BATH — In their final meeting before gathering to finalize the proposed 2012-13 school budget on May 7, the Regional School Unit 1 board of directors voted unanimously on Monday to adhere to a new legal opinion and change the formula used to allocate cost-sharing throughout the district.
Attorney Bryan Dench of Auburn firm Skelton, Taintor & Abbott told the board that they are required by law to adhere to the costsharing formula outlined in LD 910, unique legislation that created the school district, for all local costs and not just additional local costs.
RSU 1 educates students from Arrowsic, Bath, Phippsburg, West Bath and Woolwich.
But doing so will likely increase property taxes for Bath residents, attorney Pat Scully told the board, and could jeopardize the city’s participation in the school district.
In 2008, the RSU 1 board found “some ambiguity” as they entered their first budget season and solicited two legal opinions about how to interpret the cost-sharing agreement, RSU board vice chairwoman Julie Rice said Monday, leading the meeting in chairman Tim Harkins’ absence.
Attorney William Stockmeyer told them the legislation dictated that all local costs should be divided among the communities based on a “one-third” formula, assigning equal weight to property valuation, pupil population and overall population.
But the board elected to adhere to a differing opinion from attorney Roger Therriault — counsel to the city of Bath and the town of West Bath — who said the “one-third” formula applied only to the additional local cost of education above the state subsidy, but not the entire local cost.
On Monday, Dench said LD 910 dictates that the cost-sharing formula based on thirds should apply to all local costs.
In a 10-page letter, Dench wrote on April 20 that documents indicate “everyone involved understood that the LD would create a special rule for allocating all local costs, including local costs to support (Essential Programs and Services).”
“That’s what you’re required to do and it would be a violation of the law for you to do otherwise,” he said.
Dench said he studied the history of the RSU and LD 910 and read a report of the 14-member task force on how cost-sharing should work.
That unique formula created “a special arrangement, and you need to follow it,” Dench said.
Dench said he understood that adhering strictly to the RSU 1 formula meant “some communities will have to raise more money, but that’s a function of the agreement reached in 2007.”
But Scully, of Bernstein Shur, representing the city of Bath, told the board that LD 910 “is not intended to reallocate subsidies,” essentially shifting costs from one community to another, particularly if doing so would push the city’s property tax rate to fund education over the state limit of $7.60 per $1,000 valuation.
“The statute doesn’t support doing it the way it’s being proposed,” Scully said, adding later, “The implications of that to Bath are really quite serious. (The change) really threatens the participation of Bath in the RSU. It really takes something from Bath that was intended to protect the taxpayers.”
But officials from other towns in RSU 1 argued that the “one-third” formula was what sold voters on joining the district when LD 910 was proposed.
“RSU 1 and LD 910 passed overwhelmingly in the city of Bath,” Woolwich Board of Selectmen chairman David King said. “They voted to buy an apple. We don’t want an orange.”
Dave Bourget of the West Bath Board of Selectmen and Phippsburg Selectman Gary Read concurred.
“If we weren’t going to use the ‘one-third’ formula, why would we have voted to do it at all?” Bourget asked.
Asked about Scully’s comment, Bath City Manager Bill Giroux said following the vote that he was not sure what action the city might take.
“Certainly, we are concerned about the negative impact this could have on the taxpayers,” he said.
The board voted unanimously to adhere to the strict “one-third” formula for cost sharing, but not without some concern about the impact.
“I remember us talking about ‘one-third, one-third, one-third,’” District 4 board member Chet Garrison said. “I’m not sure what happened, how it fell apart … the hard part is now we have to make a decision. We’re either going to go with what LD 910 says or we’re going to continue on the way we are.”
Following the vote, Manual said administrators would “do our homework” on the cost-sharing figures.
The district’s Finance Committee will meet May 3, and Manual said they would likely further discuss Monday’s vote.
On May 7, the board will hold its second reading of the proposed budget. The board is scheduled to vote on the budget that night.
The district-wide budget meeting is scheduled for June 5 at Bath Middle School, and residents of each of the five districts will vote in a budget referendum on June 12.
bbrogan@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
