Board hears $8.34M energy contract options; schedules no-cost audit for Dec. 9

The Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Board of Education on Nov. 18 received an energy performance contract (EPC) presentation from consultants and vendors outlining two competing proposals and directed staff to place a no-cost, SED-stamped comprehensive energy audit on the board agenda for Dec. 9.

The presentation described an $8.34 million project that would combine building management-system upgrades, photovoltaic arrays and several efficiency measures. Board members focused questions on the district’s projected state-aid reimbursement (presenters cited a 25.9% figure), available rebates and the timeline used for payback calculations.

Board President asked presenters for the reimbursement math: “So do we get reimbursed on the $8,000,000 project cost or do you get reimbursed? Just walk me through that math.” A BBS presenter responded that the cash flow model combines lease payments, incentives and rebates and that contractors would be paid up front while lease payments are repaid from projected energy savings and other funding buckets.

Trustees pressed vendors for details they said are critical to comparing proposals: the length of the guarantee period (questions whether savings were modeled over 15 or 18 years), the source and size of rebates, and product maturity for PV panels and building-management-system equipment. A trustee asked whether the $1.6 million in rebates was all IRA money; a presenter said rebates include IRA and utility rebates (PSEG and National Grid), with the majority from IRA funding.

Consultants explained why they recommended Renew in their materials, saying Renew is a smaller, more local firm and that negotiable scope items can be refined in contract talks. Trustees asked about bonding and performance protection; presenters said bonding and performance guarantees are RFP requirements and discussed prepaid insurance/performance-bond options as recourse if savings fall short.

Administration provided illustrative lease-cost figures: Renew’s modeled lease was presented at about $731,000 annually versus about $1.05 million for ESG, with a modeled potential tax-levy impact of roughly a 1.25% increase for Renew and 1.78% for ESG under the 2025–26 levy-limit illustration; administrators stressed those figures are illustrative and actual levy impact depends on timing and final financing terms.

On next steps, presenters and administration recommended authorizing a comprehensive energy audit to establish final SED scope and validated savings. Superintendent Mister Poole said the audit would come back to the board stamped and ready for final consideration. “At this point, it’s just authorizing Renew to conduct that audit at no cost to the school district,” a district official said; the board confirmed the audit will be on the Dec. 9 agenda.

The board did not vote on a contract on Nov. 18; members asked for more detail on equipment selection, bonding, and the final financial model before any authorization to proceed.

The board will review the completed audit and the finalized scope at its next scheduled meeting on Dec. 9 before any contract authorization or lease approval.