Oakland County seeks $1 million energy study to map campus infrastructure upgrades; commissioners debate scope and funding

Oakland County’s Economic Development & Infrastructure Committee on Nov. 13 voted to forward a proposal to finance for an energy study of the county campus that staff estimate could cost roughly $1 million.

County sustainability staff said the study would identify aging electrical feeders, evaluate capacity for electrification and electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, and recommend prioritized capital improvements so the county can plan for future decarbonization and resilience. "A lot of what the study aims to do is understand critical infrastructure that we need to upgrade now, help us with the capital improvement planning process," the presenter said, outlining concerns about aging feeders and repeated outages on campus.

The study would not include the new Pontiac buildings themselves but would assess how the county’s move to Pontiac affects remaining campus facilities, staff said. "It includes the implications and impact that everything of the move to Pontiac," a sustainability staff member said, adding that the scope would be adjusted to avoid studies of buildings slated for disposition.

Why it matters: Committee members said the technical analysis is necessary to make grant applications, plan future EV charging, and estimate costs for any sale or repurposing of buildings. Several commissioners pressed staff for more detail on scope, phasing and how the county would pay for the work.

Discussion and staff responses

Commissioner questions focused on three areas: what the study would physically assess; whether it could be phased to reduce immediate county costs; and whether the study should be coordinated with the larger Pontiac relocation plan. County staff said the study will examine campus-level electrical capacity (two main feeders), building energy use and HVAC/steam-plant interactions, redundancy and resilience needs, and siting for future EV infrastructure. "We have two electrical feeders coming into campus. They are aging. We need to improve them," staff said, adding that replacing feeders without anticipating future electrification would risk undersizing new feeders.

On phasing and funding, staff said the Office of Sustainability has identified potential federal grant funding (an estimated $434,190 via an EECBG-like allocation and additional program funds) but had not yet executed a contract from the granting agency. Finance staff said those grant amounts and other sustainability budget funds brought the near-term available total to about $600,000, but a binding grant agreement was not in hand at the time of the meeting. County finance staff advised that per board rules the county cannot record an incoming grant until a contract is in hand, but also noted that if the grant is later received, the county can apply those funds to eligible activities and there are mechanisms (reimbursement and bond counsel guidance) to link earlier general-fund spending to later grant proceeds where appropriate.

Several commissioners urged splitting the study or phasing certain components (for example, electrical feed evaluation vs. HVAC/workstream analysis) if that would make the request more acceptable in the short term. Others argued the campus complexity and the pending relocation make a comprehensive assessment preferable. "There are pros and cons to what would happen if we decided to do it in phases," county staff said, but recommended proceeding with the full scope so the county gets a complete picture.

Technical additions and staffing

The committee used the meeting to introduce Jill Deliberti, the county’s new energy manager in Facilities Management, who described prior work managing a consortium of K–12 districts to track and manage energy use and who said similar tracking could identify savings for county facilities. Commissioners and staff cited prior examples where energy-management programs produced multi‑million-dollar savings for institutions as evidence that a detailed study could unlock future savings and stronger grant applications.

Outcome

After discussion, the committee voted to forward the study request to the finance committee for further review and possible funding. The committee asked staff to provide: a) a clearer scope and example deliverables, b) an explanation of which buildings on campus would be included or excluded because of pending relocation to Pontiac, and c) an analysis of pros and cons of phasing the study. Finance staff indicated those items would be useful for budget-level decisions.

Context

Committee members said the county’s campus is unusual because it is served by only a handful of parcels and shared utility feeds rather than individual building feeds, making a campus-level assessment particularly important for decisions about disposition, retrofit or repurposing. Staff said the study would support future grant applications by producing the technical data grantors expect.

Ending

Staff said they would return with a refined scope and funding plan when the item goes to the finance committee. Commissioners also asked for examples of comparable projects in other jurisdictions so the board can compare costs and scopes. No external legal or statutory citations were introduced during the discussion.