Question 5: Do you favor a $7,925,000 bond issue to be expended over two years for revolving loan funds for drinking water systems and for wastewater treatment facilities, which will make the state eligible to secure $39,625,000 in federal grants?
Approval of Question 5 would provide bridge funding for badly needed upgrades and required maintenance on local drinking and wastewater systems in Maine, some of which have pipes and components that have been in use for more than a century.
A little more than $3.5 million of the Question 5 bond money would go to drinking water facilities, with the balance dedicated to anti-pollution measures and wastewater treatment system upgrades.
Passage of Question 5 would yield a 5-to-1 return in federal dollars on Maine’s expenditure to replenish the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, which was established in 1997 as a financing tool to minimize the effect on ratepayers of public water system capital projects, and a similar Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund created in 1987 for wastewater treatment. Even for those with reservations about government bonding, the deal is too good to pass up.
This bond should be the last time for the foreseeable future that Maine voters will have to decide whether to borrow to provide funding for the revolving loan funds. In 2011, the Legislature approved a proposal to tap revenue from the state’s wholesale liquor contract to pay the state match for federal water system improvement funding between 2014 and 2023.
Replenishing the revolving loan funds represents an investment in public safety. The funds allow municipalities and water districts to plan major maintenance work and avoid delays that increase the risk of service disruption or system failures requiring expensive, emergency repairs.
The system upgrade projects also create construction jobs and add protections against contamination of shellfish flats downriver from wastewater treatment plants.
Voting yes on Question 5 will yield economic, environmental and public safety benefits throughout Maine.
Every year I ask, and every year no one answers.
Why should people who live with septic tanks and deep wells (which they paid for without help from city dwellers) be expected to chip in for water systems which benefit them not at all?
I’m sure that citizens in Portland, Bangor, and Lewiston (as well as other towns and cities with water supplies) would be outraged if I sent them a partial bill for having my septic tank replaced.
As usual, I will vote no. As usual it will pass. Then it will again be perfectly legal to rob country folk of their hard earned cash.
Because having clean, affordable drinking water is vital for the states survival.
I have clean affordable drinking water, which I pay for. Want it? buy it.
What’s the source and analysis?
I paid $3000.00 for my water system and $2100.00 for my Septic system. I HAVE PAID ENOUGH!
Does it do the job? Hope so or you got rooked and have the potential for damaging municipal systems.
It’s vital for EVERONE’s survival.
I’m not sure of the exact details of this bond, but in the past rural septic system upgrades were funded with this kind of bond issue. It was based upon the land owners income and immediate impact on local drinking water supplies. I wonder if people that live in large cities feel the same way about us?
Finally an answer. We’re talking about welfare. now I get it.
Thanks
So do you actually think that each individual in this state
should get an individualized tax bill based upon what services they do or don’t
utilize. Isn’t that a bit of a stretch? Does the same go for the town and federal
gov?
Let me ask you this, how much did you pay for that road to
your little community or to your front door? You don’t think the more urbanized
sections of this state didn’t subsidize their construction and continue helping
pay for maintenance? The electricity and
internet connection you’re using were also subsidized. And yes, many folks have received gov.
subsidies to replace individual overboard discharge systems and failing septics
years.
We are talking about water facilities which do not benefit me. I must pay FULL FRIEGHT to get water here. No urban folks do not subsidize my roads. I subsidize yours. rural folks use much more gasoline, and therefore pay much more in gas tax than do city dwellers. If I had my way EVERYTHING would be pay in full to use. That is not going to happen, so SINCE I must pay in full for my water/septic. So should city dwellers.
I live in one of the urban service centers and I am tired of paying for your police protection, and for plowing and maintaining your roads. When I attend an event at the auditorium I pay the same admission as you do even though my taxes paid for it. I pay the same distribution on my electricity bill even though it costs much more to deliver your electricity. It is time that you pay your share.
The issue is water, and once again, I have no answr for the why I should pay your water bill when you don’t pay mine.
You don’t pay for my roads/ plowing etc.. Study after study shows that urban dwellers pay less gas tax than their infrustructure justifies.
Part of the package.
You may drive more and pay somewhat greater fuel tax but it
still is a pittance of the roads original construction and maintenance. State DOT built and maintains most connector
roads. Through traffic, those folks
living in the urbanized areas, pay for these roads. But don’t worry, we’ll let you drive on them.
Roads were built/subsidized in the same manner as electrical
lines were installed- Rural Electrification program. By the way, you didn’t address that point. Broadband web connections, subsidized by the
urban areas- your answer? You still didn’t
address the point individual tax billing, you’ve left a lot unanswered.
You use services in the cities, whether you live there, or not. The hospitals are there. Most of the shopping is there. The county seat, with the sheriff, court system, and other protections for you, are there.
You undoubtedly drive on their streets and roads, while the residents in the service centers may or may not drive on yours.
When you, uh, use a facility in town, your excrement is treated at their sewer district. I doubt very much than many urban dwellers take advantage of your septic system.
The service center communities usually pay taxes at a higher rate than the rural resident pays. They are in effect, subsidizing you.
I expect you will say the same thing next time – you’ve asked, and you’ve gotten no answer. I rather suspect that you have been given answers before, but you haven’t liked them, so you “haven’t heard them.”
When I use services in the city, I pay for that use. Hospitals are not free (in case you haven’t noticed, and when I go shopping, they don’t give me the stuff either.
I laugh at your contention that city dwellers are subsidizing me. If you clowns are sending money out this way, you better check the messenger’s bank account, because it ain’t making it.
You still have not given me an answer. There is no answer, except that city folk believe someone else should pay pay for their lifestyle choice. That’s a hoot.
You don’t pay to pee at the Department store, Tux. You never pay when you use the roads in Bangor, Portland, or wherever. The Sheriff that protects *you*, probably is headquartered in a city of some sort, not Meddybemps or Rockwood. That Sheriff’s office uses city services.
You have answers, but they’re not what you want to hear.
So go vote No on everything. That’s what you’re going to do.
And for the record, I live in the sticks.
In case you missed it rube, we were talking about water, not roads or law enforcement. In case you haven’t noticed I pay the exact same gas tax as you. Gas tax pays not only for roads in Maine, but pays part of the Statre Police budget.
Back to water.
There is no law that department stores must provide facilities, so if they do this, they must think of their accomidation as part of their business expenses. You think I should help pay Hannaford’s bills?
Wow, what and iconoclast. Can you still live Thoreau style? Don’t think so.
Tux, vote your conscience. There are no arguments and no examples that can provide evidence for the mind that is closed. Yours is more than closed, it is pad-locked.
Then we have to pay taxes for someone to inspect the new tank.
Nope! no one has EVER come to look at my septic system since it was installed in 1976. It get flushed out every five years, but I pay full freight for that service.
Hmmm. Per that previous offer, I wonder about it’s effectiveness after 36 years. It should be checked, could be polluting ground water.
Just heard a presentation on how much improvement was needed for rural water/sewer sytems over the lst few decades. It’s been successful in that surface water quality has improved greatly from some pretty bad condistions. Let’s maintain it.
Good water is vital.
Yes.
Hearty agreement.
Why should we have to pay for upgrades and maintenance in the cities ?? Most who seem to have enough money to pi$$ away on projects like dog parks , bike paths , walking trails , granite curbs , brick sidewalks , fancy street lights among other wastefull crap…We should be forced to pay for mismanagement in liberal cities ?? We shouldn’t have to bail them out EVERY election with another bond…Try planning and budgeting…Vote NO….
I’d guess that most of us live in cities or other municipalities with city services.
Out of curiosity, can anyone recall the BDN ever opposing a bond issue?
Not Me.
N
O
M
O
R
E
B
O
N
D
S
!
Let the politicians do the jobs they were elected for!
You expect them to be able to fund it themselves? See my other post on the value of bonds and bonding.
No more bonds.. If the water district needs to update their system, charge the rate payers for it.
bonds /grants = more taxes
It would seem that bonds would largely be in lieu of taxes.
Water is our most important resource. Let’s support maintaining the good supply.