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.
As we approach the school renovation referendum this Thursday, it helps to separate emotional appeals from the actual facts. This proposal comes at the wrong time, is backed by the wrong leadership structure, targets the wrong project scope, and ignores better alternatives.
Economically, we are in an unstable period marked by rising interest rates, high fuel costs, and tightening budgets. According to municipal officials in neighboring towns, building material costs have risen significantly over the past two years, and those increases are not reversing. Whenever proponents cite a price tag of roughly $151 million, keep in mind that figure is based on estimates put together about a year ago and is no longer accurate. Financial trends of this magnitude take years to shift.
Our current board and school leadership structure is also unequipped to handle a project of this scale. We recently went through a contentious budget debate centered on a lack of financial accountability and administrative delays in meeting state deadlines. The state has promised an anticipated reimbursement grant of roughly 51 percent, but grants come with strict milestones and paperwork. If those deadlines are missed, the state can deny payments or claw back funds, leaving taxpayers on the hook as the legal guarantors. (Voting yes to this project makes the towns legal guarantors of the whole $151M plus). As of today, the Board of Education refuses to make public the cost of this project and its associated bonding to individual household tax bills, creating even further transparency issues.
Compounding this risk, our administration is in transition. We have a new superintendent who has only been on the job for nine months, a temporary finance director, and a resigning facilities manager with no replacement in hand. These three roles are essential for overseeing project milestones and maximizing state reimbursement. Having an unfilled permanent finance role, an empty facilities manager position, and a superintendent still learning the district is a recipe for fiscal exposure if state reimbursement is reduced or denied.
The narrative that we are at risk of losing our school accreditation is an exaggeration, if not a complete falsehood, and a scare tactic. No public school in Connecticut has lost accreditation in the past 15 years, and a review of the publicly available NEASC recommendations reveals no such threat. It is dishonest to push this narrative for a district where the vast majority of students successfully move on to higher education. Getting mired down in the details of the NEASC accreditation findings and citing them as a reason to spent $151M is, at best, a smokescreen.
Furthermore, the board has failed to aggressively pursue alternative funding. Relying solely on the architects—who are paid a percentage of the total project cost—is not enough. There are numerous external funding sources available through state and federal channels, including specific grants for HVAC upgrades, security, STEM classrooms, and athletic fields, many of which carry equivalent or higher reimbursement rates than what is being offered for this specific renovation. There is still much work to be done before a proposal of this magnitude should have been sent to referendum.
Proponents claim the building is in urgent disrepair, yet this project is not slated to start for approximately two years, with a completion timeline stretching five to six years out. That timeline relies on cost estimates built during peak inflation and supply chain volatility. Meanwhile, we have three other schools and Central Office in the district that need repairs, that require improved or new HVAC systems, security upgrades, etc. Instead of putting all our eggs in one basket for a massive price tag at a single school, we should pause, develop a comprehensive district-wide plan based on true priorities, and aggressively pursue available grants for targeted repairs.
A referendum for a brand-new school was previously halted by the board of education a year ago citing lack of public support, yet the board is now returning with what Is a very slightly modified multi-million dollar price tag as if it were pocket change. We need to slow down, protect the taxpayers, and do this right in a way that addresses all of our schools’ needs.
Eileen Unger, Killingworth
Thank you, well stated—it’s the wrong proposal at the wrong time.
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.
The accreditation issue is just a concentrated effort to gain votes through fearmongering. The only accreditation revocation I recall was years ago, and it was due to dangerous black mold. Vote on the merits, not fearmongering. Only facts matter.
This is an exceptionally well-argued No case.
The No vote Wednesday is the most consequential financial vote I’ll cast as a Killingworth resident. The operating budget referendums impact on my home were about $200-300 a year. This one is about $700-800 a year for the next 25 years — well into my late 80s
The Five Killer Arguments in This Letter
1. The $151.9M is already outdated
Estimates built during peak inflation a year ago, with material costs still rising. Steel up 4.2%, concrete up 6.1%, HVAC up 8.3%.
2. Leadership vacuum at the worst possible moment
• New superintendent — 9 months in
• Temporary finance director
• Resigning facilities manager — no replacement
These are precisely the three roles that manage state reimbursement milestones and paperwork. Missing state deadlines doesn’t just delay payment — it can trigger clawbacks, making Killingworth and Haddam legal guarantors of the full $151.9M. That sentence in Unger’s letter is the most important financial fact in this entire debate.
3. The accreditation threat is confirmed fiction
Philip Devlin’s OLR citation is devastating — objective, non-partisan, legislative research confirming:
The BOE used accreditation loss as a scare tactic that is factually unsupportable. That alone should concern every voter about what else is being misrepresented.
4. The waiver urgency argument is false
The “all funds go away by end of September” pressure — which drove the entire referendum timeline — is contradicted by the OLR’s own finding. There is no legal limit on the number of times a district can apply for a waiver. The artificial deadline manufactured urgency to prevent proper scrutiny.
5. Architects have a financial conflict of interest
This point is underemphasized but crucial. Architects are typically paid 6-10% of total project cost. On $151.9M that’s $9-15M in architect fees. Using the architect as the primary source for cost validation is like asking a car dealer whether you need a new car.
Ms. Unger is right to call the towns guarantors. The district’s 2019 bond documents say its bonds are general obligations of the district and both towns. A yes vote makes Haddam and Killingworth co-signers. So look at what the borrower is showing us.
The books. The district’s 2025 audit was due at the state last December 31. It asked for six extensions, five after the deadline had already passed. The last, marked “Final Extension,” ran out June 30. As of this morning, 16 of Connecticut’s 17 regional school districts have filed a 2025 audit. RSD17 is the one that hasn’t. Four of the sixteen were audited by RSD17’s own firm, so the auditor isn’t the holdup. The auditors expect to report to the board in October. After the vote.
The paperwork. Ms. Unger warns that missed milestones can cost us state money. In May, the board’s minutes said documents to pursue state reimbursement for previous projects were “currently being assembled.” The same business office would have to claim $74.7 million on this one.
The payment schedule. There isn’t one. The August slides give a total, $100.6 million, and a 25-bar chart with no numbers on the bars. No rate. Asked at the August 18 session, on the HKTV recording, the district said it assumed 3.75%. At that rate, $77.2 million in 20-year bonds costs about $107.6 million. The board chair’s per-home figures are built on the lower total. Last year, for the new-school plan, the district published a year-by-year model. This year, voters get a bar chart.
Her staffing points check out too. The finance director’s job is still posted, and the facilities manager’s resignation takes effect September 30.
Nobody co-signs blind. Vote no Thursday. Then ask again with audited books and a schedule we can check.
This comment hits the nail on the head. It is clear, concise and direct and extremely well written and informative. It makes a strong case against the “YES” vote, and an even stronger case for the “NO” vote. The taxpayers shouldering the burden of increased property taxes, now face even more tax increases due to this proposal. I totally agree, this is not the right time to dump more financial burdens upon the residents of Haddam and Killingworth. No means No. When times get financially tough, we tighten our belts and budgets. This period of time is unfortunately, one of those times. Shelve this idea and fix what can be fixed without breaking the public backbone.