ARUNDEL — What was expected to be a discussion of school debt between Kennebunk and Kennebunkport has now broadened into a decision-making process on cost-sharing that could have financial impacts for the Town of Arundel.
A committee was recently formed by the Regional School Unit 21 board to address a disagreement about cost-sharing for debt that was incurred by Kennebunk and Kennebunkport when the two were partners in School Administrative District 71.
Arundel, which is now part of the shared school district, due to consolidation, was invited by the board to participate in the committee, but did not expect much involvement in the discussions. Selectmen learned Monday that the committee has broadened its focus, however, to include a full evaluation of the district’s cost-sharing formulas that could affect all three towns.
“I was laboring under the conception that we’d be the fifth wheel at the table,” said Arundel Selectmen Chairman Tom Danylik, at the selectmen’s meeting, Monday. “Now it’s a full-blown evaluation of cost-sharing, and we apparently do need vigorous representation.”
At the RSU 21 board meeting Monday, Dec. 6, Arundel representative Dan Pleva said he believed “Arundel had nothing to do with” the cost-sharing committee’s charge to clarify the debt issue, but had heard otherwise after the committee’s first meeting.
“I don’t want to see Arundel have any adverse effect based on the decisions or indecisions of Kennebunk and Kennebunkport,” he said.
Superintendent of Schools Andrew Dolloff explained that although the SAD 71 debt-sharing was what caused the vote to form the committee, “it would appear the committee has the authority to review any part of the cost-sharing agreement because the motion was vague enough.”
“Because a particular phrase was not included in the motion, that leaves the door open for Arundel to be affected financially?” said Pleva.
Pleva asked the board to clarify its position on the cost-sharing committee’s charge, but the board declined to discuss it, agreeing that Pleva’s concerns would be discussed at the next meeting.
On Monday, Arundel resident and school board member Jack Reetz told the selectmen that he also “thought the scope of the initial charge was narrow.”
That said, however, Reetz said he believes a full discussion on cost-sharing is timely because of the proposed renovation projects to Kennebunk High School and several of the district elementary schools.
“We have to find a solution,” said Reetz.
The school district’s cost-sharing has three parts, he said. The first is the disagreement of how Kennebunk and Kennebunkport should divide $384,000 of SAD 71 debt, which Arundel does not share.
The second part is the current cost-sharing arrangement agreed to among the three towns for all education costs; and the third issue is how to fairly distribute the burden of up to $50 million in renovations to district schools that were recently proposed.
Currently, the district uses a 60/40 agreement for any costs that exceed the Essential Programs and Services designated by the state. Those costs, which exceed what the state will help fund, are based 60 percent on property values and 40 percent on student count, for each town. For Arundel, all students are included in the count, even if they attend Thornton Academy Middle School.
“If we add $50 million, we need to find a way to spread the cost in an equitable fashion,” said Reetz. “If you take the current 60/40 formula and apply it to new debt, Kennebunkport and Arundel get killed.”
Some Arundel residents Monday questioned the RSU board’s authority to review the entire cost-sharing agreement at this time.
“This allocation of who pays what was not supposed to be open for five years,” said Diane Robbins, an Arundel representative on the cost-sharing committee.
“This is their problem, and they’re trying to masquerade the whole thing by dragging us into it,” said Selectman Dana Peck. “Keep us the hell out of it.”
RSU 21 school board Chairman Norman Archer addressed the Arundel selectmen Monday with Reetz, and said he understood that “once we open up cost-sharing for any discussion at all, everything gets put back on the table.
“Clearly, there has been what I’d call ”˜scope creep’ here,” he added. “We’ll look into what can legally be done.”
Dolloff said, in a phone interview Tuesday, the original document forming the RSU does indeed set a five-year timeline before the cost-sharing agreement can be reviewed, but also allows for such a review if the board votes in favor of it, which they did at their Sept. 20 meeting.
Once the committee settles on a cost-sharing proposal, it will go to voters for approval. The board declined to set a date for the vote at their meeting Dec. 6, saying that the committee needs more time to discuss solutions.
The next school board meeting is scheduled for Monday, Dec. 20.
— City Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski can be contacted at 282-1535, Ext. 322 or kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
