ARUNDEL — Tension was high as the Board of Selectmen
discussed publishing municipal appropriations for education from previous years
in the town newsletter, the Arundel Arrow.
Town Manager Todd Shea explained that while compiling the
numbers, his motive was to clear up misinformation spread within the community.
He also admitted that it was one of the most challenging tasks he has taken on
as Town Manager.
The board decided in a 3-2 vote, with Thomas Danylik and
Dana Peck voting in opposition, to publish the information in the Arrow,
including listing $6.6 million in appropriations and $2.8 million in subsidies
for FY '09 and $3.3 million in appropriations and $3 million in subsidies for FY
'10, of which the funds were appropriated to the RSU 21.
Peck explained that the numbers are open to interpretation
and he believed there was a "gentleman's agreement" within the Board of
Selectmen that no numbers would be published because for every number published,
there's room for misinterpretation and various interpretations. He argued that
the public hearing, when everyone is gathered together instead of reading and
interpreting the numbers independently, would be a more appropriate time to
discuss numbers.
Peck said that the numbers that will be published in the
Arrow show that there has not been a significant increase of taxes since joining
the RSU and things have stayed relatively flat since FY '10.
Melanie Mitchell, an Arundel resident and member of the
Budget Committee, said there are more costs that need to be considered including
the cost of building renovations that Arundel would be potentially expected to
pay for at the Kennebunk High School and bond investments for the future.
Mitchell also said the board needs to tackle the issue
head-on rather than being concerned about "muddying the waters."
"You were asked to look into it and do your due diligence
but not one of you did and all of a sudden you want to do your due diligence.
It's not okay," Mitchell said. "Since the beginning of consolidation, not one of
you has wanted to muddy the waters."
Mitchell explained that the Board of Selectmen should
already have the answers regarding Arundel's health and future in the RSU and it
was their job to investigate the issue, even if it caused conflict which she
said she doesn't feel they adequately did and it made the situation even more
difficult.
Peck responded that he has been involved with the High
School Renovation Committee with the RSU but recently resigned to join the
Mildred L. Day Renovation Committee, where he said he belongs.
"The numbers are so vague, there's nothing to hang your hat
on," Peck said of the proposals and speculated costs of renovations and impacts
to Arundel.
Peck explained people are anticipating and theorizing over
numbers that are not concrete.
Peck said he informed the High School Renovation Committee
before resigning that he hoped whatever path was chosen, of about 20 options he
said they were considering, that they would do it with the goal of enhancing
education and "not just frills."
"When I resigned, that's the direction they were taking,"
Peck said of going the path towards renovations for "frills."
Question to Ms. Mitchell - RE: Due diligence (I'm hoping perhaps you can answer here) - does this mean a complete cost analysis has not been conducted with regard to a potential divorce of the RSU?
ReplyDeleteIf this is what you meant in your statement, thank you for your comment.
I believe it is foolhardy to make an emotional vote without having ALL of the information that will impact taxpayers in Arundel to examine. This means an analysis of 'business as usual', an analysis of a potential cost sharing formula that meets our needs, and an analysis of what it would look like financially to withdraw, and how that would affect each of our bottom lines.
I am still baffled as to why we would ask for people to vote first without that information, and then dive headlong into a process that could cost us so much, not just during the process, but for years to come.