BATH — Bath city councilors met in executive session Wednesday evening to discuss “legal matters,” then voted unanimously to send a letter to the Regional School Unit 1 board expressing their reactions to a recent decision — which some described as “ludicrous” — to change a cost-sharing formula that will add approximately $330,000 to Bath’s budget this year.

City Manager Bill Giroux told the council that the change puts the city and council in “a difficult position,” and “would put us in the top five (communities) in the state” in terms of the percentage of property taxes paid to support public education.

Wednesday’s closed-door session followed a lengthy discussion about the April 23 vote by the RSU 1 board of directors to assign costs to the five communities in the district according to a “one-third, one-third, one-third” formula unique to LD 910, legislation that created the district.

In addition to Bath, RSU 1 includes Arrowsic, West Bath, Woolwich and Phippsburg.

The RSU 1 board’s vote came late in the school district’s budget cycle — well after the proposed 2012-13 budget was presented and each town had received its preliminary local education tab. Initial figures showed Woolwich in line for a 9.91 percent increase, which spurred that town’s Board of Selectmen to question the calculation.

The decision to recalculate the RSU 1 local cost-sharing formula came late in the Bath council’s budget process, and on Wednesday, some councilors suggested that legal action — such as an injunction against the school board — or initiating withdrawal from the district might be the best course of action.

Bath’s options

Giroux outlined several choices for the council on Wednesday — choices detailed in an April 27 memo from attorney Pat Scully of Bernstein Shur, who also spoke at Wednesday’s meeting.

But Giroux said he advocated for none in particular.

The council could “do nothing and pay the increase,” Giroux said.

But to see no increase in the RSU budget — currently proposed at $26 million — it would have to be reduced by approximately $682,000, according to Giroux.

That reduction would lessen the impact on Bath, Phippsburg and Arrowsic — the three communities now slated to see cost increases over original projections.

Giroux said the proposed school budget could be reduced when the RSU 1 board meets on May 7, although he noted, “I’ve seen no indication they intend to reduce the budget.” That budget could also be reduced at the June 5 district-wide budget meeting, where amendments are possible.

Then, on June 12, the budget must be approved by a majority of townspeople in a five-town referendum.

Giroux said the council should “strongly consider … working with the RSU board and probably some kind of committee toward a cost-sharing formula that would be more fair — at least, certainly more fair in Bath’s mind.”

Scully said LD 910 speaks directly to how the board could do that.

“I don’t want to make people angry, but under the new interpretation of the school board, Bath would be committing over 9 mils to education, which would put us in the top five” of Maine communities in terms of paying for public school education, he said. “It’s certainly a very high burden … where we’re committing over 9 mils, some communities are committing 4 or 5 mils.”

Councilors’ reaction

Councilor Kyle Rogers spoke first, asking what would happen when a Bath Iron Works tax incrementing financing (TIF) arrangement expires in 10 years and the property’s full valuation is no longer excluded from the state’s formula for figuring aid to education.

“It’s inevitable that … our cost sharing is going to be affected,” he said. “We’re going to be impacted greatly — even more than we’re looking at today.”

“What happened when we approved LD 910 was, we took away local control,” Rogers said, asking for answers to questions such as how Bath’s school population has increased in recent years compared to populations from other towns in the district.

Councilor Meadow Rue Merrill said that given the number of Bath students receiving subsidized school lunches — an indication of low income — “It’s clearly absurd that the taxpayers of Bath would be paying one of the highest mil (rates) in the state for education … we’d actually be subsidizing the education of kids from surrounding communities, which by and large have a lower tax rate and higher income. It’s obvious we have to do something.”

Council chairman David Sinclair said suggestions at the April 30 school board meeting that voters approving LD 910 faced a “clear” question are “ludicrous,” since the school board subsequently asked for and received two conflicting legal opinions about the cost-sharing language.

“The real crux of the problem here is that here we are now, May 2, and we’re basically just learning about this,” Councilor Andy Winglass said, adding later, “Here we are in this quandary of another $350,000 that just came to light, apparently, because somebody wanted to change a formula we’ve been using, it seemed to me, somewhat successfully over the last four years, that everyone was used to and had accepted … from the very beginning. We’d planned for a $123,000 increase.”

He described the board’s decision as “odd” and “not the best way to do business. We rely on the RSU to guide the school budget in a somewhat consistent fashion. That’s why I’m most troubled by the situation we find ourselves in.”

According to Scully, language in LD 910 allows the RSU board to “at any time determine how it wants to change (the cost-sharing formula) … and put it out to a district-wide vote.”

Scully also outlined the process for withdrawing from the district, which would begin with a petition signed by 10 percent of Bath’s voters in the last gubernatorial election — 385 residents.

Councilor Mari Eosco said the council needs more information and “time to let this sink in.” She suggested “a meeting of the minds … (to see whether) this is a stalemate.”

Following a suggestion by Rogers that the council might file an injunction against the school board, Scully suggested they continue discussions in executive session. The council moved to do so.

They returned to regular session a half-hour later and voted unanimously to direct Scully to write a letter to the RSU 1 board “and articulate our reactions to recent changes” in the school funding formula.

bbrogan@timesrecord.com