BATH

The city of Bath is asking the state Legislature to step in and validate a $2.8 million bond referendum after “human error” put the bond on murky legal ground.

In November, Bath residents overwhelmingly voted in favor of a bond to finance sidewalk and street construction and repair. With 78 percent of voters approving the bond, the election results would normally be unquestionable.

In the lead up to the vote, however, the city failed to publish the full text of the measure in a local paper 10-15 days prior to Election Day as required by the city charter. Instead, the full text was published just four days out.

“It was an administrative glitch or error that it was not published in the proper time,” said City Manager Peter Owen.

As the city was preparing to issue the bond following the election, a bond attorney informed them that the failure to properly execute the terms set out in the city charter made it impossible for it to be issued.

“When a bond gets approved by the voters, then it has to go through certification,” said Owen. “What happened was the bond attorney was reviewing the conditions for the bond, which are spelled out in the charter — and found this one piece that wasn’t met.”

“Because of that error, it has now disrupted the process of going out and selling the bond,” said Rep. Jennifer DeChant, D-Bath.

The city had a few options. It could schedule a new election to redo the vote properly, but that was estimated to cost $10,000, according to DeChant. The city could also redo the referendum at the June election, which wouldn’t cost the city extra money, but would prevent it from using the bond funds during this year’s construction season.

“At that point, the only way to have that rectified is to go to the Legislature,” said Owen, “and they can override the charter.”

To that end, DeChant has sponsored a bill to alleviate the situation. The one-time bill would validate Bath’s November election, overriding the city charter and allowing the bond to be issued.

“It is a simple change to allow the bond process to move forward,” said DeChant. “It’s a one-time deal.”

Lawmakers on the State and Local Government Committee got their first look at the bill at a public hearing Wednesday morning. DeChant noted that many of the lawmakers were receptive to the bill, having experienced similar legal technicalities at the municipal level previously.

“Variations of this, the human part of it, happens,” said DeChant. “When we presented it before the State and Local Government (Committee), which is comprised of a couple people who have been city managers or have been involved in city government, they were like: Been there, done that.”

There was a work session following the public hearing, but the committee opted to set a second work session at a later date to ensure that the community was more fully aware of the situation, said DeChant. The committee has slated a second work session for March 9 to consider the bill.

On March 7, DeChant will present the issue before the city council, which will likely approve a resolution to show the legislative committee their support. DeChant said that she doesn’t see any obstacles to the bill’s passage.

“At that point, I suspect, without any kind of unforeseen dynamic, that we will highly likely get a unanimous vote out of the committee,” she said. “I guess the moral to the story is that this experience is evidence of trying to be proactive, identifying a problem and then trying to fix it without a lot of expense and confusion by putting it back on the ballot.

“It really is the cleanest approach for this one time, human error,” DeChant added.

nstrout@timesrecord.com

The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu