Why this project and not the "break and fix" approach?

RSD 17 is at a point where the high school facilities need major repairs or improvements. These projects are necessary to remain in compliance with current codes, statutes, and accreditation standards, they are not just nice to have renovations. The costs of these projects exceed the capability of the operating budget to pay for. There is no possible set of cuts that will allow the operating budget to pay for these needs. So, regardless of which path the referendum puts us on, the district will be forced to bond to remain in a functional capacity and compliant with the standards we are held to. 

This current project proposal, with state support, delivers a predictable plan for a finished product that addresses all current deficiencies, while also resulting in a more efficient building which will allow lower annual maintenance costs than what we currently have. It can do this with known state support, bonding structure, and a well-defined timeline with minimized disruption.

If the referendum fails, the resulting path will be the “Break-Fix” option. While on the surface its cost has slightly less taxable impact, it is much more volatile. Needs and projects for the high school were outlined in the 2021 Tecton Report.  

HKHS systems are actively failing due to being at the end of their useful life. Some are acting in diminished capacity and are hindering safety. Predicting their time of failure is difficult to guarantee, which can result in re-shuffling of priorities, and perhaps forcing us to foot the bill for a repair/renovation without as much state support, or favorable bonding, due to a planned project converting to an emergency repair. As has been shown in the feasibility study presentation, as time proceeds, costs escalate due to myriads of factors. The presented estimate of the “Break -Fix” option is in today’s dollars and can rapidly exceed that amount as its plan estimates become actual realities, coupled with the consequences they incur. The resulting disruption to student life is also much harder to predict as emergency repairs won’t have the luxury of happening outside school operating demands to the greatest extent possible.

Bottom line, Region 17 is going to spend roughly 70-80 million dollars to remain in the school we have. That is no longer a decision we get to make. What we do get to decide is how do we maximize the value, or return on investment, of that tax expenditure. This project offers, as shown in its presentation, the best value to taxpayers and the best product for our students.

What is a space waiver?

In short, by current state calculations, HKHS is too large, in square footage terms, for the population of students we have. What these current standards fail to recognize is that our school was built to current state standards at the time of construction, when the population was even less than it is now. Further, 4 key sections of the building, Fieldhouse, Auditorium, Pool, and Tech Ed, are included in the square footage, and penalize us in this overall calculation. Even further, in alignment with community desires, these areas have had recent investments. By the letter of current standards, the state would ask us to demolish these spaces, ones we just renovated, and rebuild some of them at a smaller size, or not at all if the space isn’t seen as necessary for our population. The space waiver is a legislative tool that recognizes the unique issues facing HKHS and is allowing for the preservation of these spaces as they are desired by not only ours but surrounding communities who do not have these facilities. This legislation was approved and signed by the Governor on May 26, 2026.

Why does this include athletic updates?

Athletics are a crucial part of the education we offer at HK. They teach opportunities and skills that can’t be matched in the academic environment. HK’s athletic facilities are nearing end of life maintenance concerns, as well as long standing maintenance challenges due to their proximity to wetlands. The project proposes to correct these issues. The plan includes renovation of sub base and drainage of all the fields, and that work will support a choice of surface. Of noted concern to the community is the finished surface being turf vs natural grass. At the present time, the state doesn’t reimburse costs for the installation of turf. However, there is currently a motion in review to change this position. The current project is planned for grass simply because at the time of creation, that had the highest amount of state reimbursement. It has been well heard that turf is preferred. Our project has passed legislative hurdles and has been awarded full reimbursement rates for athletic components.  If this project passes at our local referendum, the building committee will make all efforts to finish the fields with turf.

What is the cost and impact on taxes?

Our high school, in addition to other district facilities, need repair. Those repairs can no longer be deferred. Any path forward will require bonding to cover the expenses. The proposed project would correct many issues that will, by default, ease the pressure on the capital account in the district’s annual operating budget. That allows that account to have a more stable credit and debit schedule as the projects it needs to pay for will be more stable. In short, the money proposed in this project will be spent, whether as just bonding, just maintenance/repair line items, or a combination of the two. Any path will increase taxes, which isn’t a popular position to be in, but we can’t avoid it anymore. We can choose a path that offers predictability and stability. This project can deliver that.

What happens if the project fails?

This project’s costs are being compared to the initial project proposal, and to a “Break-Fix” option. “Break-Fix” is where we will be left if this project doesn’t get the necessary support. What that means is that as systems fail, or codes cease to allow our building to be grandfathered, we will have to pay to renovate/repair those issues as they come up. While there will be an attempt to plan for these costs, the reality is that things can fail, and codes can become legal requirements, at in-opportune times. That can ruin even the best intended plans and budgets. It also exposes us to cost creep as inflation drives costs up over time. While the current comparison shows this default “option” as slightly less tax impact right now, it is far less predictable, and its cost estimate can rapidly exceed the expected tax impact from this project, with little to no mitigation available.  The chart below was presented at the January Workshop regarding  break-fix costs and the escalation effects since the original Tecton reeview os facilties was completed: