(Heather Pach) There are many variables that go into these numbers, most outside the control of the Board of Education. What can be stated clearly is the total project cost being sent to referendum, the amount of grant funding, the net result to taxpayers, and the current split of that result between the towns, based on the current enrollment split.
There are many factors that can impact the final amount to the taxpayer, but one of the most significant right now is reassessments. While Haddam has had theirs, Killingworth will have theirs in the next year. The BOE has no way of knowing what an individual’s end result will be due to variables such as home condition, improvements, comparative sales, etc. This type of information, and how it will ultimately impact the mill rate in Killingworth are factors that are outside the purview of the RSD17 BOE. So, estimates for Haddam are based on a property value of $472,000, while the estimates for Killingworth are based on a $300,000 home. With these factors in place the ESTIMATED total over the 25 years of bonds for a homeowner in Haddam in a $472,000 home would be $18,230 and for a homeowner in Killingworth in a $300,000 home would be $13,185. As we showed in our presentation, this will start slowly, peak in Year Six and then taper off again.
(Devlin) 2. Clearly, a big concern for the high school is the HVAC system. It is 52 years old. Please provide an estimate on how much the district can save in energy costs by updating the HVAC system under this proposal.
(Pach) At this early concept stage, the proposed renovations and additions have not yet been fully designed or energy‑modelled. To provide the District with a responsible preliminary estimate, QA+M Architecture and our engineering partners made conservative assumptions about improvements, including added insulation at exterior walls and roofs and full replacement of the existing windows with modern, thermally-efficient systems.
Using the school’s recent utility billing data, the engineers performed a preliminary energy‑usage evaluation. The existing building relies on 52‑year‑old oil‑fired boilers, and its aging air‑conditioning systems—currently non‑operational—run on electricity. Because oil prices have been highly volatile, the engineers evaluated two cost scenarios:
-
Scenario 1 assumed an oil cost of $2.90 per gallon
-
Scenario 2 assumed an oil cost of $3.92 per gallon
Under the proposed project, the school would retire oil entirely and transition to a modern Air Source Heat Pump system, which provides both heating and cooling with significantly higher efficiency. Based on these assumptions, the two scenarios estimated cost savings to the existing system if the current AC system were still functioning:
- Scenario 1 indicates an estimated 10%–25% reduction in annual utility costs
- Scenario 2 indicates an estimated 30%–45% reduction in annual utility costs
(Devlin) 3. In the spring of 2025, a different architectural firm presented an overview of the proposal to demolish the high school and to build a new one. Because the demolition would remove items recently funded by the $10 million renovation bond approved by the community in September of 2018 before their “useful life” had been achieved, the state would have to be reimbursed on a pro-rated basis the money that they had contributed for the purchase and installation of items such as solar panels. An architect at that time stated publicly that the cost of the state payback for the demolition project was $2 million dollars. Clearly, this project would not involve nearly as many items. What is the estimated cost of the state payback under this proposal for the loss of solar panels in the C-Wing and any other items (such as the new boiler) that was partially funded by the state under the 2018 renovation bond?
(Pach) The quick answer to this is that the renovation project’s budget for district-side costs to reimburse the state for the roof and solar panels to be demolished is now calculated to be $500,000. I recently answered a community member’s question about the solar panels and boiler so I have also included those below.
Solar Panels: The majority of the solar panels will be untouched, as the main roof has already been replaced and those panels are on that roof. However, the science wing that will be demolished will have a few panels that will be removed. If they can be reused they will be used on the new pool roof (that does not currently have solar panels), or stored to be used as replacements.
Writer’s Note: I was able to count the number of panels over both the science wing and seminar room. The total is 157.
Boiler: The boilers will continue to be in service throughout the renovation (likely another four winters), until we activate the new mechanical room and new systems. If they can be verified to have another 20 years of life remaining, per Renovation rules, they might become part of the final high school system. Additionally, there is another possibility of utilizing a system for the state to come check and give us a possible stay where we could keep it. If they can’t be certified for use in the new system there are two options for the Building Committee to explore. One is to leave them in the building to serve the Central Office and size the new system to heat only the high school. The other option is to store it for use in another building when their boilers need replacing.
(Devlin) 4. Given the fact that many recent Connecticut school construction and/or reconstruction building projects in the past two to three years have had significant cost overruns (e.g., the Cromwell Middle School), how confident is the BOE in the cost estimates provided by your architects for this project?
(Pach) We are confident in these estimates. Some recent projects, such as Cromwell Middle School, were budgeted while there was a brief respite in construction costs, which quickly reversed once we emerged from the Covid shutdowns. Thereafter, market prices rose rapidly, resulting in the need for supplemental funding. The budget for the HKHS renovation is based on the current (post-Covid) market and has contingency dollars included to guard against such shortfalls, as long as the project proceeds along the current schedule.
(Devlin) 5. What is the current status of the position of the District Finance Director? This position has been filled by six different people in just five years. What assurances can you give the community about the stability of that position? An audit of the District’s finances is now overdue by nearly nine months. Can you now estimate approximately when there will finally be an audit of the District’s finances?
(Pach) Our current Interim will continue in the position for now. We are currently working on filling the Account Manager position to work with her to provide continuity and stability of procedures and staff. Additionally, the Finance Committee is meeting and will hear that all of the information requested is now in the auditor’s hands and we are awaiting their response, which is expected soon.
The district has indeed pointed out correctly that HKHS requires major improvements to its facilities. However, it has not provided the voters with sufficient verified information regarding the tax implications, energy consumption, previous grant recoveries, earlier bond issuances, construction risks, or the financial oversight involved, so that they can make an informed decision as to the effects and consequences of voting to commit ourselves to a $151 million, “build-as-new” investment.
Nobody at the moment has any idea of the effect that this project will have on them. Due to reassessments and other factors beyond the Board’s control, there is no reliable estimate of how much each household may be asked to pay, and the residents of Haddam and Killingworth remain uncertain about the project’s impact on their budgets.
The Board believes the architects’ cost estimates. The fact that it has this belief is not the issue—there is no doubt about the architects’ skill. The matter is that no explanation has been given as to how much money the Board has provisioned for unforeseen expenses, what arrangements it will put in place in the case of delays, or how it will deal with cost rises if they do occur. Being confident does not amount to having a plan.
The importance of that gap lies in the fact that in the construction industry — especially for large public infrastructure projects — cost overruns are the rule rather than the exception. The Oxford-based expert on large projects, Bent Flyvbjerg, whose research is based on data covering 90 years, discovered that about nine out of ten major infrastructure projects end up exceeding their original budgets, with overruns of up to 50% in real terms being common and overruns that go beyond 50% not being at all uncommon (Flyvbjerg, “What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Overview,” Project Management Journal, 2014). McKinsey has also cited and reinforced this same “nine out of ten” figure in its own analysis (McKinsey & Company, “Megaprojects: The good, the bad, and the better,” 2015). This fundamental “9 out of 10” statistic is derived from broad megaproject data — including rail, roads, tunnels, bridges, dams, airports, and Olympic venues — rather than from a specific category focused on educational renovations worth over $100 million. It is plausible that large public capital projects share the same risk factors Flyvbjerg has identified — such as optimism bias, scope changes, and inadequate front-end planning — so the figure serves as a sensible warning sign in this case, even though it isn’t a direct match.
We needn’t depend on a general statistic to establish that point. In recent years, several major school building and renovation projects in Connecticut have exceeded their budgets, a situation driven by inflation, supply chain disruptions, and higher interest rates. The Lyme-Old Lyme Schools, Greenwich Central Middle School, and Cromwell Middle School all experienced substantial cost overruns, which compelled those towns to either reduce the scope of their projects or seek additional funds from taxpayers. HK’s position is by no means outside this kind of pressure. Moreover, based on what I have read regarding the HKBOE’s record in budgeting and in preparing financial plans that can be examined and audited for accuracy, compliance, and timeliness, this is not one of its strengths.
To date, the Board’s replies have provided only general figures without detailed explanations; they have emphasized uncertainties, downplayed perceived risks, and ignored internal difficulties. Before agreeing to a project of such importance, the community is entitled to clearer and more thorough information—including a figure for the contingency fund, a plan for possible delays, and a method for determining exactly what each individual household will have to pay.
I will vote no on 24 September until the Board specifies otherwise. If they include the answers with a revised plan on the ballot, then I will reconsider. But for a project of this scale, it shouldn’t be asking for a blank check, and that’s exactly what we’re being asked to do at the moment.