A cost-sharing committee for the five towns of Oakland-based Regional School Unit 18 has decided not to alter the current formula, sparking both approval and disappointment from towns.

This decision comes after discussions and proposals to flip the formula, add other factors or just tweak the current factors’ weights, which has property valuations at 75 percent and student count at 25 percent on a three-year average of both.

RSU 18 creates an ad hoc committee every five years with three voting members from each of its five towns, which include Oakland, Belgrade, Rome, China and Sidney. This year’s committee decided on a formula within four meetings, which is typical, according to superintendent Gary Smith.

Throughout its meetings, the committee talked extensively about what solutions would be fair and equitable and what fair and equitable would mean for each town. At the same time, committee members have to keep in mind that changes have to be voted on in a referendum.

The committee could have changed how the formula weighs the current factors, or it could have added in another factor.

While members of the committee brought up weighing the formula by student count and discussed adding median income of a town as a factor, it settled on its current 75-25 split on Thursday.

Superintendent Gary Smith said the committee first voted on an amended motion that would have changed the formula to 70 percent property valuation, 30 percent student count, which failed 6-7.

While Smith said he would’ve liked the outcome to show some movement, which 70-30 could have done, the committee essentially voted along town lines.

“A 5 percent change showed three towns paying more and two towns saving, and people had a hard time dealing with that,” he said.

Smith also said that most districts across the state weigh the formula on 100 percent property valuations, which was how schools paid for additional costs prior to the creation of regional school districts.

In 2011, the committee made the change to 75-25 to address the concerns of “property rich towns” with fewer students, Smith said.

Oakland, Sidney and China all have higher student populations but lower property valuations, while Rome and Belgrade have the lowest student populations and highest property valuations.

The committee finally settled on the original 75-25 split, which passed, 8-5.

Of the 15 members, two were missing at the meeting— one from China and another from Rome.

Committee member Gary Mahler, a Belgrade select board member, said he was “very disappointed” by the outcome.

“I think that Belgrade and Rome were not particularly treated well,” he said. “I think the three towns were not listening to Rome and Belgrade.”

Mahler said he was in favor of a shift that weighed student count more heavily. One proposal to split the two factors 50-50 would’ve been a “fairly good change,” he said.

Belgrade has the second lowest median income of all five towns, Mahler said, which he was also hoping the committee would take into consideration.

“Our valuation is high, but we have a lot of people here who barely pay their taxes every year,” he said.

Mahler said he voted for the shift to 70-30 but against the motion to remain at 75-25.

Laura Tracy, of Oakland, has sat on the committee before and said she thinks sticking with the same split was the best choice.

“I say that from my perspective from the times that I’ve previously reviewed this,” she said. In the past, she said this split has proved effective and fair.

“Any movement in the direction away from valuation and more toward student count feels less fair, in my opinion, because it puts an undue burden on the towns with lower property valuation,” Tracy said. “I think this does give some recognition to the student count, which does help the towns that have higher valuations.”

Tracy voted with other Oakland representatives against the motion to change the formula to 70-30, she said, because she felt 75-25 was “the right split.”

“I think the community did their due diligence,” she said. “I think in the end this is a good solution for all the towns, and it’s difficult to please everybody and to answer the question of what is fair and equitable.”

Madeline St. Amour — 861-9239

mstamour@centralmaine.com

Twitter: @madelinestamour