All towns · sau-16

ESD School Board Draft Minutes 8-3-2026.pdf

Document

Unapproved Draft Minutes 
1 
EXETER SCHOOL BOARD  
Un-approved minutes of the meeting held on August 3, 2026 
Action on the minutes will be taken at the Board’s next meeting 
 
The Exeter School Board held a special meeting on Monday August 3, 2026. 
 
PRESENT: School Board Members: Heather Ikemire, Kathleen Pratt, Tim Reed, and Shonni 
Holmes 
 
ABSENT: Patrick O’Day 
 
Administration: Assistant Superintendent Alison Bryant, Assistant Finance Director Michelle 
Larson, Facilities Director Travis Thompson 
 
1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance 
a. Ms. Ikemire called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM. She led the Board and the 
public in the Pledge of Allegiance.  
 
2. Public Input 
a. Ms. Ikemire “started the clock” for public input for 30 minutes at 6:03 PM. 
b. Laura Knott, the parent of an incoming Kindergartener and 2nd grader at MSS, 
spoke about device use in elementary schools. Ms. Knott said studies have 
shown the negative impact of one-to-one devices such as iPads or 
Chromebooks: weaker motor skills, emotional dysregulation, reduced attention 
span, and making learning more difficult. She’s also concerned about the 
District's use of iReady. In Dec 2025, California parents sued iReady’s parent 
company for unlawfully collecting student data without parental consent and 
sharing it with third-party applications like Google Analytics. There is needless 
use of ed tech and screen time. She would like to see a committee formed to 
study computer use in classrooms and provide the Board policy and behavioral 
recommendations.  
 
3. Central Office Update 
a. Director of Facilities: Proposed Unitil LED Light Project at LSS 
Director of Facilities Travis Thompson was present to discuss this item. 
Mr. Thompson said an opportunity was presented to LSS to look into converting 
the lighting into LED lighting. It has been done in East Kingston, Main Street 
School, Swasey Central, and School Street. This would replace all light fixtures 
with more efficient LED fixtures and incorporate solar harvesting to automatically 
dim and brighten depending on the sun coming through the windows. We had 
two bids and couldn’t get a third, but Chris [Andriski] was ok with proceeding.  
 If we move forward, Unitil will work with our company LED Connects, but 
the project has to be done by the end of the calendar year. The project quote is 
$195,337 for Lincoln Street. Part of Unitil’s electric bills go into a fund for energy 

2 
projects, and they are proposing to pay $155,229 of the cost from that fund. We 
would have to pay $40,507. Unitil will offer 0% “on-bill” financing for our portion 
and it will show up on our electric bill. He thinks we can do the financing for 
between one and ten years, but he will confirm tomorrow. Unitil has given us the 
official document, we just need to tell them to move forward. The timing isn’t 
great because we’re rushing to get this done by the end of the year. If we say 
“go” tonight, he can be in touch with them tomorrow morning. LED Connects can 
start ordering everything they need tomorrow. He was told that all of the 
equipment is ready to be shipped here, although some of it may have been 
bought in the interim. He’s confident the majority of the classrooms and hallways 
could be done before the school year starts. Anything after the start of school, 
they could do nights and weekends work. He’s confident the project will be fully 
complete in September or October. It should have minimal impact on students.  
Mr. Thompson said Main Street School had this done in 2020. Their 
actual electric bill for 2020 was $43,000. In FY21, it went down to $32,600; in 
FY23, $33,700; in FY24, $21,600; in FY25, $15,800. He added that teachers 
must adjust the light level manually at Main Street School, but the Lincoln Street 
School system would adjust automatically. 
Mr. Thompson said the project cost is $197,737. Unitil is offering 
$155,229. We would have to finance or take from our Trust Fund $40,507. With 
on-bill financing for two years, we would instantly be cash-flow positive. The 
monthly payment for financing would be $1,687, while the savings would be 
$1,750 each month. We could go out to ten years and we would be $1,400 per 
month cash flow positive. This is estimating a 1.6 cent rate. The cost per kilowatt 
hour is 0.6 cents now. In November, rates are going up to 1.055 cents per KWH. 
We will still see an annual savings of $20,000. The Board should decide whether 
to move forward and how to finance it.  
Ms. Ikemire asked if we can get it in writing that the contractor won’t 
charge us overtime for nights and weekends. Mr. Thompson said yes. 
Mr. Reed asked about the benefits to students and families. Mr. 
Thompson said this would be brighter and more natural light than the 
fluorescents. The brightening and dimming will make for a more comfortable 
learning environment. The energy efficiency is for all of our taxpayers in the 
community.  
Ms. Holmes asked if with the disruption of tiles anything would need to be 
remediated. Mr. Thompson said no. There's nothing we would need to abate that 
he’s aware of. We’ve been doing the blue light project and it would be very 
similar. He added that there won’t be any conflict between those two projects.  
Ms. Pratt asked whether there's no charge difference depending on how 
long we finance it. Mr. Thompson said that’s correct, there's no interest fee. All 
the utilities are doing similar things. The project has to be complete by the end of 
the calendar year. There may not be money next year, or not as much of an 
incentive. Most of the time they cover 50%, this time it’s closer to 80%. 

3 
Ms. Ikemire said MSS, this is without the light adjusting automatically; the 
savings here could be even more significant. What is the maintenance cost of 
replacing LED bulbs rather than fluorescents? Mr. Thompson said the LED lights 
should last a lot longer. They’re probably more expensive, but he can find out.  
Ms. Ikemire asked Ms. Larson to talk about the financing options. Ms. 
Larson said she would go with the bill-on financing. Money from the Trust is 
earning money. If this is 0%, that’s a no-brainer. She recommended looking at a 
term of three to five years. We get three-year lock-ins on the electrical rate, and 
our lock-in ends in November. There is a significant increase for the next three 
years. We will probably want a little bit of a buffer. 
Ms. Holmes moved to accept the proposal to move forward with the LED lighting 
project. Ms. Pratt seconded. The motion passed 4-0. 
 
 
Mr. Reed suggested a term of five years. Ms. Ikemire asked why Ms. 
Larson recommended three. Ms. Larson said three was the break-even point of 
putting it on the bill. Mr. Thompson said he thinks the estimate took into account 
a very high rate. Two to three years will be a significant payback on the project. 
By not using the Trust, that keeps that money in your pocket for the unforeseen. 
Ms. Larson said we’ve been staying under budget on lighting.  
Mr. Thompson said the Trust is a backup for Facilities and Maintenance, 
and we have water in the gym right now at Main Street.  
 
Ms. Holmes asked about a penalty for deciding to pay it off from the Trust 
at a later date. Mr. Thompson said he can find out. Ms. Holmes asked if the rates 
will shift back down again or if this is an increase they will hold to for the 
foreseeable future. Mr. Thompson said he spoke with the negotiation company. 
We make a number of hedges through the years which are incorporated. This is 
what they see based on their market analysis. Unitil decides what they charge for 
delivery, which is in addition to the cost of the power. Three years ago, energy 
costs were very low, but now it’s the opposite. There has been dramatic growth 
of data centers.  
 
Ms. Holmes asked if we could do a six-year term. If we’re locked in for 
three years and then again for three years, we could get more savings if the rates 
do increase. Even if our rate goes up dramatically in the second term, it would 
still even out. Mr. Thompson said if we did two years, in year two we would be 
$62.40 cents ahead.  
 
Ms. Pratt asked why we would do a term of three to five years. Ms. 
Larson said we wanted to get to the point where we were breaking even, and 
create a cushion for the rate increase itself. Ms. Pratt asked why not to do longer. 
Mr. Thompson said it’s up to the Board. Ms. Ikemire said she doesn’t see the 
benefit of extending it too long. Mr. Reed said it keeps the monthly rate down 
over time.  
 
The Board asked Mr. Thompson to reach out to Leeds Burchard of LED 
Conversions. Mr. Thompson called him during the meeting. Mr. Thompson asked 
Mr. Burchard if there is any type of pre-payment penalty if the Board chooses to 

4 
finance for five years, and after three pay it off. Mr. Burchard said he didn’t know. 
Mr. Thompson asked if the project cost of $195,000 includes nights and 
weekends with no overtime or additional charges. Mr. Burchard said it’s included, 
there are no additional charges.  
Mr. Thompson said he would find out from Unitil tomorrow about any pre-
payment penalties.  
Mr. Thompson said the full scope of the project is $195,737.19. Mr. Reed 
suggested a term of ten years. Ms. Holmes said that’s a long time and a lot of 
Boards to hold onto this. Ms. Pratt said we decide things that future Boards have 
to deal with all the time. Ten years sounds like a long time, but there's no interest 
and we may have the ability to pay it off whenever we want. If we can’t pre-pay, 
we could go three years, because that’s when we’d break even. Mr. Reed asked 
if the Board can do a motion not to exceed a certain amount, and opt for on-bill 
financing for five years if it can be pre-paid and three years if not. Then we don’t 
need to come back for another meeting. Mr. Thompson said he doesn’t know if 
other schools have gone out to ten years. That’s a long time. We’ll have to give 
some money back or adjust the budgets every year if the payments go down.  
 
Mr. Reed made a motion to fund the LSS LED system project with the interest-free 
on-bill financing plan with Unitil not to exceed $195,737.19. This is either over six 
years if there is no penalty for paying the balance after the financing begins, or for 
three years, if there is a penalty. Ms. Pratt seconded. The motion passed 4-0.  
 
 
 
Ms. Ikemire closed public comment at 6:51 PM.  
 
4. Non-Public Session 
a. There was no non-public session at this time.  
 
5. Adjournment 
Ms. Ikemire made a motion to adjourn at 6:51 PM. Ms. Pratt seconded. The motion 
passed 4-0.  
 
Respectfully Submitted, 
Joanna Bartell 
Recording Secretary