with a basic feasibility study for Building 116. Commissioner Jebens-Singh inquired if Building 116 should be listed as a pre-existing condition in the future development agreement, noting the JDA would do its best to help with an energy capture as well as aesthetic improvements for Building 116. Commissioner Weber agreed with this recommendation but noted he wouldn’t be opposed to moving Building 116 either. The JDA was in agreement. The consensus of the JDA was to own the process of dealing with the look and feel of Building 116 and leave in language in any future development agreement that the JDA will assist a developer in communication efforts with the Army and MPCA. b. Discuss Request for Information Feedback Director Mitchell stated 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. Director Mitchell reported 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. Director Mitchell explained 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. Chair Wicklund asked if the JDA was comfortable with staff sending out an RFP. Commissioner Weber supported staff sending out an RFP. Commissioner Jebens-Singh inquired if a parallel process could be considered in order to ensure the development does not lose Costco as an anchor and then the remainder of the property could be developed through a lead developer. Director Mitchell stated the JDA could give direction towards that for the northwest corner of the site where a big box retailer could be located. Chair Wicklund indicated this was something the County could drive as the property owner and the JDA could react. Commissioner Weber stated he could support a development just for Costco. Commissioner Jebens-Singh commented she could only support this moving forward because the JDA had a plan in place that had a designated space for a big box retailer. Director Jagoe explained if the JDA were to move forward in this direction, there may be other developers that come forward wanting to develop only a portion or sliver of the project. Chair Wicklund stated the reason the JDA wanted one developer was to assist in pulling plans together for the district wide energy solution. Commissioner Monson agreed and noted it would be more expensive to complete the district wide energy solution in a piecemeal manner. She discussed how this project would look different that the plans that were approved in 2017. She stated she was not opposed to Costco. She question after reading through the comments was if a developer could make money if the core functions within the development were to move forward one piece at a time. Commissioner Weber reported the Town Center would have to include a district energy source. He noted the mass grading would also have to be considered if the project were split into micro developments. Commissioner Jebens-Singh agreed noting the affordable housing should also be included in this portion of the project. Chair Wicklund stated he liked the idea of creating a hybrid or micro development and noted this may move the development along quicker. He suggested this topic not be further discussed until Commissioner McGuire was in attendance. He questioned if the JDA wanted to revisit this topic in January. The consensus of the JDA was to bring this topic back to a worksession meeting in January. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:11 pm. Approved _____________________________________ Jon Wicklund, Chair February 2, 2026 _______________________ Date