12-01-2025 JDA Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

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