It was about one year ago that a committee of Regional School Unit 21 board members decided to put in months of work to develop a new proposal for a cost-sharing agreement between Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Arundel.

In the end, they moved forward with a plan to base cost sharing 100 percent on property values, but voters in June chose instead to keep the old system of 60 percent on property value and 40 percent on pupil count.

Now, the board is talking about revisiting the cost-sharing agreement once again, in response to complaints about the 60/40 agreement from residents who believe it is unfair. It’s interesting that people are speaking up now, considering that the cost-sharing discussion voted upon this spring was not initiated by the voters’ desire for a new agreement between the three towns. It began as a way to address a dispute between Kennebunk and Kennebunkport concerning $324,000 of old debt from the two towns’ former school district, Maine School Administrative District 71.

Arundel is not party to that debt and never was, but somehow the scope of the committee’s review was widened to look at how future costs will be shared among all three towns.

The committee ended up considering three main options, each of which would impact the three towns differently. All three of the plans would have increased costs for Kennebunkport and decreased costs for Arundel, with minimal changes either way for Kennebunk.

Today, the committee is calling for a new way, with Arundel’s Diane Robbins, a school board member, saying that the same proposals won’t do this time around.

In the meantime, some Arundel residents are working toward withdrawal from the RSU, and it’s interesting how their efforts are being interpreted. Some, like Kennebunkport Town Manager Larry Mead, are against a new cost-sharing proposal because they believe it seems pointless if Arundel is not even going to be part of the equation next year. Others, like Arundel Town Manager Todd Shea, think a new cost-sharing proposal could change Arundel voters’ minds about pulling out.

It’s true that money will be a huge factor for Arundel voters when they decide whether or not to sign the withdrawal petition that will be going around early next month, but we feel it’s doubtful that a new cost-sharing agreement will change the game.

It’s the looming $51.4 million plan to renovate schools across the district ”“ $43.5 million for Kennebunk High School alone ”“ that has Arundel residents leery, particularly those who don’t even plan on sending their children to KHS.

Back when cost sharing was being discussed in February, the district said that using the current formula, and assuming a 20-year bond of $47.4 million in new debt service for all the school renovations (the estimate at the time), the impact per $100,000 of property value would be $155.53 in Arundel; $118.48 in Kennebunk; and $65.71 in Kennebunkport.

The three options the committee had developed, including the proposal that voters rejected, would have decrease Arundel’s cost for the improvements, but only by about $50 per $100,000 of valuation ”“ and those estimates were based on renovations that came in at less than $50 million.

And let’s keep in mind that money is not the only reason Arundel wants out of the RSU.

It’s impossible for the board to know whether they would be respecting voters’ wishes by keeping the 60/40 split or by bringing forth an entirely different proposal. But either way, it seems that another go-around with the cost sharing debate would be a waste of time ”“ not only because Arundel might be out of the picture soon, but also because it’s not likely to make a difference in the withdrawal effort, and voters rejection of the committee’s proposal for change ought to hold for at least a year.

Cost sharing is not something that should be revisited every few months just because of a few squeaky wheels. No solution is possible that would make all three parties happy. Indeed, this whole issue arose because not even two parties could come to an agreement.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via e-mail at kristenm@journaltribune.com.