Rutland Taxpayers United

The Right to Re-vote

2011-03-31T21:59:00.003-04:00

A group of Rutland City residents followed the law by conducting a petition drive to have a re-vote on the Giorgetti Expansion Bond. We had our petition and our rights validated by the Vermont Secretary of State and the City Attorney. We will continue to exercise our rights as taxpayers of this City and State. Apparently, those who favored this expansion do not want us to have this right. The following is posted on the "Vote Yes for the Giorgetti Expansion" facebook site:

Nan Richenderfer Hart: I find it very puzzling why this is allowed to occur...the voters have already spoken and unless (as in the case of an elected official who does something illegal) there is something illegal about original vote this should NOT BE ALLOWED! Rutland city voters have spoken and there is no legitimate reason to re-vote other than the sour grapes of those who opposed it. I would like to start a petition to stop the petition...that is how absurd this is....anyone want to support that? 6 hours ago Lori Manning Hickey, Mary Barron, Peggy Shinn likes this.. Nan Richenderfer Hart: I am referring to the announcement today of a petition to re-vote on this matter to defeat the expansion project that won the approval of the Rutland City voters ..just ridiculous...

Deb Roy I agree....so if it is voted down, do the pro-Giorgetti voters get to re-vote it again, and again....and again.....talk about a waste of time and money and people's energy!

Giorgetti Revote Petition Filed!

2011-03-31T12:57:00.001-04:00

A door-to-door petition drive may have put the Giorgetti Arena bond back before the voters.

A group of a half-dozen people presented City Clerk Henry Heck with a petition on Wednesday to revote the $3.9 million bond for expansion of the Giorgetti Park facilities into a full-scale recreation center.

Such a petition requires signatures from 5 percent of the registered voters in the city — just shy of 600 — and the petitioners said they had around 750, with more they could turn in before the deadline today.

Heck said he could not recall the last petitioned revote in the city, and Mayor Christopher Louras said his research did not find one since a vote on fluoridation in 1982.

Heck said if enough signatures prove valid a special election would be scheduled for 60 days from today — the deadline for the petition.

Proponents of the bond argued that the recreation department's facility in the Dana Center would never be adequate to the city's needs and that a modern recreation center would serve as a developmental tool for the city. Voters approved the bond at town meeting, 1,710 to 1,603.

James Mattison, who spoke for the petitioners Wednesday, said they felt the bond went through too quickly and the city should focus its attention elsewhere.

“For four years, we've listened to this administration complain about potholes, antique sewer systems, water pipes that were ready to explode,” he said.

Mattison said they collected signatures by going door to door over a period of 10 to 12 days.

“We picked certain streets, different times of day,” he said. “We didn't go together — we spread ourselves out. This was a very good operation.”

Heck said it could take a few days to verify all the names on the petition.

“You have to look up every single name,” he said. “It takes more time than you think and we have other things we do.”

The Recreation Committee voted earlier this week to recommend putting out a request for proposals on engineering for the project. Chairman Thomas DePoy said the city would not proceed with the request for proposals if the petition was certified.

“We're not going to waste any money or waste any time if there's a revote,” he said.

Louras, on the other hand, said he saw no reason to wait on that step and would recommend to the full board that it move ahead.

“The RFP process can continue,” Louras said. “As long as we don't expend any funds, we can have a contract signed with the proper stipulations.”

Louras said he did not believe an impending revote would discourage engineering firms from bidding on the project.

Even if the request for proposals is delayed, DePoy said he did not think that would hurt the chances of breaking ground on the project this year if it passes on a revote.

“I'm still hopeful we can get started in August,” he said. “I don't see it's going to put a huge damper on that. It may. If it does, it does.”

DePoy, who advocated strongly for the project while running for re-election, said he would continue his advocacy and he was not fazed by the petition.

“If they've got the signatures, they've got them,” he said. “My only hope is, when we have the revote, people will be energized to get out and vote for it again. I think it's something that's a true investment in the community. This is the democratic process and I'm fine with it. I'll be disappointed if it fails. ... If it's passed a second time, that's a reassurance this community wants to invest in itself.”

Either way, DePoy said, he will sleep well at night.

Others had more animated reactions.

“I think it's a slap in the face to the city voters and the process,” said Paul Gallo, who campaigned for the bond and was credited by some city officials with its success. “Voters came out and pledged their votes. I think it was clear they saw Rutland moving forward and with all the good things happening in Rutland, this is part of it.”

Louras said he was confident the bond would pass a second time.

“It's just my sense, my feeling, the community wants to move forward, not step backward,” he said. “My sense is more individuals were pleased it passed than were upset.”

Friends of Giorgetti Arena raised almost $8,000 in cash and in-kind contributions. Gallo said he expects the group will make some kind of effort if the second vote happens.

“When City Hall tells us that we'll have another vote, we'll take it up then,” he said. “We'll do what we've got to do.”

Mattison said his group plans an active campaign to get out the vote.

“By Monday we should be on the road and running again,” he said. “This is going to be a long battle.”

Rutland Taxpayers United Strike Again!!

2011-03-30T22:06:00.000-04:00

Petition may send Giorgetti bond issue back to polls
1:50 p.m.

By Gordon Dritschilo
Staff Writer - Published: March 30, 2011

The Giorgetti Arena bond appears to be headed back to the polls.

A group of Rutland residents turned in a petition at the City Clerk's office early this afternoon they said has about 750 signatures calling for a second vote on the $3.9 million bond. John Mattison, who spoke for the group, said they had sheets of additional names they planned to turn in the next day.

City Clerk Henry Heck said it would be a couple days before his office would be able to verify the signatures. If the total number of legitimate signatures reaches one-fifth of the number of registered voters in the city -- a number just under 600 -- a special election will be scheduled for 60 days from Thursday.

Heck estimated a special election will cost around $5,000.

Voters at town meeting approved the bond by a margin of about 100 votes

Vt. House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill - Video News Story - WPTZ Plattsburgh

2011-03-26T10:01:00.001-04:00

News video regarding Single Payer Health Care.

Vt. House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill - Video News Story - WPTZ Plattsburgh

Is a Housing Study Needed?

2011-03-26T09:56:00.002-04:00

The Rutland Redevelopment Authority plans to study the city’s housing needs.

The Board of Aldermen voted unanimously Monday to support the organization’s application for a $10,000 municipal plann...ing grant from the state to fund the study.

“We want to find out what the city has available and compare it to what was needed — what kind of senior housing is needed, what kind of single-family housing was needed,” RRA administrative assistant Barbara Allen told the board Monday.

Mayor Christopher Louras said Wednesday the need for such a study was pointed out by the recent census data showing Rutland’s population falling for a second census period in a row.

“With a great many vacancies in the city, we had to do some long-term planning to determine what levels and types of housing the city needs going forward,” he said.

Louras said he does not expect the population trend to reverse in the immediate future and that the city has more units under construction as Forest Park is rebuilt. He said city government influences the housing market through its sponsorship of grant applications for housing projects.

“It would stand to reason that if we have 100 available units of multifamily, it would not be the most prudent action to bring new ones on board,” he said.

Allen said Wednesday she did not know if the RRA would hire a consultant for the study or do the work in-house. She said she expects the grant application to go out in April and that the study would likely be conducted in the summer and completed some time in the fall.

The last such study, she said, was the Rutland County Housing Needs Assessment, spearheaded by the Rutland County Community Land Trust and published in January 2005.

Meanwhile, Allen said the RRA board conducted telephone interviews of some candidates for the executive director job Tuesday. The group had about 30 applicants, she said, mostly from New England and upstate New York. She said they intend to have someone in place by July 1, when the new fiscal year begins.

Giorgetti Re-Vote Petition Drive

2011-03-24T22:49:00.003-04:00

Taxpayers are uniting by circulating a petition for a re-vote on the recently passed Giorgetti Expansion Bond Article. The passage of a $4.3 million dollar bond for the expansion of Giorgetti Park passed on Town Meeting Day by just over 100 votes. Voters can ask for a re-vote on a bond article if you get 5% of the registered voters to sign a petition within 30 days of the initial passage. This would mean approximately 550 signatures are needed by April 1st. A special election would take place within 60 days of Town Meeting.

Please download the petition and have your friends and neighbors sign. Petitions can be handed in at DT Supply on River St in Rutland Vermont. All petitions need to be handed in by next week.

Vermont Single Payer Health Care?

2011-03-24T22:27:00.003-04:00

What is Vermont's Single Payer Health Care Bill? That seems to be the question over the past few weeks. There are many more questions than answers regarding this Bill. For those seeking to read the Bill, please click here: Vermont Single Payer

The Rutland Region Chamber of Commerence has posed the following question regarding this legislation:

We are concerned that reform of Vermont’s $5 billion health care industry is being hurried through the legislative process potentially exposing the State to many unintended consequences that may be hard to back up from.

We are concerned that the proposal does not include a mechanism for who will pay for this and how much? Answers to funding questions are critical.

We all agree that cost containment is critical and that we need to get health care costs under control. But how does this bill do that? How, exactly, will costs be contained? Will it result in health care rationing? What are the benefits that will be covered and omitted by he proposal?

Currently Government (through Medicare & Medicaid) reimburses at a rate below cost (40%-70%). How does the proposal address the cost shift that currently exists?

What happens to Vermont’s program if Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements fall? How will the employers/employees be held harmless if this occurs? How will Vermont retain and attract doctors?

Companies who are self insured could see a double digit increase to labor costs, or be forced to drop their program in favor of the state medical plan at a higher cost. Will these companies be held harmless in this legislation?

Will the single payer system take away the high-value insurance coverage enjoyed by teachers, state and municipal employees and other organized workers? Or will this plan create a two tiered system, with the taxpayers financing both the gold-plated heath care benefits for government workers, and a less robust system for themselves?

How will the single payer system achieve its claimed efficiency benefits, when providers still have to bill Medicare, insurance carriers offering privately-paid supplementary coverage, the insurance plans of non-Vermonters, and perhaps carriers of high-value insurance for teachers and municipal employees?

How will two-income families accommodate paying potentially double or triple their out-of-pocket costs - through a payroll tax - for coverage that is much-less robust than their current plans?

Ninety-three percent of Vermonters already have health insurance and half of the remaining 7 percent are eligible for Medicaid. Is this the only option for insuring the uninsured? Why aren't we waiting to see if federal health care reform works first.

How can a five member part time board possibly manage the complexities of a $5 billion health care system given the range of responsibilities?

Mayor floats water upgrades

2010-12-09T16:45:00.001-05:00

Mayor Christopher Louras said the city can make progress on its ancient water lines without raising water rates and even more progress if it just raises them a little.

Rutland has roughly 30 miles of water mains that date back to the 19th century, with 3,400 feet on Woodstock Avenue that were laid in 1858. Many of those old pipes are smaller than modern standards call for and have degraded so they are effectively smaller than when they were installed.

Louras presented the Board of Aldermen on Monday with a memo from city engineer Evan Pilachowski that outlined a replacement strategy that could, depending how aggressively the board wants to pursue it, eventually update all the city’s outdated lines.

The memo outlined four options. The first was to do nothing. In the second, as bonds and other obligations expire, the money that had been used to repay them stays in the budget, but is instead put toward line replacement.

The third option builds on the second by instituting a 1 percent increase in the water rate for six years. The fourth is like the third, only with a 2 percent increase over five years.

None of the plans bring the system up to date any time soon, but option four leaves the city with 45 percent of its water mains beyond their useful lifespan by 2040 — compared to 74 percent if the city does nothing — and has them all up to date by 2110.

“My preference is number four,” Louras said Wednesday. “It’s the one that gets the city to a point, though 100 years from now, where none of our water infrastructure is beyond its useful life. More important, though, it is the most aggressive plan to replace the most decrepit and vulnerable water mains in the city.”

The city’s antebellum pipes were at the top of the priority list, which covers roughly four and a half miles and includes sections of Killington Avenue, Park Street, High Street, Engrem Avenue, Park Street, Wales Street, Pearl Street, Kingsley Avenue, Roberts Avenue, Water Street and Wood Avenue, among many others.

Louras said the aging pipes had implications for fire coverage and, as a result, the city’s insurance rating. He also said the oldest pipes were difficult to repair because they had a tendency to break even more in the process.

Louras tried to get a measure on the 2008 town meeting ballot instituting a permanent 8.8 percent surcharge on water bills to fund a 150-year replacement schedule. The board fell a vote short of the majority required to put the question on the ballot.

Board president David Allaire said Thursday he needed to review the proposal more before giving a firm opinion.

“Certainly it’s something we all realize has to be done,” he said. “It’s a question of how we fund it.”

Allaire said he was wary of burdening the taxpayers or ratepayers.

“I don’t know if we’ve looked under every rock as far as federal funding goes,” he said. “I know there’s been some effort in that direction, I’d like to see more.”

Alderwoman Sharon Davis said she opposed the mayor’s earlier proposal but, like Allaire, was still studying this one.

“I think the board’s well aware that we need to work on the infrastructure, but the board’s also aware the taxpayers need some relief and water and sewer users need some relief,” she said. “I’m open to be learning more about the proposal, what is the financial impact.”

gordon.dritschilo @rutlandherald.com

DPW agrees to health care hike

2010-12-09T16:44:00.000-05:00

Department of Public Works employees have unanimously agreed to pay more for health care.

American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Council 93 Local 1201 voted Monday to approve a contract provision that Mayor Christopher Louras said will save the city roughly $100,000 a year. The Board of Aldermen also unanimously approved the change Monday.

Employees go from having no deductible to $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 for a two-person family. Louras said the city will pay the first 75 percent of the deductible.

This drops the premium for a single employee from $798 to $642 a month, Louras said, and that of a family from $2,098 to $1,569 a month.

Meanwhile, employee contributions will increase from 10 percent with a 4 percent salary cap in the first year to 12 percent with a 6 percent cap in the second year and 14 percent with a 7 percent cap in the third year.

Louras heaped praise on the employees Wednesday.

“The reason DPW’s doing this is because they get it,” he said. “They understand the pressures the taxpayers are under. They’re more than willing to step up to the plate and help figure out some savings.”

Board president David Allaire echoed Louras’s sentiment, and said he hoped DPW’s decision would set an example for others in city leadership.

“We’re all working very hard to trim the budget, looking for ways to save money,” he said. “To have the employees step up is good.”

Louras said the $100,000 savings number includes nonunion employees who will be subject to the same arrangement.

He said the contract also provides no pay raise in the first year and raises of 3.5 percent in the second and third years. He said a significant amount of those raises will be eaten up by the increasing contributions.

“We’re taxpayers, too,” Local 1201 president Tom Franzoni said. “We definitely don’t want to lose members and the aldermen are looking everywhere for tax savings.”

Franzoni said he and other union members took note of the town meeting vote last year for a charter change requiring municipal employees to pay 20 percent of their health care costs. The Legislature shot down the change, but Franzoni said city workers felt the taxpayers’ pain and wanted to show they understood.

Still, Franzoni said he was not expecting a unanimous vote.

“I was shocked as anybody when I was at the meeting,” he said. “We explained it and people got in line and voted for it. ... Nobody was grumbling about having to pay more for health care.”

gordon.dritschilo @rutlandherald.com

The Board of Aldermen approved a new policy on health insurance buyouts after a brief but spirited debate Monday.

2010-12-07T16:46:00.000-05:00

The Board of Aldermen approved a new policy on health insurance buyouts after a brief but spirited debate Monday.

Mayor Christopher Louras presented the policy to the board, along with one on unpaid leave, for inclusion in the city's employee handbook.

It allows nonunion employees who have other health insurance options to opt out of the city plan and get half of the employer's contribution, saving the city the other half.

Louras said approval would codify what was already an unofficial practice. He also said buyouts had been offered at 10 percent, but nobody took them.

Alderman David Dress, who moved earlier in the meeting to sever the two changes into separate motions, said he would not support the buyout policy.

“I understand fully why it is done at the city and the school level,” he said. “That does not make it right. ... I have an absolute abhorrence for somebody being rewarded, through an insurance buyout, for effectively doing nothing.”

Alderwoman Sharon Davis disagreed with Dress' reading on the policy.

“I think we have to remember that this is a benefit due to the employee already,” she said. “If the buyout's not there, the employee's going to take the benefit.”

In response to a question from Alderman William Notte, Louras estimated that the buyouts have saved the city roughly $70,000 during the past five years.

Louras also pointed out that the change only applied to nonunion personnel, as the police, fire and public works union already had the same buyout clause in their contracts.

“Not having this would give nonunion people one more reason to look across the street and say, ‘They have a benefit I don't,'” he said.

The motion passed by a voice vote. The board went on to approve the unpaid leave policy unanimously with almost no discussion. That policy allows department heads to grant unpaid leave under certain circumstances.

gordon.dritschilo @rutlandherald.com

Mayor Proposes Increase in Rooms, Meals and Entertainment Tax

2010-10-21T08:14:00.000-04:00

By Gordon Dritschilo
Staff Writer - Published: October 21, 2010

The Rutland Redevelopment Authority wants another $120,000 a year and an office in City Hall.

The requests were part of a reorganization plan for the group that board Chairman Mark Foley Jr. outlined to the Community and Economic Development Committee Wednesday. The committee took no action, but the aldermen present had generally favorable reactions.

As only three members of the Board of Aldermen attended the meeting — Sharon Davis, Kevin Coleman and William Notte — Davis asked that Foley's proposal be distributed to the rest of the board and scheduled another committee meeting for 5:30 p.m. Tuesday.

“I'd hate to have the debate, at budget time, directly about the RRA,” she said, adding that she was disappointed at the low turnout by the board.

The proposal included a number of suggestions for how to pay for the additional $120,000 — the RRA already gets $60,000 from the general fund. Mayor Christopher Louras, who said the funds will be in the budget proposal he will present to the board Nov. 1, said he recommended increasing the city's rooms, meals and entertainment tax to 1.5 percent.

With that money, Foley said the RRA would hire an executive director to administer all grants for the city except those for public safety and recreation and work with the administration on dealing with blighted properties, even assisting in eminent domain proceedings where the city saw fit.

Foley included a proposed agreement for services requiring the group to develop a plan dealing with the Cottage Street and Church Street corridors and to make quarterly progress reports to the city.

Notte, the Board of Aldermen's representative on the RRA's board, said the amount sounded reasonable.

“You're going to be hard-pressed to find a lot of people who don't feel it's a duty of the city to promote economic development,” he said. “I would argue it's even more irresponsible to under-fund economic growth. You're going to create the illusion that something's happening while things are backsliding.”

Coleman said he would be willing to spend even more money on the RRA, but he wanted to see a plan with measurable goals.

The proposal came out of eight months of discussions with groups including multiple levels of city government, the Rutland Region Chamber of Commerce, the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, the Housing Trust of Rutland County, the Downtown Rutland Partnership and the Rutland Economic Development Corp.

The RRA finished the 2008-2009 fiscal year owing the city $13,000. After struggling with its budget, the group's board voted to eliminate the executive director's position in January and then launched a process designed to determine the organization's future, and if it even had one.

Foley said they concluded that the RRA's original configuration was sound, with one exception that caused it to lose its way. The charter included no mechanism for funding.

While the RRA got some money from the general fund and more from a special tax assessed in the downtown, Foley said the group relied on grant administration fees to cover much of its costs. This drove it, he said, to seek out the sort of grants that would sustain its budget and took attention away from the city's needs.

Foley, Louras and Davis all said addressing the city's blighted properties would increase the tax rolls while making Rutland more attractive to businesses, with Davis adding it would help with the drug problem.

“There are other people working on recruiting the 250-person employer,” Foley said. “That's not our charge. Our charge is making sure they have a place to eat.”

Foley said that while vacant housing seems like the larger problem at the moment, the RRA would also tackle blighted commercial properties.

“That process is under way,” he said. “It's ongoing. What it really needs is a champion, a director.”

gordon.dritschilo@rutland herald.com

Boys & Girls Club bails on Proposed Giorgetti Community Center

2010-10-15T16:28:00.005-04:00

The proposed Giorgetti Community Center (Regional Recreation Center) after years has not gained any traction from the community. The project has seen the surrounding towns drop from the list of supporters in years past. The Boys & Girls Club, which was a partner in this project last year, has announced they will not be interested in the modified Community Center Project. Last year the project went in front of the voters and it was turned down by a hefty margin. Recreation Director, EJ Bishop, gave a new proposal on Thursday night to the Board of Alderman's Recreation Committee. The new price tag just shy of $4,000,000. Bishop stated last night he needs to community to support this project if it is to be built or gather federal funding. Many municipals have opted out, Rutland City voters rejected it last year and now the Boys & Girls Club is not interested. Is this enough evidence that the community doesn't want this project?

By Gordon Dritschilo
Staff Writer - Published: October 15, 2010

With the Boys & Girls Club out of the picture, the city’s Recreation Committee saw a scaled-down proposal to expand facilities at Giorgetti Park on Thursday.

Recreation Superintendent EJay Bishop said the nonprofit, which had been looking at moving from downtown to an expanded Giorgetti facility, had pulled out, so he had left out much of the space that it would have used from the newest redesign.

Reached after the meeting, Stan Fishkin, board chairman of the Boys & Girls Club of Rutland County, said the club could not reach an agreement with the city on the terms of occupancy. He declined to go into specifics.

Fishkin said the club is still interested in alternate locations.

“I think we’re trying to evaluate all the possibilities,” he said. “The downtown facility, as you know, has seen some serious liabilities being in the floodplain.”

Voters at town meeting rejected a $4.75 million proposal to expand the building at Giorgetti.

The new proposal removes much of the space that would have been added on a second floor as well as a first-floor storage area.

The entry will remain in roughly the same spot, but with a lobby overlooking the rink, a control space to monitor people coming and going and a space for a bike/skate shop. The small addition will include locker rooms and a passage to the “bubble,” a large proposed building behind the rink with an open floor plan and room for three basketball courts.

A second-floor space would include multiuse rooms that could be rented out for small gatherings and a large community room for activities such as yoga and strength training.

Bishop said the new design would cost an estimated $3.95 million.

Bishop said by building the addition and shutting down the Dana Center, the city would save money in the long run. Bishop said he did not have numbers readily available, but an increase in overall energy costs would be offset by revenue the new facility could generate but that Dana cannot.

Bishop said the Dana Center is falling apart.

“It has a leaky roof,” he said. “We’ve had to cancel basketball games. It was never designed to be a recreation space. We have a lot of inefficient spaces. Quite frankly, it’s becoming a liability rather than an asset.”

Repairing the center would cost millions, Bishop said, and not yield nearly the same return as a new building.

“I think you’d be pouring good money into bad,” he said.

David Allaire, president of the Board of Alderman, said he was in favor of the proposal, but that the board needed to discuss it more and to hear from the voters.

“I personally wouldn’t have a problem putting it on the ballot at some point, but I think there are other ideas that need to be vetted,” he said.

Alderman Ed Larson asked if Bishop had looked into federal funding.

“If the community gets behind a facility like this and votes it in, there’s a good chance we can get some federal dollars,” Bishop said, adding that without such a demonstration of public support, the city would not be likely to get anything.

Committee Chairman Thomas DePoy said he would like to see a comparison of long-term costs with and without the addition. The committee voted to table the discussion until a meeting in mid-November.

gordon.dritschilo@rutland herald.com

Rutland could get $1 million to prevent flooding

2010-10-14T09:15:00.000-04:00

By Gordon Dritschilo
Staff Writer - Published: October 13, 2010

City officials hope a federal earmark will help keep floodwaters out of downtown.

Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., announced Tuesday that a $1 million appropriation for a storm water separation project had been approved by the House Appropriations Subcommittee and that he expected it would pass the full House during the upcoming “lame duck” session of Congress.

The city had initially requested $2 million for the project, which has an estimated price tag of $5 million, including design costs.

City engineer Evan Pilachowski said storm water drains through the city sewer, combining with sewage and overwhelms the system during heavy storms, like in the two recent floods. He said the lack of separation is another consequence of the city’s outdated system.

“Back 100 years ago, storm water and wastewater went directly into the brook so there was little reason to separate them,” he said. “We’re still using that same infrastructure.”

The change, Pilachowski said, requires new pipes, and possibly new catch basins, directing runoff away from the sewer plant and into East Creek. He said the project would mainly cover the downtown area.

“I don’t know quite yet what our options are,” Mayor Christopher Louras said of fully funding the upgrade. “The first step is going to be to get a firm design done, which is going to be a very expensive proposition in itself.”

Louras said he hoped the city will be able to apply the federal money to the design phase, which he said would likely be around $500,000, and that the project could be done in phases if necessary.

“This is the most critical infrastructure project in the city,” he said. “We will find a way to get it done.” How does the Mayor expect to pay for this if we do not recieve this money? More Taxes? We are already have the highest municipal tax rate amoung the more populated cities/towns in Vermont. Average Household income is $38,000 - that's two people - that's average wage of $9.00 per hour. Where will the money come from?

Louras thanked Welch for his work on the earmark.

“Most politicians speak in great platitudes about the downtowns, how important they are,” he said. “Frankly, there are a lot of people who talk the talk.”

Welch, Louras said, was “walking the walk” by responding to the call of Rutland business and property owners faced with an infrastructure problem the city could not address on its own.

Michael Coppinger, Downtown Rutland Partnership executive director, said he had received a lot of questions about the downtown flooding from businesses considering locating there and was glad to finally have a response to give.

Welch appeared in Rutland as part of his “Main Street Jobs Tour.” He gave a talk in Depot Park and stopped in a space under renovation above the Boys & Girls Club, Tattersall’s and The Book King, where he bought a copy of Jonathan Franzen’s “Freedom.”

gordon.dritschilo@ rutlandherald.com

Moran: ‘Deep, drastic' cuts ahead

2010-10-14T08:50:00.003-04:00

STAFF WRITER - Published: October 13, 2010

The Rutland School Board was given an ominous warning Tuesday as it entered the budgeting process for 2011-12.

Superintendent Mary Moran said the board would have to make “deep, drastic” cuts in the Rutland district's more than $45 million budget to meet the state's expectations.

Top district administrators have already met with teachers and staff members districtwide who may get cut, and positions in question include anything from volunteer coordinators, nursing staff, administrators, general educators, teacher's assistants, crossing guards and busing staff.

Classroom materials, supplies and athletics will also be looked at as potential reductions, according to Moran.

Each year the board shaves expenses by looking at myriad sources of savings. This year, more cuts have to be made per the state Legislature's new Challenges for Change recommendation.

The board is being asked to voluntarily cut $607,000, or more than 4 percent, from its current year's budget, to help the state offset deficits in the General Fund.

With revenue down at the state level, legislators are asking all schools statewide to ask for $23.2 million less from the state's pool of K-12 education money called the Education Fund, according to Rutland Chief Financial Officer Peter Amons and state officials.

The state is legally obligated to transfer money from the General Fund into the Education Fund, but the revenue isn't there this year.

For Rutland, the suggested cut equates to roughly $2 million, considering what legislators didn't — inflationary costs of teacher raises, fuel and other variables and covering revenue shortfalls.

Inflation will account for about a $1.2 million cut and revenue shortfalls — drops in tuition and grant awards — will force the budget to be cut by another approximately $193,000, according to Amons.

Rutland is one of the largest beneficiaries of the money pool.

There are only two options — forecast more revenue or cut the budget.

With declining enrollment and decreasing federal payouts, more revenue is highly unlikely, according to Amons.

Board member Peter Forshay pointed out that the district would be faced with more than a million-dollar cut even if the state recommended the budget stay the same, because of inflation.

Blake Bohlig, the student representative on the board, asked how course offerings at the high school would be affected.

Moran said it was too early to tell.

The Rutland School Board's next meeting is Nov. 9.

cristina.kumka@rutlandherald.com

$3.8M faulty roof lawsuit cost city $2.3M in legal fees

2010-10-11T08:35:00.001-04:00

By Brent Curtis
STAFF WRITER - Published: October 11, 2010

To recover $3.8 million in a court settlement earlier this year, Rutland paid $2.3 million in legal and related fees, according to city financial statements.

In February, city officials agreed to a settlement in the three-year-old lawsuit brought against four companies involved in the design and construction of a faulty roof at the city's water treatment plant.

The $3.8 million amount agreed to in the settlement accounted for a little more than half of the $6,646,481 that it cost the city to replace the faulty roof that was built in 1993 with the expectation that it would last 100 years.

But the settlement amount was offset by $2,342,184 in city expenses that accounted for everything from lawyers' bills and expert consultations to storage costs for evidence the city planned to present if the case ever went to trial.

The bottom line for those who use and pay for city water and sewer services is an $8,988,665 debt load — offset by the $3.8 million settlement — that the ratepayers must shoulder until 2020.

The additional debt was the primary reason for the 10.54 percent increase in water and sewer rates approved last month by the city.

Broken down, the $2.3 million in litigation expenses account for payments made to 13 different parties between January 2006 and June of this year.

The bulk of those expenses were for attorney and paralegal fees, including “professional service fees for pre-litigation advice, litigation, negotiation of agreements in support of remediation and repair project, claims consultation and project counsel,” according to the city attorney's office.

All told, those expenses cost $1,508,188 and translated into 4,048 hours of attorneys' time. The attorneys worked for the firm Seyfarth Shaw in Boston,

The remaining $833,996 in litigation costs were spent on consulting fees for engineers and other experts who would have testified in the case and $128,000 was paid to Rutland businessman Joseph Giancola as rent for storage space of large sections of the failed roof which served as evidence in the case.

In the end, the evidence and experts weren't needed at trial although they contributed to the strength of the city's case and were needed to reach the $3.8 million settlement, city attorney Andrew Costello said.

The settlement itself was a compromise designed to recover at least a fraction of the $6.6 million the city paid to replace the faulty roof.

When the city's Board of Aldermen approved the settlement earlier this year, they did so at the advice of
Costello who said the cost of taking the case all the way to trial would likely outweigh all but the most lucrative of court awards.

And the likelihood of receiving a large court award was doubtful, Costello told the aldermen, because the engineering firm that designed the faulty roof, Wright Engineering, was defunct and, aside from a
$500,000 insurance policy, penniless.

“There was likely going to be an argument going in from the other parties that most of the damage is attributable to Wright,” Costello told the aldermen in February.

The city received the $500,000 in insurance from Wright as part of the court settlement, Treasurer Wendy Wilton said.

Asked what the city could have done different that would have either recovered more from the roof's builders or saved on litigation expenses, Wilton and Mayor Christopher Louras said there was probably little that would have changed the outcome after the roof was built.

The problem in Wilton and Louras' estimation occurred in 1993 when the city contracted with Wright – an organization they both agreed was too small and inexperienced to design the structure — without demanding a higher level of insurance.

“It's really about doing due diligence on who you're working with,” Wilton said. “The mistake here was relying on an engineering firm that had never done this scope of work and had inadequate insurance.”

“It was a perfect storm that occurred that no one could have predicted,” she added.

Louras agreed, adding that the city had learned an important, albeit costly, lesson from the experience.

In contracts worked out in recent years by the city, including with the designers and construction crews that built the new treatment plant roof, Louras said the city has required higher amounts of insurance coverage.

“The Board of Finance has taken this incident as a lesson,” the mayor said. “There have been several projects where we were very sensitive to the need for a surety bond or proper liability coverage so this will not be repeated.”

brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com

Adventure challenge raises cancer funds

2010-10-10T10:09:00.002-04:00

Albert J. Marro / Staff Photo Brownwen Warner (left) and Dave Jeski of ``Beauty and the Geek" team prepare for Saturday's Great Rutland Race. 10/09/10

By Cristina Kumka
STAFF WRITER - Published: October 10, 2010

Local couples faced a challenge and in the process, raised at least $2,600 for charity in Rutland Saturday.

The city’s inaugural, real-life version of the widely-telecast show The Amazing Race began at 9 a.m. Saturday with 26 couples running to 15 city locations for physical and intellectual challenges.

At Freeman Marcus Jewelers at 79 Merchants Row, contestants had to find a ring in one of about two dozen boxes then stack those boxes in a pyramid.

At Shearer Honda on Route 7, they had to find a car on the lot with a flat tire and change it, then figure out how much gas would be used to drive the car back to where it was manufactured.

And at Ramuntos Sicilian Pizza on Strongs Avenue, teams had to fold 20 pizza boxes then figure out the cost of a pie with a myriad of toppings, including tax.

It was all in the name of charity, and having a little fun on a bright fall day.

The money raised, private donations and $60 entry fees paid by each team, will go to local business owner Traci Pena’s breast cancer charity The Pink Ribbon Butterfly Project and the Rutland Recreation and Parks Department scholarship fund.

Pena, the owner of Reincarnation Upscale Resale and Fabulous Finds second-hand shop at 86 River St., spent nine months organizing the Saturday event, motivated by her mother.

“My mother died from breast cancer at he age of 40 when I was 5,” Pena said, clad in pink, the color that’s become synonymous with the fight against cancer in women. “It’s an easy cause. Very few people say no.”

The 15 business owners who participated in the event, opening their doors to the contestants and devising their own challenges, were willing to participate mainly because everyone, in some way, has been touched by the disease, Pena said.

Kelsey Woodell, assistant manager at Freeman, a Rutland foundation that’s been at the same location for decades, said the charity challenge also introduced people to his store.

“One remarked that they’ve never been in here,” Woodell said. “Some may say, ‘They were friendly. We’re gonna come back.’”

And at least one pair, the mother and daughter duo of Amanda Barber and Pam Parizo, raised $1,000 on their own.

In the end, the costume-covered couple of David and Erica Wallstrom of Rutland won first prize for being the first team to complete all the challenges. The pair made it back to the race’s headquarters at the train station in under four hours.

“It’s perfect,” Erica Wallstrom told Pena at the finish line. “Super fun.”

The Wallstroms, dressed like Waldo and named the “Where’s Wally” team, got a trophy and a prize package including round-trip airfare from Rutland to Boston on Cape Air, a two-night stay at the Clarion Nantasket Beach Resort and two New England Patriots game tickets, plus transportation to and from the Rutland airport.

Second place went to Serena Gallagher and Brendyn Luther, both wearing gladiator-style togas.

cristina.kumka@rutlandherald.com

Channel 5 WPTZ

2010-10-07T09:04:00.003-04:00

Channel 5 recently did a story about the recent water rate increase. Business owner, Kim Hugerth, from Avanti Hair Salon in downtown Rutland commented on her increase in every tax within the City. Our very own DPW Commissioner Shelvey also commented - click here to view his comments and the story.

Commissioner Shelvey doesn't care about the rates or taxes because he doesn't live in the city or have to pay for them.

Mayor Louras, Unions shrug off budget threat

2010-10-06T12:16:00.000-04:00

By Brent Curtis
Staff Writer - Published: October 6, 2010

Neither Rutland Mayor Christopher Louras nor representatives from the city's unions expressed much concern Tuesday about an aldermanic threat to ax any salary increases in the coming year's budget.

The aldermen voted 7 to 2 Monday to cut salary line items that contain increases over this year's funding level.

“Last year, we talked a great line when it came to holding the line on the budget,” Alderman David Dress said, while making the motion to level-spend. “We need to send a message clearly to the mayor to don't even put salary increases in the budget.”

The bold yet nonbinding vote followed more than an hour of complaints directed at the aldermen by city residents and taxpayers upset by the recent 10 percent increase in city utility rates.

But Mayor Christopher Louras said Tuesday the board's warning wouldn't affect the way he prepares the budget he will present next month.

“I give no great import to their motion because it's what I've done before,” he said. “I will submit a budget that's fair and appropriate regardless of what the board says.”

Louras said four of his five past budgets have contained just what the aldermen want – level funding on salary line items for department heads and nonunion employees.

Of course, that leaves the vast number of city employees, whose pay is set forth in multiyear union contracts, unaccounted for.

But last year, only the city firefighters received raises under their contracts and in the budget the aldermen are demanding flat salary line items from there are no salary increases.

That's because the contracts for the city's three unions are each in flux. The police contract, which ended last year, is in mediation. The Public Works and clerical workers union contract has expired and the bargaining unit is negotiating a new contract and the firefighters union contract expires at the end of this fiscal year.

That means that the aldermen's budget-cut threat could have an impact at the negotiating table.
Jim Miles, steward of the city's firefighter union, said he questions the aldermen's motives.

“I'd say it's borderline unfair labor practice and I've asked our union representative to look into it,” Miles said.

Instead of a heavy-handed threat, Miles said aldermen would be better served talking to the unions about going without pay increases.

“Anything's on the table,” he said. “I know where they're coming from but this is not the way to go.”

The regional coordinator for the union representing the city police and DPW workers said it's not what the aldermen say it's what they do that matters.

“I think it's saber-rattling at this point,” said George Lovell, regional coordinator for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “It's how we're dealt with at the table as a whole that will tell us whether they're violating the law.”

Like Miles, Lovell said the aldermen would be better off trying to work with the unions.

AFSCME works with 47 state, county or municipal bargaining groups in the state – a number of which have reached contract agreements that include going without salary increases in the midst of economic hard times.

Louras said he had also arranged to meet today with the city unions to talk about a contractual change that could save the city significant amounts of money on its health care expenses.

“I'm making the proposal to all three unions to consider a less rich health care proposal,” the mayor said.
Louras declined to talk specifics about the change, which would mean switching health care providers.

He also wouldn't say how much money the change would save.

But he said that the aldermen's focus on employee salaries missed the big budget picture.

“It's myopic to look at the 2012 budget by focusing on salaries,” he said. “If (the unions) agree to this, it could reflect a willingness to help ease the taxpayer's burden.”

brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com

Your Mouth Where Your Money Is

2010-10-04T21:03:00.006-04:00

The Board of Alderman met on Monday night and they were greeted with atleast 40 members of the public. Members of the public were there to speak out against the recent Water and Sewer increases. The Board of Alderman voted on September 20th to increase water rates by 25% and sewer rates by 3%, with a combined rate of 10.5%. All members of the public spoke against the increases, the effect it will have on businesses, retroactive billing, and cost cutting measures that they would like to see. The discussion lasted for approx. 1 hour and 15 minutes, discussing several issues.

The Board would not answer questions regarding the retroactive billing of these increases stemming from resident Shawn Pemrick's questioning. The Board did agree to send it to committee, for an opinion regarding this issue. Also sent to Committee was the issue of City Employees paying 20% of their health care premiums. We will be following this through committee and will inform you of any motions coming out of committee. RTU successfully passed a charter change to mandate all City Employees pay a minimum of 20% of their health care contributions upon passage of Town Meeting Day last year. The Government Operations committee deemed such language illegal. The Committee could have changed the wording to allow this change to happen upon expiration of current Union Contracts, but failed to do so. This is why the Board of Alderman were asked to place the item back on the ballot for the upcoming March election. They were asked to change the wording to take effect upon expiration of current Union Contracts.

Following the public outcry Alderman discussed freezing all salaries for FY 2012, motion passed. This will action will warn the Mayor to not include any raises for FY 2012 budget he is currently crafting.

When taxpayers unite, we win!

Notice!

2010-10-04T20:38:00.000-04:00

This sign is posted outside the Treasurer's Office within City Hall.

ATTENTION

2010-10-03T13:08:00.008-04:00

Did you get your water & sewer bill last week? Got questions? Unhappy with the retroactive billing? Sick of the double digit increases year after year? Go to the Board of Alderman meeting tomorrow, Monday October 4th, 2010, at 7pm at City Hall. There are numerous residents attending to ask questions and protest these recent increases.

The Board of Alderman recently increased water rates by 25% with a combined water and sewer rate of 10.5%. Alderman Dress, Sargeant and Depoy voted "NO" for this increase. (Alderman Larson was absent from this meeting) Alderman Barrett, Notte, Tilden, Robinson, Coleman and Davis all voted for this increase. If you would like to contact these Alderman please click here for details.

The Board of Alderman voted on this increase on September 20th, the effective billing date is June 20th 2010 (click the link for the notice) Most ratepayers meter's were read in the month of May or early June. City Hall cannot keep their costs in line, but now insult the ratepayers by retroactively billing for this summer time water usage.

“The crime of taxation is not in the taking it, it's in the way that it's spent.” This board came out of the committee of the whole with a motion to pass a 5% increase, instead they passed a 10.5%. there was a motion made by Alderman Sargeant to increase the rates by 6.5%, with the layoffs of two employees - motion did not pass.

When will our government work with less? When will they reduce benefit packages? When will they sub-contract out work that can be done by private enterprise? The answer is you! Have you had enough and are ready to hold City Hall accountable, join our group.

Loafing

2010-10-03T09:14:00.001-04:00

Just a Reminder

2010-10-01T13:33:00.004-04:00

Just a Reminder to the Board of Alderman:

September 26th, 2007

A debate about the merits of nonbinding resolutions didn't stop a committee of the Board of Aldermen from voting to forward a recommendation to keep water and sewer rate increases under 5 percent next year.

The resolution, first presented last week at a meeting where the board voted to increase water and sewer rates by 15 percent, calls for keeping a lid on any rate increases next year as well as promising to use any money won from pending lawsuits to lower water and sewer rates.

Some board members attempted to pass the resolution during the board's regular meeting last week. However, a narrow majority of the board prevailed in sending the measure to committee for further review.

At the time the resolution was sent to committee, the only concern voiced about the measure regarded whether or not the 5 percent cap was realistic.

Public Works business manager Mary Anne Courcelle said during a Public Works Committee meeting Tuesday she didn't expect rates to increase more than 5 percent next year. The only reason she foresaw rates rising above that cap would be due to unforeseen emergencies — which would be covered by a caveat in the resolution allowing for higher rates due to emergencies.

But the concerns raised Tuesday had less to do with getting the city into a precarious bind than it had to do with not being binding enough.

Public Works Committee member David Dress said that while he initially supported the resolution, further reflection changed his mind.

"The more I read it the more I saw it as a document to appease the taxpayers and rate payers," he said. "It's a paper tiger. I'd like to support the intention, but there's nothing binding about it."

The resolution's author, Board President David Allaire, said he drafted the document to list the city's targets and back up the board's convictions by putting them in writing.

"I wanted to show the ratepayers that we understand and we're not going to come at them continually with double-digit increases without also looking at other avenues," Allaire said. "Resolutions are not often done in Rutland so they hold more weight. …When Rutland passes a resolution we pass it because we mean it."

Committee member Madeline Sherman took her interpretation and support for the resolution a step further.

In her estimation, the resolution wasn't directed toward the public at all — it was directed at the Department of Public Works and the administration of Mayor Christopher Louras.

"It was hard to support cutting staff this year without any planning," Sherman said. "This says to DPW that they need to realize that we're going to make some changes to keep increases in check."

With only three members of the Public Works Committee present, Sherman and Committee Chairman Roy Thomas prevailed in forwarding the measure by a 2-to-1 vote with Dress casting the "no" vote.

The full board will decide whether to approve the resolution when it meets again next week.

(Courtesy of Brent Curtis at the Rutland Herald).

Retroactive Billing on Increases

2010-09-27T18:27:00.003-04:00

The Board of Alderman's recent action to increase water rates by 25% will be billed retroactively on the next bill. The action begs the question, is this legal and should it be allowed to force ratepayers to pay an increase on water they have already used? People would use water more conservatively if they knew they were paying 25% more for it. Many municipalities have deemed these retroactive rates illegal after review, will our City Hall?

Another New Employee?

2010-09-24T08:23:00.002-04:00

The Board of Alderman are considering whether to hire another position within City Hall. The position to be considered is a Comptroller. A comptroller by definition is a Chief Financial Officer, aka Treasurer, which we have as well as a Assistant Treasurer. City Treasurer Wendy Wilton estimated an annual salary for this position to be $70,000. The current benefits for city employees could very well exceed an additional $25,000 per year. Treasurer Wilton has been doing an excellent job in turning this department around, so why the need to add another employee to an already bloated city employee roster?