“This is not about attacking city employees or elected officials. It is about accountability and public confidence”
By MARK PORIER | Biddeford
At what point do Biddeford taxpayers stop accepting higher taxes, higher fees and more borrowing and start asking a basic question: Who is watching the money?
The city of Biddeford has gone years without the kind of comprehensive financial review its taxpayers deserve. Recent events make such a review increasingly necessary.
The city has sought voter approval to borrow money for building repairs, deferred maintenance and other infrastructure needs involving the Recreation Department.
Bonding for major capital projects is sometimes necessary. However, when facilities deteriorate to the point that borrowing becomes necessary, residents should reasonably ask whether adequate long-term planning, maintenance and budgeting occurred.
And the borrowing does not stop there.
The city is also facing approximately $20 million in additional bonding for sewer and stormwater separation projects required by environmental mandates. Unlike discretionary spending, these projects represent infrastructure obligations the city must address.
That makes careful financial planning elsewhere even more important. When tens of millions of dollars in required infrastructure investments are on the horizon, every discretionary dollar should receive greater scrutiny.
Then there is the sewer billing problem.
The city recently acknowledged that residents were overbilled for sewer services for approximately six years, totaling about $1.3 million that must now be refunded or credited to users.
At nearly the same time, the city council approved a 31 percent increase in sewer rates.
Think about that.
Residents were overcharged for years, and now many of those same residents are being told they need to pay nearly one-third more for sewer service.
How does a billing problem involving $1.3 million continue for six years without being identified and corrected?
What financial controls failed? Who was responsible for reviewing those numbers? Were the billing systems independently checked? And what safeguards have now been implemented to ensure this does not happen again?
Those are not partisan questions. They are basic questions of financial accountability.
Meanwhile, during the city’s most recent budget reconciliation, approximately $1.4 million was allocated to various nonprofit organizations.
Many of those organizations may provide worthwhile services, and supporting community programs can be a legitimate municipal priority. But when taxpayers are being asked to absorb increasing property taxes, dramatically higher sewer rates and tens of millions of dollars in borrowing, every discretionary expenditure deserves scrutiny.
Government’s first financial responsibility should be funding essential municipal services and maintaining the infrastructure taxpayers already own before deciding how much public money can be distributed elsewhere.
Government’s first financial responsibility should be funding essential municipal services and maintaining the infrastructure taxpayers already own before deciding how much public money can be distributed elsewhere.
That does not mean nonprofits should never receive municipal support. It means those appropriations should be evaluated transparently, consistently and against clearly defined public benefits.
Consider the financial picture: $1.3 million in sewer overbilling; a 31 percent sewer-rate increase; approximately $1.4 million allocated to nonprofits; borrowing for Recreation Department facilities and infrastructure; another roughly $20 million in bonding for mandated sewer and stormwater projects; and property taxpayers continually being asked to pay more.
Individually, each expenditure or financial decision may have an explanation. Collectively, they raise legitimate questions about financial management, priorities and long-term planning.
That is why Biddeford should commission a comprehensive, independent financial and operational review of City government.
Such a review should examine internal financial controls, spending growth, capital planning, debt and bonding, sewer billing and rate-setting, nonprofit appropriations, departmental expenditures, procurement practices and opportunities for savings. It should also evaluate whether the City has adequate systems for forecasting future obligations and communicating financial risks to residents before those risks become emergencies.
The review should be conducted by an independent firm with no financial or political ties to the city. Its findings should be made public, along with specific recommendations, timelines for implementation and regular reports on progress.
This is not about attacking city employees or elected officials. It is about accountability and public confidence. A thorough review could identify problems, but it could also confirm that certain decisions were reasonable and that existing controls are working.
Either outcome would benefit taxpayers.
Residents are repeatedly told why government needs more money. It is equally reasonable for taxpayers to demand that government demonstrate that the money it already receives is being managed efficiently and responsibly.
Residents are repeatedly told why government needs more money. It is equally reasonable for taxpayers to demand that government demonstrate that the money it already receives is being managed efficiently and responsibly.
Biddeford residents are not an unlimited source of revenue. They face rising housing costs, utility bills, insurance premiums and everyday expenses. Municipal government must recognize that each tax increase, fee increase and borrowing request affects real household budgets.
With significant infrastructure obligations ahead, the question should not always be how much more taxpayers can afford to pay. City Hall should first be asking: Where can we spend less, plan better and make the dollars taxpayers already provide go further?
Before the next tax increase, rate increase or bond request, Biddeford taxpayers deserve that answer. They also deserve a clear accounting of what went wrong with sewer billing, how future obligations will be managed and whether current spending reflects the city’s most urgent needs.
A comprehensive independent review would be a responsible first step toward providing that accountability.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Biddeford Gazette, its staff, affiliates or sponsors. We encourage robust and diverse community conversations on topics related to the city of Biddeford. To submit your own letter or column, please CONTACT US
.
STAY CONNECTED | SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TODAY
BIDDEFORD GAZETTE
“Keeping You Connected to Biddeford”
Editorial Standards & Policies
© 2026 Biddeford Gazette, Inc. All Rights Reserved
BIDDEFORD GAZETTE 