Oak Park trustees are considering charging their potential electricity supplier $400,000, which some called an inappropriate ‘tax’ on potential savings to residents.

Staff released their proposal for purchasing electricity for residents and officials are recommending the village pursue a plan that gives residents two options — one that is the cheapest possible and one that is 100 percent green energy. But another aspect of the proposal drew the most debate — a $400,000 fee on potential electricity suppliers that would create a fund to be used at the village’s disposal.

The fund was proposed as a way to initiate larger environmentally friendly projects that staff said would benefit the village as a whole. Some ideas would be to create loan programs to help residents and businesses improve energy efficiency or to give out “kits” to residents that would include items like compact fluorescent light bulbs.

“It’s a very small part of the savings to be able to implement what we hear (the community) wants us to do,” Village Manager Tom Barwin said.

Some, however, said that it was nothing more than a tax and would be undercutting potential savings that should have gone to customers. Village Sustainability Manager K.C. Poulos said the difference would be negligible and the fund would only cost residents one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour over the two-year contract with the supplier.

Trustee Colette Lueck argued that the “tax” might be inappropriate simply because it was not part of the request made to residents when officials asked for the authority to purchase its own electricity.

“The vote didn’t include any information about the village taking $400,000 of the savings to create a fund for programs in the village,” she said. “While I think it’s a worthy cause and a good idea in general, I do have some concerns about getting people to agree to something when, in their mind they are thinking they are saving money, and turning around and saying, ‘You are saving money, but we are going to take some of those savings from you.’”

Trustee Adam Salzman, meanwhile, argued creating such programs is within in the rights of the board.

“We can’t submit every policy question to a referendum,” he said. “If voters disagree with that choice, that’s what elections are for.”

The board passed the overall electricity plan unanimously, but the $400,000 fund remains up in the air. Technically, the board approved it, but they have not decided what will be done with the money and could axe it later on by simply rebating the money back to residents.

“Anything is on the list,” Village President David Pope said.

As for the overall two-tier electricity plan, residents will be automatically enrolled in the “lowest price mix” program, but can opt to choose the green program, which is likely to be more expensive. However, the village’s consultant estimated a 10 to 15 percent savings overall through the two-year contract.

“At this point, we expect both prices to be lower than what they are paying now,” Barwin said.

Poulos said officials will begin looking for a third-party supplier immediately.

Staff members have been investigating the issue since voters endorsed so-called Community Choice Aggregation in April, which allows the village to pick a new supplier for all residents and small businesses.

The village can still stick with Exelon — which currently supplies electricity — if officials feel the other options are not better. If a new company is chosen, all residents and business will be automatically enrolled in the program, but can opt out at any time and return to Exelon energy.

Billing and delivery will still be managed by ComEd — which is owned by Exelon — and residents will still only receive one bill.