As Edgartown announced a special town meeting to pay its share of running costs for the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, selectman Arthur Smadbeck issued a scathing review of the planning agency’s behavior and budgeting process this week, bluntly questioning its continued usefulness as a regional body.

“Let’s analyze it,” he told the Gazette this week. “It’s based on a very unfair formula, and Edgartown pays more than one third of the whole budget, so are we getting our money’s worth?

“Frankly there was the need for the MVC when it was put together. There was more land to develop and less stringent regulations. But Edgartown can protect itself better now and doesn’t really need a super agency for permitting. The land, it’s all in conservation or it’s already developed.

“That was probably in the minds of those who voted no at the ballot.”

The special town meeting is scheduled for June 18.

While all other towns approved payment of their mandatory share of the commission budget at annual town meetings this spring, Edgartown had a question on the election ballot asking whether the town should pay their $274,000 of the commission’s bill. By a small margin (10 votes), voters said no.

Town leaders billed the election vote as strictly symbolic at the time.

But the result, complicated by eleventh hour cuts to state aid, has taxpayers backed into a corner: pay now or accept real financial consequences.

The decision to seek payment of the MVC budget this month comes over the transom from town hall. Until last week the plan was to vote again in the fall. Indeed, a payment plan was worked out between the town and the commission — rather than pay the bill in two installments in June, then the following January as normal, Edgartown was to pay one lump sum in November after the fall town meeting.

But a recent round of state aid cuts have made this plan more difficult. The cuts, which are mainly to education aid, come after budgets have been allocated, and in the case of the current year, largely spent.

“The state has thrown a monkey wrench into local budgets and they still haven’t finalized what they’re going to cut,” said Mr. Smadbeck.

As a result in Edgartown, paying the commission assessment by raising and appropriating the money without going above the levy limit for property taxes is no longer an option.

The town will now seek to pay the bill in one lump sum from fiscal year 2009 using free cash.

“Using free cash keeps the town below levy limit,” Mr. Smadbeck said.

Ironically the commission assessment was singled out as a Proposition 2 1/2 override question by the town, a fact that allowed it to appear on the election ballot in April.

A special town meeting costs the town money, somewhere in the thousands of dollars.

But Mr. Smadbeck said the commission assessment is not the only matter of import on the five-article warrant. Also up for a vote is a request for money to complete the restoration of the Edgartown lighthouse walkway and a transfer request for painting the standpipe at Mill Hill.

There is the real possibility that the town will not achieve a quorum for the meeting, and June 18 represents the last opportunity for the town to handle the problem with the MVC payment in the current fiscal year.

If there is no quorum or if the article fails, the town will have no choice but to pay the assessment during fiscal year 2010.

At that point, Mr. Smadbeck said, with more state cuts to contend with, the town may well wait to begin paying the commission bill until enough free cash is available.

Nonetheless, Mr. Smadbeck defended the decision to break out the MVC item and include it as a ballot question at the April election; it was a sensible reaction to a perceived stonewalling of the town finance committee, he argued.

“There was not even lip service paid to the finance committee’s requests,” he said. “The fact is they tried to work with them, and the MVC said, ‘We don’t need to work with you on your budget.’ And if they’re going to have that attitude, it’s better for the town to have a voice. The problem is there’s no accountability.”

None of this is relevant to the June 18 vote, Mr. Smadbeck said. Prefacing his comments by saying that he had no control over what is discussed on the town meeting floor, Mr. Smadbeck said the purpose was plain and simple: to pay the commission. Further down the road the town may look to hold hearings on the future of the commission, but as for this year he admitted that the town has a clear fiduciary responsibility.

“Make no mistake, we owe that money and we have to pay it,” Mr. Smadbeck said. “This is not a referendum vote. We owe the money.”