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 22, 2026.
When Haddam and Killingworth voters go to the polls on September 24, the decision on the Haddam-Killingworth High School project will have long-term financial implications under either outcome.
One point is important to understand at the outset: voting against the proposed project would not eliminate future spending on the high school.
HKHS is more than 50 years old, and the district has identified major building systems and infrastructure that require repair, replacement or modernization. These include HVAC and mechanical systems, electrical equipment, accessibility deficiencies, fire-protection needs, deteriorating building components and other capital work.
The financial question is therefore not simply whether taxpayers will spend money on the high school. It is how that spending would occur under the proposed project compared with an incremental repair approach.
The proposed Renovate-as-New project has an estimated total cost of $151.9 million. Approximately $74.8 million is currently expected to come from State reimbursement, leaving an estimated local project cost of $77.2 million.
That local share would be financed through bonds issued in stages as construction progresses. Current projections show the related annual debt service increasing over several years, reaching an estimated peak of approximately $6 million before gradually declining as the debt is repaid.
Those debt payments would become part of the annual RSD17 budget and would be divided between Haddam and Killingworth according to the regional district assessment formula.
The alternative evaluated by the district is commonly referred to as Break/Fix. Under that approach, individual systems, repairs and building needs would be addressed through separate projects over time, estimated at $72 million, very close to the cost of this renovation.
While the break/fix approach will change the scope and timing of the spending, it does not prevent it. This is why a Break/Fix approach should not be interpreted as a way to avoid a substantial taxpayer expense.
There are also differences in how those costs would be funded.
The current proposal has an identified State reimbursement package, including a comprehensive 51.43% reimbursement rate for eligible project expenses and special provisions covering portions of the project that would not ordinarily receive the same level of reimbursement.
Under Break/Fix, while some future projects could qualify for State assistance, others might not. The key is that each project would need its own grant application, plans, approvals, and, if necessary, bonding package with requisite vote.
If the September referendum is approved, RSD17 would proceed with the proposed project and the State funding provisions currently associated with it.
If it is not approved, those specific provisions would expire, and the district would still be responsible for addressing the high school’s identified capital needs through future budgets, borrowing or additional projects.
For taxpayers, the most important comparison is not between spending $77.2 million and spending nothing. The district’s planning work indicates that HKHS will require substantial capital investment under either path.
The current proposal pairs an estimated $77.2 million local share with approximately $74.8 million in identified State reimbursement and a defined scope of work that addresses major building systems, accessibility, safety, educational spaces and site improvements together. The Break/Fix estimate, by comparison, approaches $72 million and would address a narrower set of needs over a longer period. Additional improvements not included in that estimate could require separate funding later.
That distinction matters financially. The difference between the two current local cost estimates is relatively small, while the scope, timing and certainty of the funding are significantly different. The proposed project has an established reimbursement structure and defined project scope. A Break/Fix approach would depend on future construction costs, interest rates, grant availability and individual funding decisions made over many years.
Viewed strictly through that financial lens, the proposed plan provides a clearer picture of both what the district would receive and what the local obligation is expected to be. Break/Fix would still require substantial taxpayer funding, but with a more limited scope and greater uncertainty about future costs and State participation.
The referendum therefore asks voters to compare two long-term financial paths for a building whose needs will remain regardless of the outcome. The central question is not whether RSD17 will have to invest in HKHS, but which approach provides the broader scope of work, the greater amount of currently identified State support, and the more predictable framework for addressing those needs over time. Please take these considerations into account when you cast your vote on September 24.
Jeff Sturges, Haddam
With interest it will be 100 million. That is, if we get the grant. Has anyone seen the audit yet? What happened to that? So let’s just keep throwing taxpayers dollars at a school system that has no idea what it is doing. There is no fiscal responsibility or anyone qualified on the BOE or in the school system to make these kinds of decisions with millions of dollars. Everyone is in agreement that we want to maintain the school. But it has to be done in a responsible manner. No one’s property values are going up with unaffordable taxes. I don’t care how good the school is. We already went through that phase where people moved here to put the kids through school and then moved somewhere more affordable, leaving us with the debt. Why do you think we are down more than 700 students? People are not flocking to Haddam or Region 17. How many people voting Yes are planning on retiring somewhere else? I moved to Haddam to die here, not start over somewhere else. VOTE NO! We need fiscal responsibility.