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 13, 2026.
On September 24, the people of Haddam and Killingworth will vote on a $151.9 million bond to rebuild Haddam-Killingworth High School. The net cost to local taxpayers is about $77.2 million after an expected $74.8 million state grant. Before you vote, here are some facts worth considering.
Enrollment is decreasing rather than increasing. In Regional School District 17, the number of students has fallen steadily over the past ten years, declining about 18.6% from 2,175 pupils in 2014–15 to 1,770 in 2023–24. This downward trend continued; enrollment dropped another 3.0% between 2023–24 and 2025–26, from 1,772 to 1,719 students. Currently, HKHS has only 465 high school students. The district cites aging infrastructure, the need to comply with ADA and Title IX regulations, and NEASC accreditation recommendations—not rising enrollment—as reasons for the project. Does HKHS need major reconstruction? Absolutely. HKHS has legitimate physical needs (ADA, Title IX, NEASC, etc.). But I and others argue for financial prudence and long-term planning, not against quality education. Will many, if not all, other schools in RSD17 need major reconstruction soon? There is a strong possibility. What then? Meanwhile, as our student population continues to decline, what happens in 5, 10, or 20 years? Who can tell for sure? But I do know that any financial decision we make now will stay with us for the next 20 to 30+ years.
The two towns are not declining at the same rate. Haddam accounted for nearly all of the drop in the most recent year, going from 1,069 to 1,017 students (a loss of 52), while Killingworth remained nearly unchanged, going from 703 to 702 students (a loss of 1). Because RSD17 apportions costs by relative enrollment, this change has increased Haddam’s share of the FY26 assessment to 59.16% and Killingworth’s to 40.84%. The cost split between the two towns is already shifting before any bond debt is considered and is likely to continue changing over a multi-decade repayment period.
Large school building projects are frequently over budget. Research by Bent Flyvbjerg on megaproject cost overruns—work McKinsey cited in its examination of infrastructure spending—shows that major capital projects almost always exceed original cost estimates, often by large amounts. Connecticut is no exception: building projects at Lyme-Old Lyme, Greenwich Central Middle School, and Cromwell Middle School all rose above initial forecasts. The current HKHS plan includes no contingency funding or a clear way to state what this project will cost each household if, as history suggests, it ends up over budget.
One main issue is that, with the student population shrinking and unevenly distributed, we are being asked to pay for one of the biggest capital projects the district has ever undertaken, even though there is little transparency about the tax implications, contingency plans, or per-household cost. Although there may be a solid educational reason for the renovation, tax money should be used only for educational purposes, not for the benefit of the community as a whole. Voters should have a revised plan that addresses these questions before agreeing to spend $77 million in local funds.
I believe the implications for long-term trends are clear—a steadily declining student population should be given serious financial consideration when making decisions now and on any future education-related projects we, the taxpayers, vote on.
GM Huff, Killingworth
