The views stated here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors of this newspaper. We welcome supporting or opposing views on any published item. Received September 21, 2026.
I am writing in support of the high school building project to be voted on this Thursday, September 24, 2026. Bringing the building up to code is expensive. No argument there. However, one way or another, costs will be there for major repair projects down the road. What the district has now is the state’s commitment for a reimbursement rate of 51.43 % for eligible expenses.
As I understand it, this reimbursement eligibility is part of the package we are voting on and dependent on its approval. This is not the same process as the annual school budget. Costs will not just be cut here and there and a lower priced plan brought up for a vote two weeks later. It will be another long process without the guarantee of the same reimbursement rate from the state or the inclusion of the pool, auditorium, and Field House in that eligibility.
This plan is a replacement for a costlier one that the BOE considered. The change was an answer to community input and concerns over costs. Major repairs are still needed no matter the vote. This plan brings the building up to code, which also removes impediments to renewed accreditation in the future. And it removes the uncertainty of the cost of individual major repair projects and the rate and coverage of state reimbursement.
Kathleen Amoia, Killingworth
The CGA (Connecticut General Assembly) website is a place to go where legislators can request background information from researchers in the Office for Legislative Research (OLR) to fill them in on various issues. OLR researchers are charged with being objective and non-partisan. The results are available to the public. Imagine, for example, that there is a legislator who wants to know about school accreditation. That legislator may submit a question to the OLR and get answers. Below is an example centered around the NEASC and accreditation with direct quotes and attribution.
“While several schools have faced warnings or been placed on probation over the decades (such as Hartford Public High School in 1997, which ultimately avoided losing its accredited status), the NEASC and the Connecticut General Assembly confirm that no operational public high school in the state has actually been stripped of its accreditation. Accreditation membership is voluntary for public schools in Connecticut, and none have had their status terminated.”
NEASC ACCREDITATION By: Hendrik DeBoer, Research Fellow for Connecticut General Assembly) Published April 9, 2012. You asked a series of questions regarding New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) accreditation. They are restated and answered below.
IS NEASC ACCREDITATION STATE OR FEDERALLY MANDATED? Neither state nor federal law mandates that schools be accredited by NEASC or any other accrediting agency. State law does require that the board of education for any public school that is NEASC-accredited disclose the accreditation reports to the public (C.G.S. § 10-239j).
HOW MANY HIGH SCHOOLS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAVE LOST THEIR NEASC ACCREDITATION? Although some schools have been placed on probation, no high schools, other than those which have closed, have lost their NEASC accreditation in Connecticut within the last 20 years, according to the NEASC.
I happen to know more than a little bit about this issue as I participated in the first 3 NEASC accreditation reviews in 1980, 1990, and 2000; in fact, in both 1990 and 2000 the superintendent and building principal appointed me to be the chairman of the entire accreditation process for HKHS.
Additionally, while it’s true that the district has a waiver for state funding for this proposal, the way it is being pitched makes it sound as though this is the only time we could possibly get a waiver. Is there a law limiting the number of times that a school district can get a waiver? There is not. Once again the OLR answer: “Connecticut Office of Legislative Research (OLR) reports and underlying state statutes do not place a flat numerical limit on the total number of administrative or funding waivers a school district can request or obtain from the state.”
It’s true that there is a big need for updates in the building, especially for the HVAC system, and those should be addressed soon. Are there less costly alternatives for people in the district who may be squeezed by the big cost that a nearly $152 million proposal like this brings with it? There certainly are. Haddam people need to know the truth about some of these issues to make intelligent choices for them and their families in a time where affordability is a big concern. So let’s get the facts straight about the NEASC accreditation issue and the number of times a district can apply for a waiver and not be fear driven by those issues.
Ms.Kathleen Amoia, interesting post. Thank you. A question for Philip R. Delvin: Would the CT General Statutes, the District Repair and Improvement Project (DRIP) Program, which provides direct grants to Public School Operators (PSOs), be appropriate to address the HVAC system, at least partially? Thx.
Where the Argument Falls Short
The 51.43% reimbursement assumes perfect execution
This is higher than we estimated earlier. At 51.43% on eligible expenses from a $151.9M project, the state contribution could be substantial — potentially $60-70M+ depending on what qualifies as eligible. That meaningfully changes the local burden calculation if the reimbursement actually materializes
Unger’s letter identified exactly the three people responsible for hitting state reimbursement milestones — superintendent, finance director, facilities manager — and all three positions are either new, temporary, or vacant. Amoia’s entire financial case rests on receiving that 51.43%.
***** If milestones are missed, that rate isn’t guaranteed.
“Costs will be there regardless” doesn’t justify this scope
The argument that repairs are inevitable doesn’t answer whether $151.9M is the right amount, the right scope, or the right time. A targeted HVAC replacement, security upgrades, and code compliance could cost a fraction of the full renovation while addressing the most urgent needs.
The GM Huff question at the bottom is the most important thing in this document
He asks about the DRIP Program — Connecticut’s District Repair and Improvement Project — which provides direct grants to public school operators specifically for targeted repairs. That’s precisely the alternative funding path Unger said the BOE never pursued. If HVAC qualifies for DRIP grants, that’s potentially millions in targeted funding that doesn’t require a $152M commitment as the vehicle.
The pool/auditorium/field house inclusion
If No passes and a future referendum is attempted, those amenity elements may not qualify for state reimbursement under a revised plan. That’s a real financial consideration, not just a scare tactic