On the agenda: Stonington meeting — Automated License Plate (Oct 7)

1.

7:00 P.M. Bd. Of Finance
Documents:
AGENDA 10-7-2026.PDF
BOF MEETING MATERIAL.PDF

MEMO

BOARD OF EDUCATION

From:

Timothy Smith, Acting Superintendent of Schools

To:

Stonington Board of Finance

Date:

September 29, 2026

Re:

Recommendation on 204 Mistuxet Second Floor Project

Farouk Rajab
Board Chair
Kevin Agnello
Board Secretary
ADMINISTRATORS
Timothy Smith
Acting Superintendent
Kristie Bourdoulous
Assistant Superintendent
Allison Van Etten
Director of
Special Services
Alisha Stripling
Director of
Finance & Personnel

Please accept this notice of my recommendation to release the bond
allocation of $633,000 reserved for the stabilization of the second floor
of the District Office (204 Mistuxet Avenue, Mystic) building. $595,400
This recommendation is based upon:
1. Ongoing analysis by the Stonington Building Committee to
determine future building usage;
2. Consistent attestation from Fuss & O’Neill [enclosed] that the
building continues to be safe for occupancy by staff, students, and
the community; and
3. Confirmation from CIRMA, the town/district’s property insurance
carrier, that the building, in its current state, is eligible for continued
coverage.

There are two annual costs associated with this recommendation, including:
1. An additional insurance premium of approximately $3,500. This
results from removing the building from the blanket policy and
rescheduling it as a standalone property valued at $27M.
2. A biannual Fuss & O’Neill inspection to confirm that the building
continues to be safe for first-floor occupancy and usage, at a cost of
approximately $4,900.

Stephen Carroll
Director of
Facilities & Operations
Chris Williston
Director of Technology

204 Mistuxet Ave., Mystic, CT 06355

(860) 572-0506

www.stoningtonschools.org

September 28, 2026

BOARD OF EDUCATION
Farouk Rajab
Board Chair
Kevin Agnello
Board Secretary
ADMINISTRATORS
Timothy Smith
Acting Superintendent
Kristie Bourdoulous
Assistant Superintendent
Allison Van Etten
Director of
Special Services

Dear Members of the Board of Finance,
I am writing to formally request the addition of a new sports storage shed to the
ongoing portable project for Stonington Public Schools. As part of the current project
scope, we need to relocate the existing sports storage building to a new location on
the property. However, the current shed is in extremely poor condition and is
structurally incapable of surviving a move.
More importantly, the current location of the existing structure poses a direct security
risk to our students. Attempting to salvage or continue using this failing building is no
longer a viable or safe option for the school.
To resolve this issue safely and efficiently, we are proposing the purchase of a new,
durable storage building to be placed directly at the new location. I have obtained a
formal sales quote from Carefree Small Buildings in Colchester for a structure that
perfectly fits our athletic storage and accessibility needs.
Proposed Replacement Details:
●
●
●
●

Alisha Stripling
Director of
Finance & Personnel
Stephen Carroll

Model: 12' x 16' Carefree Cottage
Key Features: 5-foot double doors for easy access, a tractor ramp, a 4-foot
storage loft to maximize interior space, and primed/painted T1-11 siding.
Construction: Heavy-duty build featuring 2x6" pressure-treated floor joists,
engineered 2x4" roof trusses, and Timberline architectural shingles.
Total Cost: $7,500.00 (This total includes delivery and wide-load fees; the
purchase is tax-exempt).

Allocating $7,500 to the portable project for this replacement will eliminate a pressing
safety issue while ensuring our athletic equipment is securely stored in a facility built
to last. I have attached the formal quote from Carefree Small Buildings for your
review.

Director of
Facilities & Operations
Chris Williston
Director of Technology

Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued commitment to the safety and
success of Stonington’s students. I am happy to answer any questions you may have
regarding this addition to the project.
Sincerely,
Stephen Carroll
Stonington Public Schools Director of Operations

204 Mistuxet Ave., Mystic, CT 06355

(860) 572-0506

www.stoningtonschools.org

SALES QUOTE
DATE: 9/23/2026

48 Westchester Rd.
Colchester, Ct. 06415
Phone: 860-267-7600 Fax: 860-267-1018
TO:
Stonington Public Schools - Soccer
Stephen Carroll
[email protected]
860-334-4607

COMMENTS OR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
(1) 12’ x 16’ Carefree Cottage with steeper roof pitch, six inch overhangs, primed and painted T1 -11 siding, fivefoot double door, tractor ramp and four-foot storage loft.
Your building will have 2x6" pressure treated floor joists 12" on center with 3/4" plywood decking. All wall framing to
be 16" on center 2x4" construction. Roof construction will be engineered 2x4" roof trusses 16" on center. Roof
sheathing shall be 1/2" CDX with Timberline architectural shingles.

SALESPERSON
Matt

QUANTITY
1

DESCRIPTION

TOTAL

12’ x 16’ Carefree Cottage

$7500

SUBTOTAL

$7500

DELIVERY

Inc.

WIDE LOAD FEE

Inc.

SALES TAX

Exempt

TOTAL DUE

$7500.00

All quotes are valid for 15 days.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
Colchester CT
Clinton CT
48 Westchester Rd.
317 East Main St

MEMO

BOARD OF EDUCATION
Farouk Rajab
Board Chair
Kevin Agnello
Board Secretary
ADMINISTRATORS
Timothy Smith
Acting Superintendent
Kristie Bourdoulous
Assistant Superintendent
Allison Van Etten
Director of
Special Services
Alisha Stripling

From:

Stephen Carroll, BOE Director of Facilities

To:

Stonington Board of Finance

Date:

September 29, 2026

Re:

Request for Financing and Bid Waiver Approval

On behalf of the Stonington Board of Education, I am requesting:
1.​ Approval to enter an agreement with Eversource for its on-bill
financing program; and
2.​ Bid waiver approval for the associated project.
Project Overview - I have identified an opportunity for the Board of
Education to both improve its safety infrastructure and increase energy
efficiency with no increase to the general operating or CIP budgets. The
proposed project consists of comprehensive lighting replacements, the
installation of advanced occupancy and daylight harvesting controls, and
vital infrastructure updates to ensure that the Stonington High School
emergency lighting system meets all current code compliance standards.
Project Cost - The total project cost of $155,332.25 will be offset by
Eversource Energy Efficiency Fund incentives totalling $32,935.47. The
remaining balance of $122,396.78 will be absorbed into the Board of
Education’s operating budget over a 60 month period at zero percent
interest through Eversource’s municipal on-bill financing program. This
highly favorable financing structure allows the district to pay for the
upgrades over time using the direct utility cost savings generated by the
new, high-efficiency equipment.

Director of
Finance & Personnel
Stephen Carroll
Director of
Facilities & Operations
Chris Williston
Director of Technology

Bid Waiver - The preferred contractor for this project is Environmental
Systems Company (ESC). ESC is a current, trusted vendor for Stonington
Public Schools and currently holds the State contract for lighting efficiency
projects. This ensures that the district receives highly competitive pricing,
rigorous quality standards, and fully compliant execution.
I have attached the Eversource Letter of Agreement, which includes the
project scope, estimated energy savings, and the municipal loan summary. I
would appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal at the next Board
of Finance meeting to answer any questions and seek your formal approval
to proceed. Thank you for your time and continued support of Stonington
Public Schools.

PROPOSAL
Stonington High School
LED Lighting Project – Scope of Services Being Proposed by
ESC
PRESENTED TO:
Steve Carroll
Director of Facilities &
Operations
Stonington Public Schools
176 S Broad Street
Pawcatuck, CT 06379

PREPARED BY:
Matt Amedeo
Sales Manager,
Energy Solutions Division
(860)-953-8800
(203) 707-4350 (cell)
[email protected]

DATE:
September 28,
2026

Stonington High School
Energy Efficiency Proposal for Stonington High School at 176 S Broad Street,
Pawcatuck, CT 06379

Executive Summary
The evaluation of Stonington High School has resulted in the following proposal of actions you can rely
on to cut expenses from your operating budget. ESC has identified energy conservation measures
(ECMs) of interest to you for their potential to save energy. Our proposal includes engineering,
furnishing, installing, and commissioning the systems as described in this scope of work for a turnkey
energy efficiency solution. We respectfully submit this plan for your review.

The ESC Relationship
ESC is experienced in the successful implementation of Energy Efficiency Projects as proposed for
Stonington High School and has installed energy management, lighting, and control systems in over
200 million square feet of property throughout New England. We value this opportunity to provide
you with an energy saving proposal and look forward to collaborating with you to make sure our
proposal best meets your needs and supplies value to your business.

Energy Reduction Action Plan
The proposed energy efficiency actions include:
• High efficiency LED lighting.

Executive Summary
Page 2
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

Financial Summary
Stonington High School: Energy Measure Summary
176 S Broad Street, Pawcatuck, CT, 06379

No.
ECM-1
TOTAL, PROJECT

Measure
Name
LED Lighting

Measure
Type
Lighting

Electrical Usage
Electrical
Measure
Savings
Demand
Electrical Cost
Cost
(kWh/yr)
Savings (KW/yr) Savings ($/yr)
($)
27,910
5.76
$7,146
$153,518
27,910
5.76
$7,146
$153,518

Estimated Base Estimated
Estimated
Lifetime
Incentive
Net Cost Simple Payback Total Cost
($)
($)
(yr)
Savings ($)
$31,121
$122,397
17.1
$71,457
$31,121
$122,397
17.1
$71,457

Financial Metric
Investment to Implement All ..................................................................................................................................................................................... $153,518
Possible Utility Contribution ...................................................................................................................................................................................... -$31,121
Cost to you After Utility Incentives .......................................................................................................................................................................... $122,397
Percent Utility Cost Share ..................................................................................................................................................................................................20%
Total First Year Utility Cost Avoided ........................................................................................................................................................................... $7,146
Percent Annual Cost Savings ...............................................................................................................................................................................................2%
Total Lifetime Avoided Utility Costs.......................................................................................................................................................................... $71,457
PV of Lifetime Avoided Utility Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... $40,323
Note: All values shown adjusted to 2026 dollars. Metrics do not include financing or payment schedule. Incentives are estimates only until formal incentive program offer
is received. This project may be eligible for a tax credit under 179D– talk to your tax advisor to confirm.

Financial Summary
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

Page 3

Stonington High School
Sample Loan/Cash Flow over Payment Plan; 60 Month, 0%
Project Summary

Totals

Total Project Cost

$153,518

Utility Incentive

$31,121

Net Cost (Customer Cost)

$122,397

Simple Payback (Before Financing)

17.1 Years

Financing Option

Totals

Amount Financed at .00%

$122,397

Monthly Payment Amount

$2,039.95

Estimated Cost Savings per Month

$595.47

Monthly Cash Flow

-$1,444.48

Term of Payments at 0%

60 Months

Simple Payback (w/Financing)

17.1 Years

Energy Savings
Estimated Annual Cost Savings ($)
Annual Electric Savings, kWh
Demand Reduction, kW

Totals
$7,146
27,910 kWh
5.76

***The numbers represented in this model are estimates and not based on the customer's
actual credit

Financial Summary
Page 4
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

Action 1: High Efficiency Lighting Package
Giving your lighting system a fresh look with new Light Emitting Diode (LED) fixtures or retrofitting
your existing fixtures with LED technology can save money and make business sense. New LED
lighting is dependable, look great, runs on less energy, and deters maintenance cost associated with
changing failed fluorescent lamps.
A lighting professional has collaborated with your personnel to achieve optimal lighting design for
your environments. The proposed lighting package includes the upgrade of the existing fixtures noted
to new long-lasting efficient LED fixtures and updated long lasting LED retrofit solutions to produce
bright, high-quality light using minimal energy. Proposed LED solutions meets the utilities incentive
requirements and are DLC (Design Lights Consortium), or Energy Star rated. Details of the fixtures to
be replaced or retrofitted are listed below. The costs include disposal, lifts and dumpsters as required.
All fixtures are manufacture warranted for five years or more.
Lighting controls were discussed & considered during the audit process and supplied were
appropriate to compliment your new lighting system and increase the savings opportunity. Lighting
controls include, but are not limited to, daylight harvesting, implementation of occupancy sensors, and
bi-level dimming. Advanced controls that can be managed per fixture for a more sophisticated level on
a computer or mobile device were reviewed, discussed, and added as appropriate.
One Time Investment ................................................................................................................................. $153,518

Action 1: High Efficiency Lighting Package
Page 5
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

Conclusion and Next Steps
Utility Incentive
As part of this project, Environmental Systems Company will prepare a submission of this project
detail along with a utility-grade energy analysis to the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund (CEEF) on
behalf of Stonington High School for maximum energy incentives. ESC will also work with utility
designated engineers and consultants in the evaluation and auditing of this proposal for quality
assurance of the energy use and savings estimates.

Investment
Total pricing for all proposed actions is: One Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand, Five Hundred and

Eighteen Dollars ($153,518)
Notes on Pricing
1. Pricing Does Not Include CT State Sales Tax.
2. Pricing valid for 15 days after the date on proposal.
3. Pricing does not include permits, bonds, or prevailing wage.
4. Pricing based on existing equipment to be in full working order and code compliant.
5. Pricing ONLY includes what is listed on Scope of Work.
6. Invoices will be generated monthly for labor and materials.
7. All work to be completed during normal weekly business hours (M-F, 7AM to 5PM)
8. Testing, remediation, or removal of hazardous materials such as asbestos is not included.
9. Cutting, patching, and painting or channeling of walls, floors or ceilings is not included.
10. All operating electrical voltage is presumed to be between 120 VAC and 277 VAC.
11. Included is 1-year onsite warranty for all labor and materials and all manufacturer warrantees.
12. Customer will be responsible for any price increases that ESC incurs as a result of any tariffs
imposed on the equipment and materials reflected in its scope of work, including any tariffs on any
component parts of the equipment and materials. In the event that ESC incurs any such tariff-related
price increase, Customer will issue a change order to ESC to adjust the contract price to reflect the
tariff-related price increase.

The ESC Relationship
ESC is experienced in the successful implementation of Energy Efficiency Projects as proposed for
Stonington High School and has installed energy management, lighting, and control systems in over
180 million square feet of property throughout New England. We value this opportunity to provide
you with an energy saving proposal and look forward to working with you to make sure our proposal
best meets your needs and provides value to your business.

Sincerely,
Environmental Systems Company (ESC)

Conclusion and Next Steps
Page 6
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

Documents Notes, Details, and Supporting Documents
Utility Analysis Summary: Stonington High School
Date 8/6/2026
ESC Energy Engineer Ryan Amedeo
Data Year 2025

Company Name Stonington High School
Site Name
Stonington High School
Facility Square Footage
181,891
Data Summary
Electricity

Year
2025

Energy

Used Demand

Cost

Unit Cost

Month

(kWh)

(KW)

($)

($/kWh)

Feb-25
Mar-25
Apr-25
May-25
Jun-25
Jul-25
Aug-25
Sep-25
Oct-25
Nov-25
Dec-25
Jan-26
Total/yr

113,760
97,920
87,840
94,320
97,920
122,400
94,320
88,560
84,960
91,440
99,360
95,760
1,168,560

337
331
331
336
460
457
482
374
372
270
288
299
361

$27,930
$25,261
$23,315
$24,116
$26,867
$30,119
$26,368
$23,856
$23,245
$22,424
$23,056
$22,622
$299,180

$0.25
$0.26
$0.27
$0.26
$0.27
$0.25
$0.28
$0.27
$0.27
$0.25
$0.23
$0.24
$0.26

Electrical Demand

Electrical Energy Usage
600

140,000

500

100,000

Used Demand (KW)

Electrical Energy (kWh)

120,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

400

300

200

100

20,000

0

0

Carbon Footprint of Utility Consumption
Total Annual Energy Usage

Benchmark Comparison

Utility Type

(kWh/(sqft*yr))

(MMBtu/yr)

Cost ($/yr)

Utility Type

Site

CBECS

Electricity

6.42

3,987

$299,180

Electricity (MBtu/(sqft*yr))

21.92

#N/A

3,987

$299,180

Actual vs. Average

21.92

#N/A

TOTAL

Type of Pollution
Mercury [Hg] (mg)
Sulfur Dioxide [SO2] (lb)

Annual Emissions
6,287
1,692

Nitrogen Oxides [NOx] (lb)

1,426

Carbon Dioxide & Equivalents [CO2] (lb)

1,830,105

Note: "Potential Annual Savings vs. Benchmark" data is an estimation based on buildings of similar type.

Documents Notes, Details, and Supporting Documents
Page 7
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

Environmental Impact
With the rise in climate charge since the turn of the century. The environment has rapidly began
changing, from glaciers shrinking, ice on rivers, lakes breaking up earlier, and trees are flowering
sooner. Scientists then predicted effects from global climate change that are occuring now, such as, loss
of sea ice, accelerated rising sea level, longer more intense heat waves, and other natural diasters
including hurricanes, tropical storms, wildfires, etc. Scienctist have high confidence that global
temperatures will continue to rise over the next few decade unless we drastically change our ways.
With this investment you are not only investing in your business, but also it is an investment for
environment and future generations to come. With the energy saved from the suggested measures it is
enough to heat and energize 1 home and results in the same environmental impacts as removing 4
average passenger cars off the road, or reforesting 5 acres of trees. Drastically reducing your carbon
footrpint, and paving the way to a cleaner future.
Pollution Reduction Due to Proposed Energy Measures
Type of Pollution

Annual Reduction

Sulfur Dioxide [SO2] (lb)

40

Nitrogen Oxides [NOx] (lb)

34

Mercury [Hg] (mg)

150

Carbon Dioxide and Equivalents [CO2] (lb)

43,710

As seen in table above, with the completion of this project, your facility could reduce its annual
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions by 43,710, its annual Sulfer Dioxide (SO2) emissions by 40, its annual
Nitrogen Oxide (NO2) emissions by 34, and its Mercury (Hg) emissions by 150. These reductions can
make significant change to your companys environmental impact and the carbon footprint in which it
will leave behind.

Documents Notes, Details, and Supporting Documents
Page 8
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

Terms & Conditions
Throughout this Agreement:
Stonington Public Schools shall be known as the Customer.
Environmental Systems Company shall be known as the Service Contractor.
These terms and conditions of the Agreement (the “Agreement”) and all of the sections included, are integral parts of and
form the Agreement between the Service Contractor and the Customer. In the event the Customer seeks to have the Service
Contractor enter into a separate written contract for the scope of work of this Agreement, then: (1) the separate written
contract must be acceptable to the Contractor; (2) the entire Agreement shall be attached to and incorporated by reference
in such separate written contract; (3) to the extent that there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of the Agreement
and the terms and conditions of the separate written contract, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control; and
(4) if the Contractor and the Customer are unable to agree upon a mutually acceptable separate written contract, the
Contractor shall have the right to rescind the quote included with this Agreement without liability to the Contractor.
The Service Contractor will perform the work enumerated in the Agreement (the “Work”) in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Agreement.
This Agreement shall not include maintenance, repairs, service or replacements necessitated by any loss or damage resulting
from any cause beyond the control of the Service Contractor, including but not limited to damage or loss due to lack of water,
freezing, loss or insufficient electric power or fuel source, hail, flood, windstorm, excessive rain, snow, freezing weather,
lightning, earthquake, theft, fire, riots of any origin, strikes, wars, misuse, negligence by person(s) other than those
representing the Service Contractor, vandalism, acts of government, building code requirements, insurance company
requirements, unauthorized adjustments or repairs, or any other peril or act of God. The cost of all repairs, modifications, or
alterations necessitated by the above shall be the responsibility of the Customer and payable to the Service Contractor at
Service Contractor’s current service rates in addition to vehicle and other related service charges.
All reasonable efforts shall be extended in performing the Work as requested by the Customer, but the Service Contractor
shall not be liable for any losses or consequential damage that arise out of delays, misuse by the Customer, or the Customer’s
agents or employees. The Customer agrees to pay the Service Contractor as set forth in the Agreement. The terms of payment
for all other invoices submitted by the Service Contractor are net thirty (30) days from the Customer’s receipt of such invoice.
The Customer’s obligation to pay the Contractor shall not be contingent upon or delayed by prior payment of a third-party,
including but not limited to any insurance companies or the Customer’s client. In the event that the Customer objects to the
charges in any invoice, the Customer shall notify the Contractor in writing the basis for such objection within fifteen (15) days
of its receipt of such invoice, and if the Customer fails to provide written notice within such timeframe, the Customer’s
objection shall be deemed waived, and the invoice shall be deemed due and payable for the amount of such invoice. Unless
the Agreement specifically states otherwise, the prices in this Agreement do not include sales tax, and to the extent sales tax
is applicable to any services, materials and/or equipment, such sales tax will be listed separately on the Service Contractor’s
invoices, and the Customer agrees to pay for all applicable sales taxes. The prices in this Agreement do not include any costs
associated with using any invoicing software, portals or services required by the Customer or of any requirement by the
Customer for the Service Contractor to procure additional insurance or higher limits of insurance than are typically carried by
the Service Contractor, and to the extent there are any costs incurred by the Service Contractor to comply with such
requirements, the Customer agrees to reimburse the Service Contractor for such costs. The Customer will be responsible for
any price increases that the Service Contractor incurs as a result of any tariffs imposed on the equipment and materials
reflected in its scope of work, including any tariffs on any component parts of the equipment and materials. In the event the
Service Contractor incurs any such tariff-related price increase, the Customer will issue a change order to the Service

Documents Notes, Details, and Supporting Documents
Page 9
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

Contractor to adjust the contract price to reflect the tariff-related price increase. The Service Contractor, as a convenience to
the Customer, accepts payments via most major credit cards. In the event the Customer wishes to pay Service Contractor by
credit card, Customer agrees to reimburse the Service Contractor a surcharge of 4% of the amount of the invoice being
charged (or to the extent permissible by law) if the Customer uses any major credit card, and the Customer authorizes Service
Contractor to add the applicable surcharge to the credit card transaction. The Customer further agrees to pay finance charges
of 1½ % per month for invoices not paid within 30 days of the invoice date. In the event that the Customer fails to pay the
Service Contractor in accordance with the agreed payment terms: (1) the Service Contractor may, at its sole discretion, stop
all work under this Agreement and any other Agreement between the Service Contractor and the Customer until such time
as the Customer’s account is brought current; and (2) the Customer agrees to reimburse the Service Contractor for any and
all costs of collection of the outstanding balance, including but not limited to the Service Contractor’s attorneys’ fees, expert
fees, court costs and any other legal expenses that the Service Contractor incurs, even if the costs of collection exceed the
outstanding balance. The Service Contractor and the Customer agree that in the event a dispute arises with respect to this
Agreement, such dispute shall be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which Service Contractor’s
home office is located and this Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the state in which Service
Contractor’s home office is located, exclusive of its conflict of laws principles. THE SERVICE CONTRACTOR AND THE
CUSTOMER EXPRESSLY CONSENT TO THE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THE AFORMENTIONED STATE, AGREE TO THE
AFOREMENTIONED COUNTY AS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR DISPUTES, AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVE TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY
ACTION, PROCEEDING, OR COUNTERCLAIM, WHETHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, BROUGHT BY EITHER PARTY IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS AGREEMENT.
The Service Contractor’s liability hereunder shall not exceed the price of the Work as set forth in this Agreement. In no event
shall the Service Contractor be liable for consequential damages or losses, including but not limited to loss of profits, loss of
the use of any associated or supported equipment, high or unusual utility cost, investment cost of substitute facilities, or
rental of equipment. Unless a different warranty period is referenced elsewhere in the Agreement, the Service Contractor
agrees to either repair or replace any defects in the Work that arises within thirty (30) days of Service Contractor’s substantial
completion of the Work. The determination as to whether such work is to be repaired or replaced is within the sole discretion
of the Service Contractor. Any warranty of the materials, parts and equipment installed by Service Contractor shall be subject
to the manufacturers’ standard warranty terms, if any, and Customer’s exclusive remedy with respect to any claims of defects
in such materials, parts or equipment shall be governed by the manufacturers’ standard warranty. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, the Customer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Service Contractor, its agent and employees
from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' fees) arising out of or
resulting from the performance of Work hereunder, provided that such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in whole or
in part by an active or passive act or omission of the Customer, anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Customer, or
anyone for whose acts the Customer may be liable, regardless of whether it is caused in part by the negligence of the Service
Contractor. Further and notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Service Contractor shall be held harmless by the
Customer and shall not be liable to the Customer for any claims, liabilities, damages, losses and expenses related to mold or
the creation of mold at the Customer’s location(s) and shall have no obligation to treat, identify or remove such mold.
The Customer agrees to not solicit or hire employees of Service Contractor and/or the Service Contractor’s subcontractors
for itself and/or for any corporation, which Customer now represents or with which Customer now or may later be affiliated
during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one year after the termination of the Agreement.
PANDEMIC AND EPIDEMIC PRECAUTIONS
The Customer and the Service Contractor acknowledge that pandemics and/or epidemics may severely impact the location
where the services will be performed. As a result, in the event of a pandemic and/or epidemic, Federal, State and Local

Documents Notes, Details, and Supporting Documents
Page 10
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

guidelines and requirements may be imposed and modified, which may impact the timing and cost of the services under the
Agreement.
The Customer and the Service Contractor agree that: (1) the Customer and the Service Contractor will both use
commercially reasonable efforts with respect to the services under the Agreement; (2) the Customer and the Service
Contractor and their respective employees, agents and representatives will comply with applicable Federal, State and Local
government quarantines, shelter-in-place orders, regulations, executive orders and/or directives, including but not limited
to any recommendations or requirements of the Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, and/or any comparable State or Local agencies (collectively, “Pandemic/Epidemic
Requirements”); (3) the Customer and the Service Contractor will both use commercially reasonable efforts to keep each
other informed of pertinent updates or developments regarding their obligations to comply with Pandemic/Epidemic
Requirements; and (4) if the Service Contractor’s performance of the services under the Agreement is delayed, suspended
and/or effected by Pandemic/Epidemic Requirements and/or by their direct or indirect impacts, the Service Contractor shall
be entitled to adjustments to the schedule and/or the prices under the Agreement, provided the Service Contractor notifies
the Customer within a reasonable period of time after the Service Contractor learns of the delay, suspension and/or effect.

Documents Notes, Details, and Supporting Documents
Page 11
Environmental Systems Company  18 Jansen Court, West Hartford, CT 06110  860.953.8800

4/24/26, 9:01 AM

<<

Automation - CT Gateway

Back to Company List

To print the certifcate, right click on the page and select "Printable Version". A new tab will open where you can print the page by pressing Ctrl+P.

State of Connecticut
Department of Administrative Services
Construction Contractor Prequalification Program
This certifies
Environmental Systems Company, LLC
18 JANSEN COURT WEST HARTFORD, CT 06110
as a
Prequalification Construction Contractor
April 23, 2026 through April 22, 2027
CONTACT INFORMATION

Aggregate Work Capacity (AWC)

Single Limit (SL)

Name:
Phone:
Email:
Name:
Phone:
Email:

$15,000,000.00

$6,500,000.00

Jeff Garnelis
8609538800
[email protected]
Mike Amedeo
8609538800
[email protected]

Classifications

Description

ALARM SYSTEMS

Installation, renovation, repair and maintenance of low voltage fire
protection, security and other types of alarm systems.
ELECTRICAL
Installation, renovation, repair and maintenance of electrical wiring,
circuits, panel boards, fixtures and equipment, including, such incidental
or related work as is customarily performed by those in the electrical
trade.; To prequalify for Electrical you must have an Electrical Contractor
License through the State of Connecticut Department of Consumer
Protection.
ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The design and installation of systems or maintenance programs to
conserve energy use within a building. This category includes shared
savings programs.
HVAC
Installation, renovation, repair and maintenance of the systems and
apparatus required, collectively or individually, to provide comfort heating,
ventilation and/or cooling within or associated with a building, including
such incidental or related work as is customarily performed by those in
the HVAC trade. This category does not include sheet metal work by
itself.; To prequalify for HVAC you must have a Heating, Piping & Cooling
Contractor License through the State of Connecticut Department of
Consumer Protection.
SOLAR ELECTRIC
The installation, erection, repair, replacement, alteration, or maintenance
of photovoltaic or wind generation equipment used to distribute or store
ambient energy for heat, light, power or other purposes to a point
immediately inside any structure or adjacent to an end use.; To prequalify
for Solar Electric work you must have an Electrical Contractor ELC-E1
license or a PV-1 Limited Solar Electric Contractor license issued by the
State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS Installation, repair and maintenance of telephone, intercom, television,
computer network or related equipment for a major communication
system within a building.

This certificate prequalifies the named company to bid. It is not a statement of the Contractor's capacity to perform a specific project. That
responsibility lies with the awarding authority.
Company Licenses/Registrations: It is the Contractor's responsibility to update their license information by editing their electronic
application. Licenses are confirmed by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) at the time of initial application and at each
renewal.
For information regarding the DAS Contractor Prequalification Program visit https://portal.ct.gov/Prequalification or call (860) 713-5280.
Updated on 04/23/2026 03:52:49 PM

https://ct-gateway.formverse5.com/AUTOCENESERVER/WebApp/RenderForm.aspx?templateId=6A560611-69DF-4F13-BFFE-DD071F103518

1/1

Eversource
107 Selden Street
Berlin, CT 06037

September 10, 2026
Steve Carroll
Director of Facilities & Operations
Stonington Schools
176 S Broad Street
Pawcatuck, CT 06379
Reference: Project # CT26P03224190
Stonington High School
Pawcatuck, CT
Dear Steve Carroll:
Congratulations on choosing to make your business energy-efficient. Eversource is pleased to present you with the
details of your energy incentive for the upcoming project at your Pawcatuck, CT facility.
Should you decide to move forward with the project as submitted, you are eligible for a financial incentive of
$31,121.32.
This packet includes the following documents:
Energy Efficiency Services Letter of Agreement – Please review the document, sign and return to my attention at the
email noted below. To reserve your incentive as stated, return the signed Agreement within 30 days of the date above.
Standard Terms and Conditions – In order to claim your incentive, you will need to agree to these terms.
Exhibit A – The upgrades included in your project are outlined here. Information includes the energy and dollar
savings estimated for each individual measure.
W-9 Form – This form is necessary to process your incentive payment. Submit this completed form with your Energy
Efficiency Services Agreement
Estimate Loan Summary - Eversource has financing available. You are eligible for low interest rate or no-cost
financing to help you pay for this project. Please refer to the Loan Summary for more details.

If you have any questions regarding this letter or the documents contained in the packet, please contact me at (860)
665-5164.
Sincerely:
27,910

0

Valentina Jimenez
Energy Efficiency Consultant
Energy Efficiency
[email protected]
2026 V1.2

Stonington Schools
CT26P03224190
9/10/2026

Energy Efficiency Services
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
To encourage energy efficiency, The Connecticut Light and Power Company, doing business as Eversource (herinafter the
“Company“), in its capacity as administrator of the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund (hereinafter, “Energy Efficiency Fund”), is
pleased to offer Stonington Schools (hereinafter, the “Participant”) Energy Efficiency Services in connection with their facility
located at 176 S Broad Street, Pawcatuck, CT. If planning to proceed with this project, please counter-sign and return one original of
this Letter of Agreement (hereinafter, “LOA”) within 30 calendar days of the date of the authorized Company signature. If not
returned within 30 calendar days, the Company retains the option to modify or cancel this LOA without notification. By countersigning and returning the LOA to the Company within the specified timeframe, the Participant is subject to the following terms and
conditions:
1. The attached Energy Efficiency Services Standard Terms and Conditions, and the Exhibit(s) are part of this LOA. In the event
of a conflict between this LOA and the Standard Terms and Conditions, this LOA controls.
2. To be eligible for an incentive payment, the Participant shall ensure the installed Energy Efficiency Measures (“EEMs” or
“measures”) comply with the requirements listed in the Exhibit(s) and verify the EEMs perform in their intended manner.
To
be eligible for an incentive payment, all EEMs must be installed by the Participant and accepted by both the Participant and
3.
the Company by August 30, 2027. Failure of Participant to install all EEMs as described and shown in the attached Exhibits by
August 30, 2027 may disqualify Participant from receiving an incentive payment.
4. As administrator of the Energy Efficiency Fund, the Company agrees to pay incentives for all EEMs that comply with the terms
and criteria specified in the Exhibit(s). The incentive paid for each measure will not exceed the amount listed for the measure in
the Exhibit(s) unless the measure description allows for such changes. The total incentive for all measures as listed in the
Exhibit(s) is $31,121.32.
5. Payment will be made to Environmental Systems Company, 18 Jansen Court , West Hartford, CT 06110.
6. The Participant is not obligated to install any of the EEMs referred to in this LOA, and at any time may decide to forego the
incentive payments for one or more measures.
7. This LOA shall be signed by a representative of the Company, and counter-signed and returned to the Company by the
Participant before any EEMs are installed. No payment shall be made for EEMs not listed in the Exhibit(s), or for EEMs
installed before this LOA is counter-signed and returned to Eversource by the Participant unless authorized by the Company.
8. The Participant may propose changes to the scope of this LOA by giving written notice to the Company. Without prior written
approval by the Company, the Company may not recognize any changes implemented by the Participant.
9. If the Participant agrees to the attached Standard Terms and Conditions of this Letter of Agreement, please sign below and
return to:
Valentina Jimenez
[email protected]

Signature of Company Official

Signature of Participant Official

Valentina Jimenez
Name (Print)

Name (Print)

Energy Efficiency Consultant
Title of Company Official

Title of Participant Official

9/10/2026
Date

Date
2026 V1.2

T&C

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS 01/01/2024
The Connecticut Light and Power Company, and/or Yankee Gas Service Company, each doing
business as Eversource Energy (“Eversource”), as manager of the Connecticut Energy
Efficiency Fund (“EEF” or the “Fund”) on behalf of its customers, shall provide EEF incentives
described herein to Program Participant (or its designee) (“Participant”) in accordance with the
terms of this Letter of Agreement ("LOA”).
1. PARTICIPANT AND FACILITY ELIGIBILITY: Only electricity retail distribution
customers and/or firm gas customers of Eversource may be Participants in EEF energy
conservation programs and are eligible to receive EEF incentives. A customer’s ability to
participate in any particular energy efficiency program is dependent on the Customer fulfilling
the eligibility qualifiers of that program. This LOA is applicable to only the facilities serviced by
Eversource specified herein, and not to any future additions or alterations to the facility.
2. MEASURES: To be eligible for an incentive, the Participant shall install all Energy
Efficiency Measures (“EEMs” or “measures”) specified in this LOA and verify they perform in
their intended manner. Only measures specified herein are eligible for incentives. The
Participant is not obligated to install any of the measures referenced in this LOA. The
incentive(s) offered in this LOA shall be forfeited for measures that are not installed.
3. PERMITS, LAWS, CODES: Participant shall be responsible for the acquisition of all
necessary permits on the property of the subject project, and compliance with all applicable
laws, ordinances, building codes, and regulations of all appropriate governing authorities.
Moreover, Eversource shall not be responsible for any infraction or violation thereof, or any
expense or damage resulting from infractions or violations.
4. TAX LIABILITY: The Participant, or its designee as specified herein shall be
responsible for any tax liability associated with direct receipt of incentive payments from
Eversource. The party specified herein as direct recipient of incentives shall provide
Eversource with their federal tax ID number or social security number (IRS form W9).
Eversource shall issue a Form 1099 to all recipients of more than $600.00 of incentives per
calendar year.
5. INSPECTIONS: Eversource reserves the right to inspect the site of the project both prior to
the start of demo and construction, and after the installation of the Measure(s) to verify: (i) the
existence of specific equipment referenced in this LOA, (ii) measures are installed and
operating properly and in accordance with this LOA, and (iii) the project is completed by
the agreed upon completion date. The Participant shall provide Eversource or its agents
sufficient time and reasonable access to the project site to conduct such inspections.
Participant or its assignees shall demonstrate the operation of the measures in conjunction with
the inspection, if Eversource determines it is necessary. Participant shall supply Eversource with
all documentation Eversource deems necessary to verify that the project complies with this
LOA. Required documentation shall include, and is not limited to, Participant’s itemized
invoices for the project.
6. INCENTIVE PAID: Incentive(s) paid shall be based on the EEMs actually installed and
approved by Eversource, as well as the final installed cost of the project, as verified by
Eversource. Eversource is solely responsible for determining the final incentive amount.
7. LIMITS OF LIABILITY: Eversource’s liability is limited to paying the incentive
specified, provided all provisions of this LOA are satisfied. Participant acknowledges and agrees
that (a) neither Eversource nor any of its employees, agents, representatives or consultants are
responsible for assuring the design, analysis, engineering, and/or installation of any or all of
the EEMs is proper or complies with any particular laws, codes, or industry standards,
including, without limitation, current standards published or otherwise recognized as applicable
to the technology, and (b) Eversource does not represent, warrant or guarantee the product
or services of any particular vendor, manufacturer, contractor or subcontractor. In addition,
Eversource does not represent, warrant, or guarantee the safety or workability of any EEMs or
that the utilization of the EEMs will result in any level of energy savings or any measurable
energy related benefit. Eversource’s scope of review for purposes of this LOA is limited to
determining if the EEMs have met the program requirements.
8. PROJECT EVALUATION: Eversource reserves the right to perform, at the Fund’s expense
(and not the Participant’s expense), within five years of incentive payment, a confidential project
evaluation, under actual operating conditions, to help determine the actual energy savings.
The Participant shall provide site access and information as necessary to facilitate this
evaluation.
9. ELECTRIC BENEFITS: Other than the energy cost savings realized by the customer, the
Companies are entitled to 100% of the benefits, credits and rights associated with the energyefficient measures, including without limitation ISO-NE products and all other attributes,
payments or products associated therewith under any regional initiative or federal, state or local
law, program or regulation or program, and customer waives, and agrees not to seek, any right to
the same.

2026 V1.2

10. ENFORCEMENT OF AND CHANGES TO THIS AGREEMENT:
Any
changes to this LOA must be in writing and signed by all parties to this Agreement. No
delay or omission of either party to exercise or enforce any provision or right herein shall
serve as a waiver of such right, or of any other right or provision of this LOA.
11. TERMINATION OF THIS LOA: Eversource may, by written notice, terminate the
LOA for convenience, in whole or in part. In this event, Eversource shall pay, from the
EEF, the unit or pro rata price for the performed and accepted portion of the project, and a
reasonable amount, not otherwise recoverable from other sources, for the unperformed or
unaccepted portion of the project, provided that the total compensation does not
exceed the total incentive amount specified in the LOA. No allowance shall be made for
anticipated profits. Eversource and the EEF shall not be liable for any consequential or
incidental damages for termination of this Agreement under this Article.
12. EVERSOURCE INDEMNIFICATION: The Participant shall defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless Eversource, its directors, officers, employees, agents, affiliated
companies, and representatives, against and from any and all loss, claims, actions, or suits,
including cost and attorneys' fees, arising from the Participant’s participation in
Eversource’s Energy Efficiency Services.
Eversource shall not be liable to
Participant for any damages in contract or tort or otherwise, including negligence caused
by any activities related to Participant’s participation in Eversource’s Energy Efficiency
programs including, without limitation, the actions or omissions of any design professional
or any employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor, or consultant retained by Eversource.
Eversource’s liability under this LOA shall be limited to paying the incentives specified
for the EEMs, but only as and if such incentives become payable to Participant and
only to the extent that such incentives are not subject to repayment as provided in this
LOA. In no case shall Eversource be liable to Participant for any special, indirect,
consequential, incidental, punitive or exemplary damages of any kind including but not
limited to loss of use, lost profits, out of pocket expenses by statute, tort or contract, in
equity under any indemnity provision or otherwise.
13. ASSIGNMENT: This LOA is binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the
Participant and Eversource. The LOA shall not be assigned by either party without prior
written consent of the other.
14. STATE OF JURISDICTION The LOA shall be administered and interpreted
under the laws of the State of Connecticut. If any part is found to be in conflict with
applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with
said laws, but the remainder of the terms and conditions shall continue in full force and
effect.
15. FUNDING AVAILABILITY: The Participant understands that all funding for this
program is derived from the EEF and is funded by the customers of Eversource.
Eversource may cancel this agreement and shall not make incentive payments
described herein if the Fund is not available or sufficient for such payments.
Eversource is not responsible for any costs or damages incurred by the Participant if
funding for this program or the EEF is reduced or eliminated by any governmental or
regulatory body, and Eversource does not have energy efficiency funds to pay the
incentives.
16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: The parties shall endeavor to resolve any dispute
arising out of or relating to this LOA by mediation before the Public Utilities
Regulatory Authority (“PURA”). If a resolution cannot be reached in that forum, the
parties agree resolve their dispute by the CPR Mediation Procedure then currently in
effect. The mediator shall be selected from the CPR Panels of Distinguished Neutrals.
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this LOA, including the breach,
termination, or validity thereof, which remains unresolved 45 days after the
appointment of a mediator, shall be finally resolved by confidential, final and binding
arbitration in accordance with the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution Rules for NonAdministered Arbitration then currently in effect, by a sole arbitrator. The
arbitration shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, and
judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered by any court having
jurisdiction thereof. The place of arbitration shall be Hartford, Connecticut. The
arbitration must be commenced within two years of the conduct or action giving rise to the
dispute.

Substitute Form W-9

Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification

(Give this form to the requester. DO NOT send to IRS)

NAME (If joint names, list first and circle the name of the person or entity whose number you enter in Part I below. See
INSTRUCTIONS under “Name” if your name has changed.)

ADDRESS (Number and Street)

CITY

STATE

PART I

ZIP CODE

TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

Enter your taxpayer identification number in the appropriate box. For individuals and sole proprietors, this is your social security
number. For other entities, it is your employer identification number. If you do not have a number, see How To Obtain a TIN, on
Instruction form EMS6002-2.
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

Certification - Under the penalties of perjury, I certify that:
(1) The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me), and
(2) I am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have not been notified by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends,
or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding (does not apply to real estate transactions,
mortgage interest paid, the acquisition or abandonment of secured property, contributions to an individual retirement
arrangement (IRA), and payments other than interest and dividends).
Certification Instructions - You must cross out item (2) above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject
to backup withholding because of underreporting interest or dividends on your tax return. (Also, see Signing the Certification under
Specific Instructions on instruction form EMS6002-2.
PART II FOR PAYEES EXEMPT FROM BACKUP WITHHOLDING (See Instructions)
Check one of the following below, if applicable.
1)

_____

2)

_____
_____

3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Signature

Please sign here:

Exemption Block

A corporation
An organization exempt from tax under section 501 (a), or an individual retirement plan (IRA), or a custodial
account under 403(b)(7).
The United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities.
A state, The District of Columbia, a possession of the United States, or any of their political subdivisions or
instrumentalities.
A foreign government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities.
An international organization or any of its agencies or instrumentalities.
A foreign central bank of issue.
A dealer in securities or commodities required to register in the U.S. or a possession of the U.S.
A futures commission merchant registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
A real estate investment trust.
An entity registered at all times during the tax year under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
A financial institution.
Date

Exhibit A
Stonington High School
Energy Efficiency Services Project #: CT26P03224190
September 10, 2026
A. The Participant will submit documents for review as required. The Company will review construction documents to facilitate the
verification of conformance with the energy efficiency improvement measures detailed.
B. The listing of a specific manufacturer in this Contract does not represent an endorsement of a specific product by the Company.
Listed manufacturers are those proposed by the Participant in their application. The Participant may substitute an equivalent
product, which will produce equal or greater energy savings than the product originally proposed, with the approval of the
Company.
Measure 1 of 1 : New and/or Retrofit Lighting and/or Lighting Occupancy Controls
Installation of new and/or retrofit lighting fixtures as proposed on attached project scope and summarized below. The
fixtures/lamps shall comply with Eversource LED requirements. If LED lighting does not meet Eversource LED requirements
at time of inspection then incentive shall be recalculated.
Approximate floor area affected by fixture/lamp retrofits (square feet):
181,891
Basic description of areas being affected:
Education (Preschool, Elementary, Jr./Sr. High, University)
Number of existing fixtures/lamps affected:
395
Number of Standard fixtures/lamps to be installed:
0
Number of Enhanced Performance fixtures to be installed:
0
Number of High Performance fixtures to be installed:
318
308
Number of fixtures/lamps to be controlled by Occupancy Sensors:
0
Number of fixtures/lamps to be controlled by Daylight Harvesting Sensors:
Estimated Installed Cost of Standard fixtures/lamps:
Estimated Installed Cost of Enhanced Performance fixtures:
Estimated Installed Cost of High Performance fixtures
Estimate Installed Cost of Non-Eligible fixtures/lamps
Total Estimated Installed Cost
Total Estimated Incentive

$0.00
$0.00
$153,518.10
$0.00
$153,518.10
$16,327.35

If upon final inspection, there are any changes to the measure, the incentive will be recalculated based on installed equipment and the Company’s
review of itemized invoices. At its discretion, the Company may limit the incentive to the amount stated in this Exhibit A for this measure.
Therefore, the Company advises that the Participant or the Participant’s design professional propose in writing any significant changes to this
measure to the Company at the earliest possible point in time for review, evaluation and approval in accordance with this LOA.

Estimated Measure Incentive Breakdown
Installation and Additional
$16,327.35

Demand

Estimated Electrical Savings
kW
Energy
kWh

Measure Verification (100%)*

Summer

3.77

Annual

27,910

Winter

1.99

Lifetime

194,695

Total

$16,327.35

*Measure Verification: The Participant or the Participant's design professional shall sign below stating that they have satisfied themselves that the
system is performing as intended. By signing, the Participant assures:
1. Verification that all the correct equipment and/or systems are being controlled.
2. Verification of correct system installation. The system shall be defined as any sensors and all the lighting fixtures and/or other equipment that it
controls.
3. Verification that all sensors and control devices are calibrated and commissioned.
4. Verification that the system automatically functions as intended with all defined delays.
5. Verification that instructions, operation and maintenance manuals, and software/application access has been provided.
6. Verification that the Participant’s representative and/or operator has been instructed in the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment.

___________________________________________
Participant or Participant's Design Professional's
Signature (after installation)

__________________________________________
Date of Signature

___________________________________________
Print Participant’s Name

__________________________________________
Date of Completed Work

___________________________________________
Title of Participant

__________________________________________
Company of Participant

Regarding Linear Tube LED Products; Customers should review each lighting technology’s installation and maintenance requirements carefully. Some linear LED
products are NOT backwards compatible to accommodate fluorescent lamps or other LED tube products after the retrofit. Please follow all manufacturers’
specifications when installing and maintaining equipment to ensure proper performance, function and safety. 1)Most LED Linear Tube Replacement Lamp product
designs by various manufacturers are mechanically interchangeable and utilize existing fluorescent lamp end connectors to supply power to the lamps. However, many
of these LED products are not electrically interchangeable with fluorescent lamps or other LED tube products. As a result, maintenance personnel should follow all
manufacturers’ installation and maintenance guidelines and be trained in their safe use. 2)All LED Linear Tube Replacement Lamps are required to be Underwriter’s
Laboratory (UL) 1993 listed. Retrofit products that require rewiring retrofit to existing luminaire fixtures must also meet UL 1598C Classification. As such, these
products require fixture retrofit in accordance with manufacturer’s installation instructions which includes placement of warning markings on each luminaire fixture in
accordance with UL 1598C. Please ensure that the labels are installed and maintained for the life of the product. 3)Please contact the LED product’s installer or
manufacturer with questions with specific product questions.
The installation of aftermarket resistors into LED lighting products is not allowed.

Exhibit A - 10% Lighting Controls Incentive Retainage
Stonington High School
Energy Efficiency Services Project #: CT26P03224190
September 10, 2026
A. The Participant will submit two weeks of Post-Installation Energy Monitoring Data for the High Performance Lighting
Controls associated with this project. The Company will review Post-Installation Energy Monitoring Data documents to facilitate the
verification of Lighting Controls conformance with the energy efficiency improvement measures detailed.
B. The listing of a specific manufacturer in this Contract does not represent an endorsement of a specific product by the Company.
Listed manufacturers are those proposed by the Participant in their application. The Participant may substitute an equivalent
product, which will produce equal or greater energy savings than the product originally proposed, with the approval of the Company.
Measure 1 of 1 : High Performance Lighting Controls
Installation of new lighting controls as proposed on the controls narrative, attached project scope, and summarized below. The
lighting controls shall comply with Eversource Energy Monitoring requirements. If LED lighting and controls does not meet
Eversource LED requirements upon measure installation then incentive shall be recalculated and may be reduced or
eliminated. Communicate any proposed changes to the Company before committing so that impacts on energy savings and
incentives can be recalculated as necessary.
Approximate floor area affected by fixture/lamp retrofits (square feet):
Basic description of areas being affected:
Number of existing fixtures/lamps affected:

181,891
Education (Preschool, Elementary, Jr./Sr. High, University)
395

Number of High Performance fixtures/lamps to be installed:
Number of fixtures/lamps to be controlled by Occupancy Sensors:
Number of fixtures/lamps to be controlled by Daylight Harvesting Sensors:

318
308
0

Estimated Installed Cost of High Performance fixtures

$153,518.10

If upon review of the Post Installation Monitoring Report, there are any changes to the lighting control scope, the incentive will be recalculated
based on those changes. At its discretion, the Company may limit the incentive to the amount stated in this Exhibit A for this measure. Therefore,
the Company advises that the Participant or the Participant’s design professional propose in writing any significant changes to this measure to the
Company at the earliest possible point in time for review, evaluation and approval in accordance with this LOA.

Estimated Measure Incentive Breakdown
High Performace
Post-Installation Monitoring Data*

$1,814.15

Total

$1,814.15

*Additional Measure Verification (For lighting controls only): The Participant or the Participant’s design professional shall signify that they have
satisfied themselves that all the lighting controls are performing as intended.
1. The customer has supplied Eversource with six month of post-installation energy monitoring data, per Eversource requirements.
2. Verification that all the correct equipment and/or systems are being controlled.
3. Verification of correct system installation. The system shall be defined as any sensors and all the lighting fixtures that it controls.
4. Verification that all sensors and control devices are calibrated and commissioned.
5. Verification that the system automatically functions as intended with all defined delays.
6. Verification that instructions, operation and maintenance manuals, and software/application access has been provided.
7. Verification that the Participant’s representative and/or operator has been instructed in the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment.

___________________________________________
Participant or Participant's Design Professional's
Signature (after completion)

__________________________________________
Date of Signature

___________________________________________
Print Participant’s Name

__________________________________________
Company of Participant

___________________________________________
Title of Participant

Post-installation Requirements
Project Name:
Stonington High School
Customer Name: Steve Carroll

Project #:

CT26P03224190

The information below is required to be submitted for evaluation and review by Eversource to validate that energy efficiency measures (EEMs) proposed in the
above approved Project have been installed. Any discrepancies must be communicated and detailed to the Eversource Energy Efficiency Consultant (EEC). The
participant agrees to a verification by a Utility representative of both the sales transaction and product installation.
EEMs:

Lighting

Measure 1 of 1: Retrofit Lighting

Requirements:
Notify EEC of any changes to the project and submit as-built documentation for installed measures in the form of revised data collection
sheets and project submissions documents along with the information listed below.
-Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price - Quantity, Manufacturer, Model Number
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (LLLC) Networked & Commissioned Evidence
OPTION #1: Formal lighting control commissioning report with sufficient detail on all control zones/ settings
OPTION #2: Combined set of factors/ details provided as follows in all below rows:
-- Screen shots from app AND Show control zone / fixture grouping
-- Control Zones: projects with 1-9 zones, show settings for each; for >9 zones, show representation of all
-- NOT all spaces at factory default
------ High End Trim: Values for zones need to match project spreadsheet
------ Occupancy Control: Show time out period (reasonably align with IECC 2021 guidance)
------ Daylight: Show parameters for daylight level and dimming

HVAC Equipment

(Boilers, Furnaces,
Unit Heaters, Gas
Radiant Heaters,
Domestic Water
Heaters, Heat
Recovery Units, RTU
/ Split systems /
Heat Pumps / VRF)

-Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price - Equipment Quantity, Manufacturer, Model Number & Serial Number
Photos Showing: 1) Close up of nameplate (showing Manufacturer, model number, and serial number)
2) Photo showing unit wired and other connections completely installed.

Energy
-Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Management
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price - Description of installed system
System
Trend logs and applicable screen shots verifying controls measures are operating as intended and/or Start-up/ commissioning reports
Air Compressor & -Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Dryer
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price - Equipment Quantity, Manufacturer, Model Number & Serial Number
Photos Showing: 1) Close up of nameplate (showing Manufacturer, model number, and serial number)
2) Photo showing unit wired and other connections completely installed.

VFDs

-Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price - Equipment Quantity, Manufacturer, Model Number, Detailed description of the
VFD controlled equipment and sensors installed.
Process Equipment -Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price - Equipment Quantity, Manufacturer, Model Number & Serial Number
Insulation

Windows

Other

-Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price
Square Feet of installed insulation broken out by location -Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price - Quantity of windows installed by location and size, window type manufacturer and
U-Value.
-Copy of dated contractor itemized invoice
Invoice must include: Company name - Purchase price - Detailed description of installed Energy Efficiency Measure (Include quantities,
dimensions, make and model numbers as applicable)

Stonington High School CT26P03224190

Qty
Before

Area Description
Foreign Language Hallway
Foreign Language Hallway
Foreign Language Hallway
Lobby Past Foreign Language Ha
Lobby Past Foreign Language Ha
Hallway Outside Restrooms
Hallway Outside Restrooms
Hallway Outside Restrooms
Hallway Outside Room 028
Hallway Outside Room 028
Corridor 1024 Hallway
Corridor 1024 Hallway
1007 Director
1006 Resource Center
1006 Resource Center
1005 Conference Room
1005 Conference Room
1005 Conference Room
1004 Principal
1003 Assistant Principal
1012 Work/Copy Room
1012 Work/Copy Room
1013 Office
1013 Office
1014 Office
1014 Office
1015 Guidance Office
1015 Guidance Office
1015 Guidance Office
1016 Office
1016 Office
Office Hallways
Office Hallways
1023 Office
1022 Office
1021 Office
1002 Admin Reception
1002 Admin Reception
1050 Corridor
1050 Corridor
1050 Corridor
Hallway Outside 1045 Math
Hallway Outside 1045 Math
Hallway Outside 1045 Math
Hallway Outside 1049 Storage
Hallway Outside 1049 Storage
Lobby by Stair #3
Lobby by Stair #3
1051 Corridor
1051 Corridor
1064 Vestibule
1064 Vestibule
1062 Corridor
1062 Corridor
Lobby Outside Toilet/Janitor Clos
Hallway Outside Dept. Coordinato

Watts/
Fixture
Before

Description Before
12 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
4 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
1 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
1 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w EM (2/26W C
6 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
6 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
3 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
10 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
2 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
21 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
3 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
1 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
1 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
2 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
7 1x2 1 Lamp Uplight TLED 10w
2 1x4 2 Lamp Pendant TLED 10w
2 1x4 2 Lamp Pendant TLED 10w EM
8 2x2 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 8w
6 2x2 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 8w
5 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
1 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
1 2x2 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 8w
1 2x2 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 8w EM
1 2x2 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 8w
1 2x2 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 8w EM
4 1x2 1 Lamp Uplight TLED 10w
2 1x2 1 Lamp Uplight TLED 10w EM
4 Downlight LED Screw In 9w
3 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
1 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
12 2x2 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 8w
8 2x2 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 8w EM
1 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
1 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
1 2x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
1 1x4 2 Lamp Pendant TLED 10w EM
1 1x2 2 Lamp Pendant TLED 8w EM
3 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
1 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
5 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
2 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
4 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
2 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
7 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w EM (2/26W C
6 1x2 1 Lamp Uplight TLED 10w
2 1x2 1 Lamp Uplight TLED 10w EM
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w EM (2/26W C
4 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
2 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
4 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
11 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w

Annual Hours
Before
Qty After Proposed Equipment - Manufacturer
6 Lithonia
25
3,520
25
3,520
4 Lithonia
54
3,520
2 Lithonia
54
3,520
1 Lithonia
1 Lithonia
54
3,520
25
3,520
3 Lithonia
25
3,520
3 Lithonia
25
3,520
3 Lithonia
25
3,520
5 Lithonia
25
3,520
2 Lithonia
25
3,520
9 Lithonia
3,520
3 Lithonia
25
25
2,987
1 Lithonia
25
2,987
1 Lithonia
25
2,987
2 Lithonia
13
2,987
7 Lithonia
25
2,987
2 REMOVE
25
2,987
2 REMOVE
20
2,987
8 Lithonia
20
2,987
6 Lithonia
25
2,987
5 Lithonia
25
2,987
1 Lithonia
20
2,987
1 Lithonia
20
2,987
1 Lithonia
20
2,987
1 Lithonia
20
2,987
1 Lithonia
13
2,987
4 Lithonia
13
2,987
2 Lithonia
9
2,987
4 REMOVE
25
2,987
3 Lithonia
25
2,987
1 Lithonia
20
2,987
12 Lithonia
20
2,987
8 Lithonia
25
2,987
1 Lithonia
25
2,987
1 Lithonia
25
2,987
1 Lithonia
25
2,987
1 Green Creative
20
2,987
1 Green Creative
25
2,987
3 Lithonia
25
2,987
1 Lithonia
54
2,987
2 Lithonia
25
3,520
3 Lithonia
25
3,520
2 Lithonia
54
3,520
2 Lithonia
25
3,520
2 Lithonia
25
3,520
2 Lithonia
54
3,520
2 Lithonia
54
3,520
7 Lithonia
13
3,520
6 Lithonia
13
3,520
2 Lithonia
54
3,520
2 Lithonia
54
3,520
2 Lithonia
25
3,520
2 Lithonia
25
3,520
2 Lithonia
54
3,520
4 Lithonia
25
3,520
6 Lithonia

"NEW"
Occupancy
Proposed Equipment Watts/
Sensor?
Model Number
(Y or N)
Fixture After
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
25 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
25 Y
28 Y
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
25 Y
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
25 Y
CPXS 24 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
26 Y
CPXS 24 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
26 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
REMOVE
REMOVE
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 24 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
26 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
REMOVE
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 24 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
26 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 24 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
26 Y
CPXS 24 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
26 Y
CPXS 24 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
26 Y
(2)11.5T8/4F/840/EXT/R-(37123) 15T8
26
(2)11.5T8/4F/840/EXT/R-(37123) 15T8
26
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
25 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
25 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
25 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
25 Y
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
19 Y
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
28 Y

Daylight
Controls
Used?

High End
Trim %
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%

70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%

Lobby from Hallway
Lobby from Hallway
1070 Corridor
Gym Hallway
Gym Hallway
1071 Gym Lobby
1071 Gym Lobby
Lobby Outside Women's Toilet
1075 Corridor
1075 Corridor
1084 Corridor
1084 Corridor
1090 Corridor
1090 Corridor
Corridor 1105
Corridor 1105
Long Hallway
Long Hallway
Corridor 2037
Corridor 2037
Corridor 2037
Corridor 2033
Corridor 2033
Corridor 2037

2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w EM (2/26W C
9 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
5 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
4 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
2 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w EM (2/26W C
2 1x2 1 Lamp Uplight TLED 10w
6 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
3 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
24 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
6 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
9 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
3 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
24 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
4 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
7 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
7 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w EM (2/26W C
22 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
5 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
4 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP
22 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w
5 1x4 2 Lamp Troffer TLED 10w EM
4 Decorative Fixture 2 Lamp CFL 26w (2/26W COMP

Networked Controls System
Dumpster
Engineering
Permit

1 Networked Controls System
1 Dumpster
1 Engineering
1 Permit

54
54
25
25
25
54
54
13
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
54
54
25
25
54
25
25
54

3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520
3,520

2 Lithonia
2 Lithonia
5 Lithonia
3 Lithonia
4 Lithonia
2 Lithonia
2 Lithonia
2 Lithonia
3 Lithonia
3 Lithonia
12 Lithonia
6 Lithonia
5 Lithonia
3 Lithonia
12 Lithonia
4 Lithonia
7 Lithonia
7 Lithonia
22 Lithonia
5 Lithonia
4 Lithonia
22 Lithonia
5 Lithonia
4 Lithonia

CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
LSIXS 4FT ALO3 SWW7 NLTAIR2
LSIX 4FT 3000LM 80CRI 40K FFR SW
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
CPXS 22 E10 NLTAIR2 APIR
CPX 1X4 ALO7 80CRI SWW7 SWL M
CPX 1X4 ALO7 80CRI SWW7 SWL M
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR
CPX 1X4 ALO7 80CRI SWW7 SWL M
CPX 1X4 ALO7 80CRI SWW7 SWL M
CPXS 22 NLTAIR2 APIR

1 Networked Controls System
1 Dumpster
1 Engineering
1 Permit

Networked Controls System
Dumpster
Engineering
Permit

19 Y
19 Y
28 Y
28 Y
25 Y
19 Y
19 Y
19 Y
28 Y
25 Y
28 Y
25 Y
28 Y
25 Y
28 Y
25 Y
19 Y
19 Y
19 Y
19 Y
19 Y
19 Y
19 Y
19 Y

70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%

Electric Incentive Summary
Eversource
Stonington Multi-Building Comprehensive
Project # CT26P03224190, CT25P02873225, CT25P02850532, CT25P02873201
September 10, 2026
This project is eligible for a Tier 3 Comprehensive incentive if all measures in this Exhibit A as well the Gas, Oil, and Propane Exhibit As are
installed as listed for Project # CT26P03224190, CT25P02873225, CT25P02850532, CT25P02873201. Each and every measure must be installed for
the Tier 3 Comprehensive incentive to be paid.
If one or more measure(s) is not installed, only the incentives listed for the installed measure(s) will be paid. If the project’s actual installed cost or the
calculated energy savings differ from the values in this Exhibit A, the amount and level of the incentive will be recalculated.

This recalculation may reduce the incentive. The incentive level for this project is Tier 3 Comprehensive and the calculated incentive for this
project, for all the electric measures included in this Exhibit A is: $36,245.25
The Tier 3 Comprehensive incentive is based on the lesser of 75% of the Project Installed Cost or the Utility Savings Cap. The Tier 3 Comprehensive
incentive is prorated between gas, electric, oil, and propane projects based on annual BTU savings. For this project, the total project incentive is based
on the Utility Savings Cap.
The Single Measure incentive eligibility requirements are listed on each individual Exhibit A.

• Project must have energy savings A system is defined as Gas, Electric, Oil, or Propane impacting Heating; Cooling; Lighting; Process; Domestic
Water Heating; Refrigeration; Motors and Drives

• No one system can have 90% or greater of the value of the project’s annual $ savings
• Each qualifying system must contribute at least 3% of the value of the project’s annual $ savings
• At least 25% of the project’s annual $ savings must be from a retrofit measure
Estimated combined electric, gas, oil, and propane total project cost is: $207,911.19
Estimated electric portion of the total project cost is: $206,647.38

Electric Incentive Summary
Eversource
Stonington Multi-Building Comprehensive
Project # CT26P03224190, CT25P02873225,
CT25P02850532,CT25P02873201
September 10, 2026
Electric Measures Summary Table
Measure

Single Measure
Incentive

1 - (CT26P03224190) SHS High
Performance Lighting

$18,141.50

PAID - (CT25P02873225) West Vine
Street Differential Pressure Reset

$322.80

PAID - (CT25P02873225) West Vine
Street DHW recirculation pumps

$174.21

PAID - (CT25P02873201) SHS High
Efficiency VFD's
PAID - (CT25P02850532) Deans
Mill Differential Pressure
PAID - (CT25P02850532) Deans
Mill DHW recirculation pumps

Total

Tier 3 Comprehensive
Total Project Incentive
Incentive

$4,745.60
$322.80
$195.22

$23,902.13

$12,343.12

$36,245.25

Difference from Single Measure incentive to Tier 3 Comprehensive incentive of $12,343.12 to be paid at the
complete install of all measures.
Summary of Total Project Electric Savings:
Estimated Annual Electric Savings: 48,327 kWh
Summer Demand Savings: 5.5 kW
Winter Demand Savings: 9.9 kW
Estimated Lifetime Electric Savings: 339,545 kWh

Propane Incentive Summary
Eversource
Stonington Multi-Building Comprehensive
Project # CT26P03224190, CT25P02873225, CT25P02850532, CT25P02873201
September 10, 2026
This project is eligible for a Tier 3 Comprehensive incentive if all measures in this Exhibit A as well the Electric, Gas, and Oil Exhibit As are
installed as listed for Project # CT26P03224190, CT25P02873225, CT25P02850532, CT25P02873201. Each and every measure must be
installed for the Tier 3 Comprehensive incentive to be paid.
If one or more measure(s) is not installed, only the incentives listed for the installed measure(s) will be paid. If the project’s actual installed cost
or the calculated energy savings differ from the values in this Exhibit A, the amount and level of the incentive will be recalculated.

This recalculation may reduce the incentive. The incentive level for this project is Tier 3 Comprehensive and the calculated incentive
for this project, for all the propane measures included in this Exhibit A is: $1,263.81
The Tier 3 Comprehensive incentive is based on the lesser of 75% of the Project Installed Cost or the Utility Savings Cap. The Tier 3
Comprehensive incentive is prorated between gas, electric, oil, and propane projects based on annual BTU savings. For this project, the total
project incentive is based on the Utility Savings Cap.
The Single Measure incentive eligibility requirements are listed on each individual Exhibit A.

• Project must have energy savings A system is defined as Gas, Electric, Oil, or Propane impacting Heating; Cooling; Lighting; Process;
Domestic Water Heating; Refrigeration; Motors and Drives

• No one system can have 90% or greater of the value of the project’s annual $ savings
• Each qualifying system must contribute at least 3% of the value of the project’s annual $ savings
• At least 25% of the project’s annual $ savings must be from a retrofit measure
Estimated combined electric, gas, oil, and propane total project cost is: $207,911.19
Estimated propane portion of the total project cost is: $1,263.81

Propane Incentive Summary
Eversource
Stonington Multi-Building Comprehensive
Project # CT26P03224190, CT25P02873225,
CT25P02850532,CT25P02873201
September 10, 2026
Propane Measures Summary Table
Measure
PAID - (CT25P02873225)
West Vine Street DHW
recirculation pumps
PAID - (CT25P02850532)
Deans Mill DHW
recirculation pumps

Total

Single Measure
Incentive

Tier 3 Comprehensive
Total Project Incentive
Incentive

$331.85

$295.26

$627.11

$636.70

$1,263.81

Difference from Single Measure incentive to Tier 3 Comprehensive incentive of $636.70 to be paid at
the complete install of all measures.
Summary of Total Project Propane Savings:
Estimated Annual Propane Savings: 444 Gal
Estimated Lifetime Propane Savings: 4,440 Gal

Eversource Municipal Financing Estimate and Summary
This Municipal Financing Estimate and Summary is based on the submitted application and is intended to clearly outline
the financing offerings available at the time of project Letter of Agreement (LOA) execution. As an Estimate, it is subject
to change based on scope adjustments during construction. Any major project scope changes must be communicated
immediately to the Eversource EEC as listed on page 1 of the LOA. The final loan balance and monthly payment shall be
determined at the completion of the project.
Eversource Municipal Financing Offering and Caps:
0% On-Bill Financing
6% On-Bill Financing
Municipal Buildings

60 months up to $1M*

Board of Education Buildings

60 months up to $1M*

For loan terms greater than 60
months (i.e. 60 -84 months) and
amounts greater than $1M. Up to
shared cap of 5M **

To ensure enough on-bill financing is available and not to exceed caps listed above, the Customer may request a
total loan balance at the time of project development and/or LOA issuance. The sum of on-bill financing includes
any existing loans and is determined as a rolling fund to account for ongoing monthly payments.
Remaining Eligible 0% On-Bill Financing Amount per Above $1M/$1M Caps as of the date of this LOA
(not including the loan estimate for this project)
Municipal Buildings
$
1,000,000.00
Board of Education Buildings
$
1,000,000.00
Project Financing Estimates
Project Name
Project Number
Name of Borrower
Principal Place of Project Construction
Municipal or BOE
Project Cost
Monthly Payment

Stonington High School
CT26P03224190
Stonington Public Schools
176 S BROAD ST PAWCATUCK, CT 06379
BOE

$153,518.10
$2,039.95

Incentive
No. Months

$31,121.32

0% on-bill financing costs for this project covered by the EE Fund in support of this
project:

Loan Amount

$122,396.78

60

$17,559.04

Formal Loan Agreement is executed at project completion.
*Funding beyond the 1M for Municipal Buildings and 1M for BOE buildings may be requested on a case-by-case basis. Credit rating,
on-time bill payment, and incidents of utility bill late fees will be considered in evaluating loan eligibility.
**Municipalities that have an “A” credit rating qualify for up to $5M on bill.

TOWN OF STONINGTON
BOARD OF FINANCE MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, September 2, 2026
Stonington Police Department Meeting Room
173 South Broad Street, Pawcatuck
7:00 PM
A meeting of the Board of Finance was held on this date at the Stonington Police Department
Meeting Room. Members present included Ms. Danielle Chesebrough, Mr. Chris Johnson, Mr.
Mike Serra, Mr. Bill Sternberg (Chairman), and Mr. Eugene Winchester. Mr. David Brown and
Mr. Paul G. Sartor (Secretary) were unable to attend.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Additional Agenda Items:
● Chairman Sternberg noted the need to add an item to the agenda for a Ventrac mowing
tractor in the amount of $40,280.00. A motion was made by Mr. Winchester and
seconded by Mr. Serra. Passed unanimously
Comments from the Public: (There were none)
Additional Appropriation Requests: (There were none)
Request from Captain Schneider to reprogram surplus Port Security Grant funds for
miscellaneous boat repairs, plus $10,000 from trade-in of old motors.
● Captain Bryan Schneider appeared before the Board regarding the marine patrol unit
engine and stability collar replacement projects, which were completed under budget this
past winter. The original FEMA Port Security Grant carried $110,000.00 and a 25% town
match. Captain Schneider explained that he needs to request an amendment from FEMA
to reprogram residual grant funds for an additional project: replacing the boat's non-skid
decking for $18,000.00, utilizing remaining federal funds alongside the 25% town match
already allotted through CIP. Additionally, the department obtained $5,000.00 per engine
($10,000.00 total) in trade-in value returned to the town, which Captain Schneider
requested to apply toward ongoing vessel maintenance, including trailer work and
window gasket seals. He noted the 2013 boat remains in better condition than most in the
region, with electronics having been replaced under a separate grant a few years ago.
● Chairman Sternberg asked for clarification on the remaining federal balance. Mr. Jim
Sullivan reported $16,141.00 remaining in federal funds and $5,380.00 in the Town CIP
budget representing the 25% match, totaling approximately $31,000.00 available when
combined with the $10,000.00 trade-in credit. Chairman Sternberg asked if a formal
motion and vote were required to proceed. Mr. Sullivan clarified that a formal vote was
not necessary, but rather the Board's blessing to continue to utilize the CIP funds and
move forward with the FEMA amendment. Chairman Sternberg noted that $31,000.00 is
available for vessel maintenance. All board members agreed with no objections. Mr.
1

Winchester thanked Captain Schneider for seeking out the grant funding for the projects.
Captain Schneider stated that $16,000.00 in federal money is sitting available with nine
months remaining in the grant cycle, and utilizing it now will prevent having to request
operating or CIP funds during the next budget cycle. The Board voiced general
agreement, and Captain Schneider confirmed he will keep the Board updated on the
status of the FEMA amendment.
Update from Captain Schneider regarding town wide radio project, several pending grants, and
update on outstanding issues facing the SPD.
● Captain Bryan Schneider also provided an update on the progress and challenges
associated with transitioning the entire town onto the State of Connecticut radio system,
including police, fire, EMS, and town departments, replacing the obsolete municipal
network. Captain Schneider reported that Stonington Public Schools and all town
departments are fully operating on the state system, and local fire and EMS agencies
were patched in between the old and new systems the week prior to enable crosscommunication while fire districts shoulder the bulk of equipment upgrades within their
own districts. Stonington has expended approximately $161,000.00 to date across all
town departments, comparing favorably to Groton receiving over $900,000.00 in grant
funding for their fire and EMS transition. Dispatch center radio consoles will reach
scheduled end-of-life in 2029 which are estimated at $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 to
replace, toward which $100,000.00 was previously set aside in capital reserves.
● Captain Schneider discussed two pending grant opportunities. The first is an application
through Congressman Courtney’s office to fund a microwave link to an off-site tower
reducing reliance on the current single overhead fiber line that could sever
communication, which would fund on-site work while leaving the town to cover off-site
tower costs estimated at 45% of the project, roughly $200,000.00. He believes the grant
will be approved or denied in January of 2027. The second opportunity is an awarded
Nuclear Safety Fund grant in which the department is hesitant to accept the funds without
plans in place or knowing whether the other grant will be approved or not. Additionally,
Captain Schneider reported that a May 2026 lightning strike destroyed much of their
radio equipment. The equipment was determined to be non-repairable, requiring an
insurance claim for the costs nearing $70,000.00, though he does not believe the claim
will fulfill the entire cost.
● Mr. Winchester asked about past issues regarding line-of-sight to the correct radio
towers, and which towers the department would use. Captain Schneider confirmed viable
paths to towers in Ledyard and North Stonington, though regional dispatch centers are
competing for available tower real estate. Captain Schneider highlighted severe inbuilding radio dead zones in the Upper Liberty Street corridor where major residential
developments are, noting that though they are exploring options in terms of installing a
new tower, it will take a lot of coordination and people to do so. He also noted that he is
at the edge of his knowledge in radio work, citing that he is not in the position to manage
that project, though he is looking ahead to where the budget will come from to hire a
consultant. Ms. Chesebrough asked the Captain what he thought the timeline looked like,
to which he stated a consultant would be needed soon to coordinate between the state and
North Stonington. Mr. Johnson asked if the radio coverage would only be for the police
department, and whether the board could expend some of the original $100,000.00 and
push the timeline back for the dispatch consoles. Captain Schneider confirmed that fire
2

and EMS would ultimately benefit from the enhanced coverage, and clarified that the
timeline would not be able to be pushed back as they are on borrowed equipment from
the state in order to push the project to where it is now. Mr. Sullivan asked whether
building codes could require developers to install repeaters in large buildings, to which
Captain Schneider explained that fire codes permit it, though implementing and
maintaining 40+ individual amplifiers poses an overwhelming maintenance burden for
the town when compared to a single tower site. Ms. Chesebrough asked if developers
could contribute to a shared funding pool as well to fund the project.
● Mr. Jay DelGrosso, Chief of Police, also emphasized that radio communication is a
critical life-safety issue and that parts of the town system have failed six to eight times
during his tenure, often on weekends or holidays. Chief DelGrosso explained that
proposed housing developments could increase the town’s baseline population by 12% to
15%, requiring an additional five to six police officers, and stressed that the town should
hire a consultant to determine actual infrastructure needs rather than pulling police
administration away from law enforcement duties. Mr. Johnson later inquired what the
timeline is surrounding the population increase percentage, to which Chief DelGrosso
added that he is averaging all the new buildings, coming to around a 3-year timeline for
the increase. Chief DelGrosso noted he submitted a letter to Planning & Zoning and
requested a meeting with the First Selectman, and that it is an important time for the town
to work together on the project. Chairman Sternberg asked about the cost of a consultant.
Captain Schneider explained that he hopes to get a ballpark figure in the coming month,
but that the project is looking to total around $2,000,000.00. Chairman Sternberg stated
the immediate starting point is determining the cost to hire a consultant, to which Captain
Schneider agreed. Mr. Winchester stated that the town shouldn’t be encouraging growth
without also ensuring access to essential services, to which Chief DelGrosso replied that
the department is ringing the bell. Ms. Chesebrough thanked the department and stated
that hiring a consultant is long overdue. A member of the public commented that when
engaging a consultant, the Town should ensure modern protection for
telecommunications are put in place, that lightning shouldn’t be eliminating important
systems for emergency services.
Bid Waiver Requests:
● Bid waiver request from IT Manager for bid waiver to purchase “Security Information
and Event Management (SIEM) Software” for $21,178.00.
o Mr. Roger Kizer, IT manager, explained that the SIEM software was
recommended by the State of CT to fill gaps in cybersecurity preparedness,
allowing the town to monitor each network switch, database, and web
applications simultaneously in the event of cyber-attacks. He noted the purchase
is in conjunction with an awarded cybersecurity grant, requiring a town share of
just over $3,000.00 of the cost. Motion to approve the bid waiver in the amount of
$21,178.00. Moved by Mr. Winchester, Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Ms.
Chesebrough, Mr. Serra, and Mr. Winchester, thanked Mr. Kizer, who noted that
Stonington was the only municipality to apply during round two of the grant
program. Mr. Johnson inquired regarding recurring costs, to which Mr. Kizer
3

clarified that the purchase includes three years of oversight, but couldn’t comment
on total recurring costs to the town. Unanimous approval.
● Bid waiver request from Captain Schneider to purchase an Emergency Response Trailer,
from Start Safety, Inc., for $26,298.50.
o Captain Schneider stated that multiple pricing requests went out, and the lower of
the two initial responses was Start Safety, Inc. for $26,298.50. However, after
submitting his request, National Highway Products responded with a quote of
$24,250.00 for identical equipment, stating that he had a copy of the quote and
was agreeable to accepting the lower price. Chairman Sternberg called a motion
to amend the bid waiver request to the new quote of $24,250.00 with National
Highway Products. Ms. Chesebrough motioned, seconded by Mr. Johnson.
Unanimous approval. Chairman Sternberg then called a motion to approve the bid
waiver request as amended. Mr. Winchester motioned, seconded by Mr. Johnson.
Unanimous approval.
● Bid waiver request from Public Works Director to extend previous bid waiver granted for
paving, to Ed French and Son, Inc. by $950,000.00.
o Mr. Tom Curioso, Director of Public Works, requested an extension to the
previous bid waiver granted for paving by the allotted amount to continue full
depth paving under an extended contract. Mr. Winchester questioned the contract
figures, to which Mr. Sullivan clarified that the exhibit noted by Mr. Winchester
reflected an earlier bid waiver, and that the requested bid waiver is being added to
the amount to total roughly $1,900,000.00. Chairman Sternberg requested a
motion to approve the bid waiver request. Mr. Winchester motioned, seconded by
Mr. Serra. Unanimous approval.
● Bid waiver request from Public Works Director to contract for annual services for road
salt, crack sealing, and jetting of drainage pipelines.
o Mr. Curioso also presented a bid waiver request to contract for the abovementioned annual services. He noted that when the request was originally
prepared, the quotes had not yet returned. For road salt, the DPW requested Leed
Salt Inc. at $97.00 per ton, while Morton Salt was the low bidder at just under
$96.00 per ton with essentially identical products, though Leed was selected to
ensure the salt shed would stay full after Morton struggled to fulfill deliveries
during last winter’s storms. For Crack Sealing, they originally requested National
Water Main Cleaning but the company failed to communicate with them. They
are requesting to use Royal Flush for the project instead. Mr. Chris Greenlaw,
town engineer, stated that the incentive to use Royal Flush was twofold. First,
entering basins requires confined-space training, where Royal Flush instead has
the proprietary equipment to jet rod, clean out sediment, and camera the pipe
4

entirely on one schedule. He noted that they also have the capability to line the
pipe, though they would make a separate request if they needed to do so. Second,
the quote supports value engineering components of their projects, namely the
aging box culvert in the 4th district that is beginning to fail. Royal Flush would be
able to clean and video the culvert so the town may assess the data and prepare a
bid to install a liner rather than a full replacement. Mr. Greenlaw noted his
discussions with the WPCA to decant leeching. While the DPW initially
requested a minimum of $45,000.00, Mr. Greenlaw expressed that he would like
to pursue a higher amount in order to break two-part projects down into one
treatment with one company. Their conversations surround the cost savings of
repair rather than replacement. Chairman Sternberg asked if the board could
approve $45,000.00 at tonight’s meeting and if the DPW could return in October
for more funds if needed. Mr. Curioso and Mr. Greenlaw responded that
additional complaints are coming in, and that they would rather keep the
contractor mobilized rather than having to break equipment down and come back
at a later date. They also maintained that a maximum threshold of $100,000
would be enough to keep the projects going if necessary. Mr. Winchester added
that if the town is pleased with the vendor, perhaps an annual maintenance
program could be established. Chairman Sternberg asked for a motion to approve
the bid waiver request, with the change from $45,000.00 to a maximum of
$100,000.00. Ms. Chesebrough motioned, seconded by Mr. Winchester. Mr.
Johnson asked how much salt would be purchased. Mr. Curioso stated that the
exact tonnage depends on winter severity, but 1,500 tons is a round estimate to
represent 75% of what they use. Unanimous approval.
● Bid waiver request from Public Works Director for the purchase of a Ventrac mowing
tractor in the amount of $40,202.80.
o Mr. Curioso explained that the legislature changed the rules on how Town Aid
Road funding could be allocated this year, allowing municipalities to use grant
funds to purchase and maintain equipment for street sweeping, roadside mowing,
raking, paving, and snow and ice removal. He noted that having the tool would be
very helpful as an extra, experimental piece of equipment to undergo those tasks.
He also mentioned that the attachments cross-pollinate with the DPW’s existing
Ventrac, which currently has 1500 hours and is used daily. He added that
mechanical mowing on slopes and around guardrails is far safer than walk-behind
mowers, preventing injuries and poison ivy exposure, also eliminating chemical
spraying. He emphasized that the bigger takeaway is the new ability to utilize the
road funds. Motion to approve the full amount. Moved first by Mr. Winchester,
seconded by Mr. Serra. Mr. Johnson asked whether the equipment had been
previously identified in the CIP schedule, to which Mr. Curioso clarified that it
was not in CIP and represents the aid funding rather than paving money. Mr.
5

Sullivan noted the current accumulated town reserves in the amount of $1.46
million over five years. Unanimous approval.
Approval of Previous Minutes.
● 08/05/26 Special Meeting Minutes
o No comments. Chairman Sternberg motioned to approve. Motion made first by
Mr. Serra, seconded by Mr. Johnson. Unanimous approval.
Preliminary 27/28 budget presentation discussion:
● Chairman Sternberg opened the discussion with concerns over the formatting of both the
school and town budgets for the coming year. Mr. Winchester referenced an article from
the New York Times reporting that healthcare costs are expected to rise at the fastest rate
in over 20 years, with estimates between 8% and 11%, which will heavily impact
budgeting. Regarding the BOE materials, Mr. Winchester stated that the three columns
presented weren’t helpful because the underlying budgeting premise uses the current
approved budget as a baseline, upon which the superintendent then layers additional
funding requests. This creates a permanent escalator for their department, one that isn’t
present anywhere else in the town. He added that if the BOE could review its basic
premise to be a more productive discussion when they ask for additional money.
● Chairman Sternberg commented that his concern with how the budget was presented was
that the naming of the columns for ongoing services was highly confusing, that
contractual services were built in with changes in staffing. He requested that they see last
year’s budget with contractual increases broken out first to establish a baseline, followed
by discussions on where changes were needed. Mr. Sternberg also mentioned that with
the town budget, the page layout is jammed with print too small for some to read, noting
that three-dimensional graphs seem to hide data and that they should explore returning to
two-dimensional graphs. He further noted that though there were some significant
increases to the budget last year, the BOF is typically targeting where the budget is
compared to the consumer price index. He recalled a conversation with the first
selectman regarding how much revenue will come in alongside how expenses will go up;
whether the town would see an influx of students or not. Mr. Winchester agreed with the
Chairman regarding the proposal of contractual increases that are immovable and
comparing that to additional, discretionary spending. He noted that since Mr. Serra was
liaison, if there could be a reasoned argument to support the BOE, it would be a much
better discussion with less frustration between people. As an example, Mr. Winchester
cited the proposal to align the two elementary schools so students change classes in fifth
grade to acclimate to middle school, though one of the schools would require additional
staffing to do so. He stated that showing empirical data of that benefit to the students
before raising the budget would prevent conflict. He also mentioned that he inquired last
year if there was enough money in the health insurance reserve after the town released
6

$500,000.00 but never received an answer whether excess funds exist to offset cost
increases.
● Ms. Chesebrough suggested for the town side that department heads come before the
board during regular meetings in the coming months to provide overviews of complex
projects as Captain Schneider has done with his update on the radio project, rather than
attempting to cram all the information into budget hearings. She also recommended that a
small group of Board members meet informally with BOE leadership and the
superintendent, keeping within legal limits to avoid quorum issues, in order to facilitate
more positive dialogue before the budget cycle begins, noting that health insurance
reserve questions could be handled as a separate follow-up.
Correspondence:
● The board reviewed an email inquiry from Emma Grunwald of The Westerly Sun
regarding the Route 1 multi-use trail design funding approved at the August 5th meeting.
Chairman Sternberg noted he spoke the reporter. Ms. Chesebrough and Mr. Sullivan
confirmed they had both spoken with Ms. Grunwalk, as well, to answer her questions. No
further discussion or action was taken.
Comments from BOE members:
● Mr. Johnson reported on the K-12 Building Committee, noting the committee is still
awaiting demographic data. He reported a productive discussion with a representative
from Gilbane, who provided rough preliminary costs based on options received from the
BOE. Moving the eighth grade to the high school is estimated at approximately
$10,000,000, and constructing a new middle school on existing land is estimated at
$80,000,000. Mr. Johnson stated that the next step is working with a consultant to
schedule community discussions to garner public sentiment and narrow down options for
the middle school.
● Chairman Sternberg reported that he spoke with Deborah Downie regarding hiring an
architect, noting that he found prior elementary school proposals that contained extensive
details regarding trade-off analyses. He noted that after speaking with Mr. Sullivan, they
determined an RFQ process is not strictly required for hiring an architect, though the
State of CT requires a full RFP process once a project advances to actual school
construction. He also noted the K-12 Building Committee will likely submit a funding
request for consulting soon. Finally, he mentioned that a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the
Mystic River Boathouse Park would take place on Saturday, September 19th 2026 at
10:00 a.m., noting that the newly installed sod is establishing very well following the
recent rain.
Liaison Reports: (there were none)
Comments from BOF Members: (there were none)
7

Chairman Sternberg made a motion to adjourn. Motioned first by Mr. Winchester, seconded by
Mr. Johnson. At 8:23 p.m., the meeting was adjourned with unanimous approval.

Ben D’Onofrio Recording Secretary

8

9/29/2026
To the Board of Finance:
For the last two months I’ve been learning as much as I can about Flock
and all other Automated License Plate Readers. And every day I learn a
little more, but what I am learning more than anything is that what we don’t
know about this technology and its ramifications far outweigh what we do
know.
In Stonington, we don’t know when these cameras went up. We don’t know
the reasoning behind their locations or their positioning. We don’t know
anything about any of the 14 cameras that are installed across our town.
The police did not talk much publicly in advance of getting these cameras
and didn’t talk publicly until the Sept. 23 Board of Selectmen meeting.
It’s the plethora of the unknown that leads me and many others in our
community to urge the town to hit the pause button - including on funding on these cameras until we can have full transparency. The where, when,
why and how questions need to be answered publicly. The full ramifications
of this technology and the fact it is controlled by a private company that
itself is obtuse and obstructionist need to be fully explored.
Are we safer with these cameras? In Atlanta, Ga. - the most surveilled city
in America with 28,000+ cameras across multiple platforms including
5,000+ Flocks - crime clearance rates have not meaningfully increased with
these devices, according to data collected by the FBI. Despite the eightfold
growth of Atlanta’s cameras between 2021 and 2026, their clearance rate
across eight major crime categories has remained relatively unchanged.
For decades, the officers in the Stonington police department have kept
citizens safe and solved crimes through traditional methods. As technology
evolves, the temptation to add every new bell and whistle is real. ALPRs
are shiny, flashy bells and whistles. But are they truly needed in our

community to keep citizens safe and solve crimes? Are they worth the
money? I say no. So do many others.
Norwich and Putnam both have "Flock transparency portals" on their
websites. Stonington does not. Other neighboring towns are halting the
Flock cameras - most recently East Lyme and Ledyard. Stonington is not.
More than 150 communities nationwide have moved to reject, ban, or
deactivate ALPR systems, including Boston and Los Angeles. Closer to
home, Killingworth and Windsor have turned off their cameras permanently.
We sent Stonington PD an FOI request to get this information and we
received some preliminary data. Here are some numbers:
● In 2025, Stonington recorded 234 crimes in total.
● According to Stonington PD, 424 Flock searches were conducted by
the department in the month of June alone.
● 57 members of the department have authorized access to Flock.
● According to the department, they’ve had 57 “Flock success stories”
with no dates attached.
● Of those 57, there were 17 arrests for car theft, vandalism, and
burglary among others. But again we have no time frame for those
Flock “successes.”
Seventeen arrests. Would these arrests have happened without Flock? It’s
hard to know because the role Flock played in each of them is not provided
in detail.
Now let’s talk about money. Each Flock camera in town (14 in total) costs
$3,000 annually. We know this from an invoice dated 7/2/25 for $24,000 for
8 cameras. An 8/20/2025 invoice for 4 cameras totals $12,000. So 14
cameras is $42,000 a year, assuming the price doesn’t go up (it always
goes up, so far 20% percent annually). It’s unclear what the supporting
software costs.

What we know in terms of cost to taxpayers to run a private company’s
comprehensive warrantless mass surveillance system across our
community is the following:
~ A 4/5/23 Board of Finance agenda shows a “Request from Chief of Police
to transfer a total of $21,400 from two PO prior year ClP accounts to fund
service contract with Flock Safety. $4,000 from “Animal Control Vehicle”
$17,400 from “Radio Replacement” to Police Facility Camera System.
Don’t forget the body cams and the cruiser dashboard ALPRs:
~ A 12/16/2024 60-month agreement with AXON costs taxpayers
$715,182.96. Note that built-in cost increases are included:
~Jul 2025 $132,042
~Jul 2026 $137,323
~Jul 2027 $142,816
~Jul 2028 $148,529
~Jul 2029 $154,470
This includes body cams (required by state law), cameras in cruisers, and
Tasers plus all supporting software.
Prior to Oct. 1, Stonington provided access to its Flock data to 221
governmental and other agencies - including Home Depot Corp.
According to Stonington, it shared Flock data with departments in all New
England states, all mid-Atlantic states and departments in Florida, Penn.,
Indiana, Georgia, Delaware and Texas. It’s important to understand that
Florida uses Flock for immigration purposes and Texas uses Flock to track
women who are seeking reproductive health care out of state. The new
Oct. 1 state law will take care of some of this broad sharing - or will it?

We are right to be concerned. No one knows the full cost to taxpayers. No
one understands where this data lives in perpetuity or who can access it or
who owns it. No one understands what it means that the Flock AI can
create a “pattern of life” for any license plate it records.
So let’s hit pause on funding this data collection. Let’s take a collective
community breath and work to figure out what ALPRs mean for our
community, our state, our country and our rights as Americans. Do they
make us safer? Do they make our community better? You have the
opportunity to listen to what the community is saying - what the taxpayers
are saying. We are still far from having the answers to these questions and
many many more.
Sincerely,
Elissa Bass
203 N Main St
Stonington CT

James Sullivan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

jessica morrissey <[email protected]>
Tuesday, September 29, 2026 11:14 AM
BOF; Bill Middleton; Deborah Norman; AMY NICOLAS; MICHAEL SCHEFERS; Jay DelGrosso; Stacey
Haskell; Scott Muller
Elissa Bass; Kevin Rogers; Cathy Marco
FLOCK

CauƟon! This message was sent from outside the Town of Stonington.
Please Take IMMEDIATE AcƟon to DisconƟnue the Use of FLOCK Surveillance in the Town of Stonington.
Jessica Morrissey
hƩps://us-east2.protecƟon.sophos.com?d=facebook.com&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmFjZWJvb2suY29tL3NoYXJlL3AvMUN0bXhZVGZzdS8
_bWliZXh0aWQ9d3dYSWZy&p=m&i=NWNmN2IyOThkZjk1YWExMTBjYTkwMzJh&t=aGZacCt1Q3VWRmgveXRKMnd4ano
4V0c3bWhnZ1hkWktPYTQ1VDc5RHpYMD0=&h=1229dcc5477c45c2b76ef1d5a799e209&s=AVNPUEhUT0NFTkNSWVBUS
VYDowE8MIsOoPEhMgqXilidLrosHcNl_y2qyL_Uo-UTdg
Sent from my iPhone

1

James Sullivan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Thomas Gram <[email protected]>
Tuesday, September 29, 2026 6:08 PM
BOF
Flock cameras

CauƟon! This message was sent from outside the Town of Stonington.
Please understand that I will vote against any budget that countries to pay a private company with a long list of
consƟtuƟonal violaƟons and prone to misuse. The cameras must be removed Regards Thomas Gram Sent from my
IPhone

1