Doenges Doubles Down: Rutland’s $7.1M JCI Contract Stumbles Forward Without Public Input

Rutland’s embattled $7.1 million energy contract with Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) refuses to fade quietly into the background. Despite losing a critical $500,000 grant, being invoiced $1.4 million in upfront costs, and possibly facing more upfront payments before interest even kicks in, Mayor Mike Doenges and his Rutland Forward-led Board of Aldermen continue to push ahead.

At Monday’s Finance Committee meeting, Doenges gave no indication that he plans to change course. Instead, his administration is betting on yet another unconfirmed $800,000 energy credit to justify keeping the deal alive. Meanwhile, the public has been largely shut out of the process—raising serious questions about transparency and whether the deal should have required voter approval in the first place.

A $7.1M Commitment—With No Public Input

🚨 One major question remains unanswered: Why wasn’t the public given a say in this 20-year financial commitment?

Vermont law requires municipal bonds to go before voters for approval.
Instead of using a bond, Doenges and his administration structured the JCI contract as a lease.
The justification? Doenges claimed that the contract “pays for itself” through energy savings, meaning a bond vote wasn’t needed.

“The money we save in our energy spend goes to pay for the debt with a positive cash flow of $5,000 a year at the end of the day.”
“…there’s no… it’s not a type of bonding, so you wouldn’t require a voter approval for 4.99 million spending. This is similar to… what we did with Fathom when we did the meters and the equipment, right?” – Mayor Mike Doenges

Doenges’ mention of Fathom—a prior city leasing deal that later collapsed—only adds to the concerns.

⚖️ But Vermont law suggests otherwise. According to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns Selectboard Handbook:

“For improvements to be financed over a term of more than five years, the traditional bond authorization process, 24 V.S.A. § 1756, must be followed, even though the ultimate form of debt will not be a bond.”

Translation? Any lease longer than five years is generally required to follow the same process as a bond—including voter approval.
The JCI contract is a 20-year financial commitment—which, under standard interpretation, should have gone to voters.
Yet, Doenges and Rutland Forward moved forward without public input.

However, it is possible that the city attorney determined that the specific structure of this lease created an exemption from the normal process. If so, Rutland residents deserve a clear explanation of why this contract was approved without a bond vote.

Was there a legal loophole that allowed Rutland Forward to bypass voter approval?
If so, why hasn’t the administration publicly explained it?

🔥 At best, this was a legal gray area. At worst, it was an intentional move to avoid public scrutiny. Either way, taxpayers were left in the dark.

The “Pays for Itself” Claim Just Collapsed Under Its Own Math

From the beginning, Doenges and Rutland Forward have insisted that this project would generate enough savings to cover the full cost—meaning taxpayers wouldn’t be left footing the bill.

👉 Alderwoman Anna Tadio went so far as to claim the city would actually come out ahead:

“That’s the beauty of Energy Efficiency and weatherization. There really is that much money to be saved… The fact that we’re going to fix all of that (pointing to older windows) is going to save enough money to pay back all of that $7 million and net the city over $100,000. It’s not magic, it’s just science.”

But here’s the cold, hard truth—straight from JCI’s own numbers.

For this contract to “pay for itself” and generate the extra $100,000 Tadio promised, it would need to generate at least $355,000 in savings per year.
JCI’s best-case scenario? Just $213,000 per year.
Guaranteed savings? Only $5,000 per year.
Even under the rosiest projections, the contract falls nearly $3 million short over 20 years.

📊 The math is simple: This contract was never going to pay for itself—it was always going to cost taxpayers. A lot.

It’s not magic. It’s just math. And math is a cruel mistress.

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

Rutland Forward’s Role: Who Approved This Without Voter Input?

🚨 The Board of Aldermen, led by Rutland Forward candidates, approved this contract without a clear financing plan and without securing the $500,000 grant they were counting on.

✅ Yes Votes: Anna Tadio (RF), Kiana McClure (RF), Mike Talbott (RF), Carrie Savage (RF), Joe Barbagallo, Matt Whitcomb
❌ No Votes: Henry Heck, Tom Gillam, Sharon Davis

🗳️ Now that the math has been exposed, where is the accountability?

A Contract That Keeps Changing—But Still No Public Oversight

Monday’s Finance Committee meeting confirmed that the JCI contract is changing from what was originally signed—yet there are still no plans for a public hearing.

JCI missed its January deadline for a revised contract and only responded last Friday.
Officials now admit that the final version will look different—but taxpayers still haven’t been given a say.
Mayor Doenges and his team continue to push ahead despite major red flags.

“When the Board signed it, it was significantly different than what we’re going to be signing the next time… so it’ll go back to the Board again before they go forward.”

🚨 Translation? The contract is being reworked behind closed doors, but the public still isn’t being brought into the process. How can Rutland Forward justify keeping taxpayers in the dark on a deal that’s already falling apart? If the terms have changed, shouldn’t the public have a right to weigh in this time?

Next Meeting: The Last Chance for Public Input Before the Election

📌 The Board of Alderman will meet on Monday, March 3, 2025 from 7-8pm—the night before the mayoral election.
📌 This is likely the last opportunity for Rutland residents to demand answers before voters head to the polls.

FYIVT has reached out to the Vermont State Auditor’s Office for comment on whether the contract should have required a public vote, but no response has been received. We have also reached out to members of the Board of Aldermen—some have responded, but the administration has yet to provide a statement.

Final Questions for Doenges and the other Rutland Forward candidates

⚠️ Why did Doenges and his allies on the Board deliberately structure the contract to avoid voter input?
⚠️ If they truly believed the contract was self-funding, why has Rutland already been invoiced $1.4 million?
⚠️ With $1.4 million still to be paid upfront, and more to come, how is this different from a bond?
⚠️ Why are taxpayers being left out of a 20-year financial commitment?

Unless city officials provide clear answers, the only conclusion is that the public was intentionally cut out of this deal—and is now stuck paying for it.

🔥 Rutland residents, the time to speak up is now. Monday night’s meeting is your last chance before the election.

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 #TaxpayerAlert #FinancialScandal

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!