🚨 Talbott’s “Clarifications” Only Raise More Questions About Rutland’s JCI Contract 🚨

Alderman Michael Talbott recently attempted to clarify concerns over Rutland’s $7.1 million contract with Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI)—a document provided by FYIVT, as it is not available on the city’s website. Talbott insists that because it was structured as a ‘performance-based energy agreement’ rather than traditional municipal borrowing, it did not require voter approval. He also claimed the contract was carefully vetted in four public meetings over a year before the Board of Aldermen voted to approve it.

But none of that holds up under scrutiny. A review of meeting records, contract details, and Vermont law tells a very different story—one of rushed approvals, questionable financial assumptions, and a process structured in a way that bypassed public oversight.

The “public meetings” Talbott cites were simply the Environmental Sustainability subcommittee meetings that no Rutland resident really knew about. There were NO warned informational meetings or public hearings.

The Board of Aldermen never saw the final contract before voting. The deal was pushed through by Rutland Forward-aligned aldermen, despite multiple requests from the other aldermen, city treasurer, and assistant engineer for more time to review the terms.

The contract’s financing was still being debated AFTER it was signed. As late as October 7, 2024, aldermen raised concerns about cost overruns, existing solar panel failures, and the city’s growing financial burden.

The administration avoided a bond vote, which would have required formal public approval.

Talbott’s “clarifications” only reinforce the fact that the Rutland Forward team of aldermen and the mayor failed to adequately address financial concerns, provided no meaningful opportunity for public input, and pushed this deal through with no real scrutiny.

1️⃣ The “It Pays for Itself” Claim Falls Apart Under Basic Math

Talbott and other Rutland Forward-aligned aldermen defended the contract by claiming that energy savings would fully offset the cost of the project.

But here’s the math:

The city currently has a $1.4 million past-due notice from JCI for work done so far.
The BOA authorized $4.9 million in financing through TD Bank.
Even if the city had secured both the $500K and $800K in grants, taxpayers would still be responsible for $4.77 million over 20 years.
- That would require at least $238,500 in annual savings just to break even.
JCI’s best-case projection? $213,000 per year.
JCI’s only guaranteed savings? $5,000 per year.

Even if everything goes perfectly, the deal still runs nearly $3 million in the red over 20 years.

If the project “pays for itself,” why did the BOA approve $4.9 million in financing?
If JCI guarantees savings, why is the city on the hook for millions in taxpayer liability?

😂 Want a laugh? Click here! 😂

2️⃣ The Project Was Never Truly Open for Public Review

Despite claims of transparency, Rutland residents were never given a meaningful opportunity to review the contract before approval.

There was no official public forum dedicated to explaining the project before it was signed.
The contract was not readily available on the city’s website. And still isn’t.
The administration avoided a bond vote, which would have required formal public approval.

🚨 If this deal was so great for Rutland taxpayers, why wasn’t it put to a vote?

Vermont law (24 V.S.A. § 1756) requires leases longer than five years to follow the same process as a bond—including voter approval—unless the contract includes a “non-appropriation clause,” which allows the city to terminate the agreement if funds are not appropriated in future budgets. The JCI contract does not contain this clause. Without it, the city is locked into a 20-year financial obligation with no built-in legal mechanism for early termination. If this contract was legally exempt from public approval, why hasn’t the administration provided proof? If a legal loophole allowed Rutland Forward to bypass voter approval, why won’t they explain it publicly?

When FYIVT reached out to Mayor Doenges and the City Attorney with direct questions about the contract’s legality and financing structure, they did not respond—nor did they forward our email to BOA members, as requested.

Support FYIVT Today – Choose Your Impact! Name Your Own Price to Help Us Keep Fighting for Truth and Transparency. Every Contribution Makes a Difference!

3️⃣ The “Public” Meetings That Weren’t Public

Talbott claims the contract was “carefully examined” over four public meetings. But the actual timeline tells a different story—these were subcommittee meetings with only the standard open meeting law public notice and no public engagement, not formal hearings.

📅 September 7, 2023 – The JCI Sales Pitch, NOT a Contract Review

JCI gives an initial presentation about energy efficiency possibilities for city buildings.
No financial details, contract terms, or legal considerations are discussed.
Talbott claims this was part of the vetting process.

🚨 The Truth: This was an exploratory discussion—not a contract review.

📅 February 28, 2024 – The “Preliminary Agreement”

The Project Development Agreement (PDA) is approved 3-0, allowing JCI to develop a final proposal.
JCI promises a budget-neutral project, but no finalized financing details are available.

📅 September 11, 2024 – The Contract is Rubber-Stamped

Just days before the Board of Aldermen approved the contract, JCI presented both a “Scoping Presentation” (also hosted by FYIVT as it is not on the city’s website) and the final contract to the Environmental Sustainability Committee.
The presentation focused on project scope, outlining potential energy upgrades for city buildings.
Two project options were introduced:
- Option One (Base Project) projected savings of only $5,000 per year.
- Option Two (which included additional work at Giorgetti Ice Rink) required additional taxpayer funding.
Despite the lack of a full financial breakdown or legal analysis, the committee voted 3-0 to recommend approval of the contract.

🚨 The Truth: This meeting was focused on reviewing project scope, not a financial or legal contract review. Yet, by the end of the meeting, the committee had already voted 3-0 to approve the contract without conducting a detailed financial breakdown or addressing legal concerns regarding public financing requirements.

📅 September 16, 2024 – The Board of Aldermen Approves the Contract

Several aldermen and employees request more time to review the contract before voting.
The Rutland Forward-aligned aldermen refuse and push the contract through anyway.

📅 September 27, 2024 – Mayor Doenges Signs the Contract

Mayor Doenges signs the contract, locking Rutland into a 20-year financial obligation.
No public vote occurs, despite Vermont law suggesting one was required.

📅 November 7, 2024 – AFTER THE FACT: The Environmental Sustainability Committee Meeting

The contract is already signed, but this meeting debates adding more costs to it.
City officials are still struggling to understand the full financial impact.
Aldermen discuss structuring additional costs through JCI to AVOID triggering a public bond vote, but decide otherwise.

🚨 The Truth: This meeting wasn’t about vetting the contract—it was about trying to add more costs while keeping voters out of the process.

🚨 Final Verdict: The No Votes Were Right—And Rutland Taxpayers Deserve Answers 🚨

📌 The contract does NOT “pay for itself.” Even in the best case, it runs a multi-million-dollar deficit.
📌 The BOA was denied access to the full contract before voting. Instead, they were told to trust legal assurances.
📌 Rutland residents were not given a meaningful opportunity to review the contract before it was approved.
📌 The administration has yet to provide a legal justification for why this contract did not require voter approval.

🔥 Rutland Forward pushed this deal through despite concerns and structured it in a way that avoided a public vote.

📌 Burning questions remain:

If the BOA was not provided the opportunity to review the contract, why did the Rutland Forward aldermen believe it was okay to move forward?
Did they simply trust the mayor’s assertion that the city attorney said it was fine?
Or had certain board members been made aware of the contract outside of BOA meetings?

📌 The Board of Aldermen will meet again on Monday, March 3—the night before the election. If Rutland residents want answers, this is their chance to demand them before heading to the polls.

If you found this insight valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

#fyivt #RutlandVT #FiscalResponsibility #TransparencyMatters

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!