Ithaca school board asks staff to test feasibility of geothermal for two schools, authorizes exploration RFP

The Ithaca City School District Board of Education on Monday asked staff to pursue exploratory drilling and to issue a request for proposals to test ground‑source (geothermal) heating and cooling at Ithaca High School and Boynton Middle School.

The discussion centered on three priorities the board asked staff to weigh: lowest upfront construction cost, lowest 30‑year life‑cycle cost and lowest carbon‑dioxide emissions. Chris (staff member) presented comparative tables showing options ranked by first cost and by 30‑year life‑cycle cost and emphasized that the district would use first cost numbers when sizing a capital project for voters. He told the board the maximum first‑cost estimate to include cooling at both schools in the planned project is $6,200,000.

Why it matters: the board is planning a capital project referendum later this year to address aging boilers and add cooling. Board members said they want to balance fiscal responsibility with long‑term operating costs and environmental impact; several expressed support for low‑carbon options and for obtaining technical validation before committing to a system.

Chris told the board the comparative tables highlight that options that add cooling only at Ithaca High School are lowest in first cost, while options covering both schools move higher. He said the highlighted metrics (first cost in salmon, lowest 30‑year life‑cycle cost in blue and lowest life‑cycle CO2 in another cell) were intended to guide the board on which metric to prioritize.

Board members asked about technical details and incentives. In response, Chris said the district had estimated NYSERDA incentives for ground‑source systems and that the state will reimburse building aid at the district—s aid ratio; he said those program estimates were included in the presented figures but said he could confirm the exact assumptions.

Several trustees said the district should prioritize lower long‑term costs and lower carbon emissions rather than minimizing upfront cost alone. One board member said, “If you have access to liquidity, then oftentimes you could make better decisions for the long run,” and recommended favoring life‑cycle cost and environmental impact. Another trustee argued the practical difference in first cost between options that cool both buildings is closer to $500,000 once both schools are included, not the larger figures sometimes cited when looking at single‑building options.

On the technical risk of a ground‑source system, a board member asked whether open‑loop extraction could affect subsidence. Chris replied the proposed open‑loop system would withdraw water from an aquifer roughly 150 feet deep and return it to the aquifer, so the plan anticipates no net change in aquifer volume.

After discussion, the board gave staff direction to proceed with the next steps: issue a request for proposals for exploratory drilling and testing and gather quotes to refine cost and feasibility estimates. The board also signaled it would brief current contractors that exploration is underway and asked staff to seek an honest timeline from contractors for any needed design changes.

Next steps: staff will issue an RFP for exploratory drilling and testing, return with drill quotes and refined cost estimates, and report back to the board before the district finalizes scope for a December capital project referendum.

Details not decided at the meeting include the final system selection and any formal vote to place a specific project on the ballot; the board authorized investigation and procurement of exploratory services but did not adopt a final construction plan.