September 11, 2024
A $200,000 Promise Becomes a $5,000 Reality
On September 11, 2024, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) pitched Rutland’s Environmental Sustainability Committee on an energy efficiency project that would supposedly save the city $200,000 per year. The plan included solar panels, LED lighting, and other upgrades, all claimed to “pay for themselves.”
The committee—chaired by Alderwoman Anna Tadio, with members Joe Barbagallo and John McCann—approved the contract for Board of Aldermen review. But by the time it reached the September 16 meeting, the numbers had already started to unravel.
📌 JCI’s $200,000 savings claim? Gone.
📌 The revised estimate? $138,000 per year—already lower than promised.
📌 The actual contract guarantee? A mere $5,000 per year, totaling just $118,000 over 20 years on a $7.1 million contract.
September 16, 2024
Skeptics Demand Real Numbers, Proponents Focus on ‘Going Green’
During the September 16, 2024 Board of Aldermen meeting, some members saw the financial absurdity of the deal. Henry Heck, now running for mayor—laid out the math in blunt terms:
“It will cost $7.1 million. That’s what I’m reading. It’s right here. States it right on this chart.”
“I can’t support something like that. I don’t think my constituents would like me to support something like that. I just don’t see how we spend $7.1 million to save $118,000 over 20 years. It’s plain and simple.”
Rather than engaging with the financial questions, supporters shifted the argument away from costs entirely.
📌 Alderman John McCann reframed the issue as a climate initiative:
“We’re saying that we don’t want to save the money and we don’t want to decarbonize to some extent while also saving money, and to me, that’s a huge benefit of it.”
🚨 Translation?
Forget the math—this was about hitting environmental goals, no matter the cost.
The ‘It’s Not Magic’ Defense
📌 Alderwoman Anna Tadio dismissed concerns, suggesting critics just didn’t understand ‘the science’:
“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 is going to save enough money to pay back all of that $7 million and net the city over $100,000.”
📌 Alderwoman Kiana McClure doubled down:
“It’s not magic, it’s science… Many moons ago in a different lifetime, I worked for a very large solar energy provider in Central Vermont. The ROI is there. The proof is in the numbers.”
🚨 The problem?
The actual contract did not contain that ROI. Instead, the only guarantee was $5,000 in annual savings—barely enough to justify the contract’s monitoring costs.
McCann’s “$500,000 Bonus” and Doenges’ Financial Blind Spot
One major justification for approving the contract? A supposed $500,000 state grant that would offset costs.
📌 Alderman John McCann sold it as “free money”:
“If we do this, we get a $500,000 bonus towards it that we don’t have to pay.”
🚨 Reality check:
The grant was never secured. By December 2, Mayor Mike Doenges admitted the city never qualified for the funding in the first place.
📌 Even worse, Doenges appeared to misunderstand the contract’s financial structure:
“This is called a performance-based contract… so if JCI is essentially guaranteeing us at least that $5,000 a year… if that savings doesn’t exist at year three, they make a true-up payment to make sure we continue to save that five grand a year.”
🚨 What he failed to mention:
Rutland was paying JCI over $18,000 per year just for “Measurement & Verification” to track the savings—more than triple the guaranteed savings. Even if JCI compensated for shortfalls, Rutland was still losing money on the deal every year.
Approving a Contract Without Knowing the Grant Status
Despite all these red flags, the Board of Aldermen—led by Rutland Forward candidates—approved the contract, which was then signed by Rutland Forward mayoral candidate Mike Doenges on September 16, 2024, by a 6-3 vote.
✅ Yes Votes: Anna Tadio (RF), Kiana McClure (RF), Mike Talbott (RF), Carrie Savage (RF), Joe Barbagallo, Matt Whitcomb
❌ No Votes: Heck, Gillam, Davis
📌 Sharon Davis, one of the “No” votes, was clear about why she rejected it:
“I just want to know what the impact is on the taxpayers for doing X amount of work… That’s $4.9 million and over 20 years, $7.1 million—that’s all I’m asking for.”
“I can’t vote yes for this not knowing it. I’ve never done that in my life sitting in this chair, and I’m not going to start now.”
🚨 Davis asked for transparency. She didn’t get it.
December 2, 2024
The Grant Fails, Reality Hits
By December 2, 2024, Mayor Doenges confirmed what skeptics had feared—Rutland was not getting the $500,000 grant.
📌 Doenges admitted the situation was chaotic from the start:
“I need to ask the board to pause, ask or—or give the treasurer permission to pause the JCI financing process. The city did not receive the MERP grant.”
“When we went into the MERP process from the very beginning, the standard for the MERP grant applicants—the people who were receiving it—was the cities with the highest energy burden. That energy burden is determined by basically the cost to heat and cool and a couple of other factors.”
“At the last minute, that metric changed.“
With no grant money and no financial cushion, Doenges asked the board for permission to halt payments to JCI.
The City Scrambles for an Exit
As of February 24, 2025, the Finance Committee met to try and figure out how to deal with the contract. No clear answers were provided on next steps or potential costs.
📌 Unanswered questions remain:
- How much will it cost Rutland to get out of the deal?
- How much will taxpayers be forced to cover in termination fees?
- How much has been spent in taxpayer dollars for this confused process?
🚨 FYIVT has reached out to the Mayor’s office and the Board of Aldermen for answers on termination costs and taxpayer liability. As of now, those details remain unclear.
What’s Next? Taxpayers Left Holding the Bag
What started as a $200,000 savings promise has become a financial burden of an unknown dollar value for city taxpayers.
Rutland officials, led by Rutland Forward candidates, signed off on a deal without locking down the numbers. Now, taxpayers are left wondering:
📌 Rutland taxpayers were promised savings. Instead, they got a financial black hole.
📌 The question now isn’t just how much it will cost to get out—but why proponents didn’t listen to these questions before approving the deal.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#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!
Leave a Reply