Oak Park board hears facilities audit and energy strategy; consultants recommend targeted solar and procurement steps

District staff and outside consultants updated the Oak Park ESD 97 Board on a multi-year master facilities planning process, task-force sustainability work and energy-management recommendations that could reduce long-term facility and utility costs.

Facilities and sustainability work District staff said consultants completed building system inventories and life-safety assessments for the district’s 10 facilities and that a facilities advisory committee is finalizing prioritized capital and health-and-safety items. The committee will review prioritization and cost estimates at an upcoming meeting and bring financial scenarios to a joint meeting in December.

Sustainability task force work coordinated with village and neighboring district partners and identified four working areas: food/waste/gardens, energy, green infrastructure and climate education. Staff described baseline metrics and initial actions and said they will craft an action plan and communicate it via the district website.

On-site solar Becky Thompson, a third-party energy advisor from NINIA Energy, presented findings from rooftop feasibility work previously done for the district and offered two recommended sites for on-site solar: Julian and Brooks. She said modeled offsets would be modest on a per-site basis (Julian ~13% offset; Brooks ~21%), but combined arrays could yield meaningful long-term energy savings.

Thompson explained two ownership options: - Direct ownership: district pays capital costs (or issues debt), claims federal and state incentives and realizes larger net savings (Ninia’s model estimated roughly $1.7 million in net savings across a 25-year life if incentives are realized). Direct ownership carries tax-credit timing risks. - Power purchase agreement (PPA): third-party funds construction, claims tax incentives and assumes operations and maintenance; district pays an agreed fixed rate for electricity with no upfront capital. A conservative PPA model delivered smaller net savings in Ninia’s scenario (roughly $500,000 over 25 years) but reduces up-front risk and administrative complexity.

Thompson noted a federal investment tax credit (ITC) timeline that could affect project economics: projects that have not begun construction by July 4, 2026, face tighter rules to realize the 30% credit. She urged the district to weigh that timing risk when considering ownership-based projects.

Community solar and procurement The district currently participates in community-solar allocations; Thompson recommended adding three additional schools (previously excluded) to increase annual credits if the district does not install on-site solar there. Community-solar participation can generate immediate electricity-bill credits once farms come online, usually within two years, but requires long-term allocation commitments to make projects financeable.

Natural gas and electricity procurement NINIA recommended evaluating third-party fixed-price procurement for natural gas and electricity to insulate the district from market volatility. Thompson said the district’s natural gas participation in a cooperative auto-renews in December 2026 and recommended issuing notice now to allow competitive bids instead of automatic renewal. For electricity, she recommended a reverse-auction procurement among vetted suppliers to secure competitive fixed rates.

Next steps District staff said the facilities advisory committee will finalize priority lists and associated budget scenarios in the coming weeks; the advisory committee will present financial options in late October and a joint village/district meeting is scheduled for December. Staff plan to return to the board with recommendations on procurement strategy and next steps if the board wishes to pursue on-site solar, community solar additions or fixed-price utility procurement.