* Updated below: BED’s true debt load, plus Kurt Wright responds to the claim his math is wrong. *
Republican mayoral candidate Kurt Wright promised he would unveil a “bold plan” with “bold solutions” to address the serious fiscal challenges facing the city of Burlington — and on Wednesday, he delivered.
At a city hall press conference, Wright revealed his bold plan to shore up the city’s finances: Sell one its most prized assets, the Burlington Electric Department.
Wright claims the sale would bring a one-time windfall to the city of more than $100 million.
Aside from BED, Wright said he’d entertain the notion of selling off Burlington International Airport — or at least having its ownership regionalized, or getting the state to take some ownership — as well as Memorial Auditorium, which he claims loses money annually.
What other city departments and services could Burlington auction off? The bike path? City arts? Church Street? The Waterfront?
(Fire away down in the comments section.)
Wright, who has served on the city council in three different stints over the past 15 years, acknowledged his bold solution to sell BED is, actually, not new.
“People have talked about it in the past, but I don’t think the climate was right for this in the past and I think it is now,” Wright said. “Would I have proposed this 10 years ago? I wouldn’t have and I don’t think voters would have reacted to it favorably 10 or 15 years ago.”
The difference today is the sheer amount of debt facing the city, thanks to Burlington Telecom, the Burlington airport and a flagging pension fund.
In sum, the debts caused by these three entities easily tops $100 million: BT is in debt more than $50 million ($17 million owed to taxpayers and another $33.5 million to CitiCapital); the pension fund is at least $50 million short; and the airport is nearly $10 million in the hole thanks to a parking garage that was built with no bonding.
Republican Mayor Peter Brownell floated the idea of selling Burlington Electric during his two-year stint in office (1993-1995), but voter and city council disapproval put the kibosh on his plans.
Brownell told Seven Days he talked up the idea during his time as mayor to “anyone who would listen.” But not many people listened. Or at least, not many took the idea seriously.
For Brownell, the issue of selling BED was not financially driven but philosophically driven.
“It wasn’t necessarily because we needed to make money on it,” said Brownell, who was facing structural budget shortfalls of $700,000 to $900,000 during his time in office. “Philosophically, I don’t think the city has a reason to own an electric utility or an airport for that matter. The liability to taxpayers is something that would keep me up at night.”
Selling off an asset to meet ongoing budget shortfalls is not recommended, Brownell said. However, selling off an asset to pay off one-time liabilities “could make sense.”
The question remains, however, whether selling of BED would even achieve the “nine figure” windfall that Wright predicts. BED General Manager Barbara Grimes told Seven Days that, in reality, BED’s bonded debt is not the $65 million that Wright claims, but closer to $100 million. Under the best case scenario, BED would net the city roughly $50 million, Grime said. (See update below.)
A $50 million windfall would essentially either cover the pension shortfall or make BT whole. Take your pick.
Wright’s proposal raises a host of other questions: Would BED’s payments in lieu of taxes and other charges to city coffers be covered by ongoing, annual payments by a new owner? Would the new owners assume all of the pension liabilities owed to BED workers? Would the Vermont Public Service Board allow a windfall profit from a utility sale to be spent paying down non-utility costs?
The other question is: Who would buy it? The only power company buying up other Vermont utilities is Green Mountain Power, er, GazMetro out of Quebec. GMP is currently trying to purchase Central Vermont Public Service.
Three of the four Democratic candidates vying to challenge Wright in the general election completely dismissed Wright’s plan outright. Only Miro Weinberger said it’s an option to consider, but not one he would undertake lightly.
Here’s each Democratic candidate’s response, in full:
State Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden): “Usually people throw Hail Marys at the end of the game, not the beginning. This is an astonishing proposal. Burlington became a national leader in energy efficiency and broke it off with Vermont Yankee in favor of renewable power precisely because the people of Burlington own it and it reflects our values. Why would we throw away our say in power policy? Totally half baked, not to mention unfair to BED’s employees and leadership. We should be commending them, not throwing them to the mercy of multinational power investors.”
City Councilor Bram Kranichfeld (D-Ward 2), who previously served as chairman of the BED Board of Commissioners: “BED is a model for municipally owned utilities and has successfully promoted renewable energy, including creating an award winning energy efficiency program, while keeping our electric rates affordable. Leadership requires a steady hand and this is no time to make ill-informed proposals. While I will consider every option, my plan to put Burlington’s finances back in order will not include a fire sale of its assets. Selling BED is a short-sighted approach that could increase our electric rates in an already challenging economy, halt our progress towards renewable energy, and may not resolve any of our long term financial issues.”
Rep. Jason Lorber (D-Burlington): “Kurt Wright is trying to sell out our city and Burlington values. Selling out Burlington Electric to private hands would be committing financial malpractice. Burlington Electric saves residents money, while reducing energy consumption. I believe that energy-independence and efficiency are paramount to sustainability. That’s what Burlington Electric does, while saving money. Burlington Values our people, our environment, and workers far above a fast buck.”
Housing developer and Burlington Airport Commissioner Miro Weinberger: “The Burlington Electric Department has been a valuable city asset for over 100 years. Public ownership of our power company has allowed the city to invest in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency initiatives. Unlike Kurt Wright, I do not want to sell Burlington Electric and would not consider doing so without careful analysis of all options. The financial assumptions Wright has based his proposal on are contested by BED and may prove inaccurate. That said, the legacy of the Kiss administration is that we have no choice but to consider highly unpleasant options. It would be irresponsible for any mayoral candidate to take any serious option off the table at this point.”
For nearly three decades, the ongoing mantra of Democrats, Progressives and like-minded independents has been that Burlington should be open for business, but not for sale.
Clearly, Wright is challenging that credo.
* update – posted 4 p.m., October 20 *
Turns out that neither BED General Manager Barbara Grimes (who spoke to Seven Days from her car) nor Kurt Wright had BED’s debt exactly right.
According to BED’s Chief Financial Officer, Daryl Santerre, the total indebtedness of the municipal utility as of October 17 was $84 million. That is almost $20 million higher than claimed by Wright. According to Santerre, the bond breakdown is as follows: $43 million in general obligation bonds and $41 million in revenue bonds.
Wright had claimed BED’s debt was $65 million, while Grimes thought it hovered closer to $100 million. With that higher debt, Grimes argued that BED would net the city only about $50 million if sold, not $100 million.
Wright stands by his claim that the market valuation of BED would fetch a net of at least $100 million for the city taxpayers.
“I went back and spoke to the people who were crunching the numbers with me and they didn’t flinch,” said Wright.
Wright said BED’s value in the marketplace is more than just the utility’s balance sheet – but includes its assets, its cash flow and its location in the market.
“That said, if Barb Grimes is right and this sale would only net the city $50 to $55 million, then I wouldn’t do it.”
Also, our initial post neglected to include the statement issued by Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss — remember him?. Turns out the two-term Progressive mayor believes Wright’s idea is just plain wrong. Go figure.
“Kurt Wright’s proposal to sell the Burlington Electric Department is short-sighted and irresponsible. BED is a tremendous asset of the city. As a municipally-owned utility, it reflects important values of local rate-payer control and public accountability. BED is widely-acknowledged as one of the nation’s leading utilities with respect to the use of renewable energy sources. Selling an asset like BED for a one-time benefit undercuts Burlington’s future. It’s a short-term gimmick that lacks prudence and vision,” said Kiss. “The urgency suggested by this proposal is misplaced. The city is working towards constructive solutions for issues such as Burlington Telecom and the pension fund. Proposing to sell BED under these circumstances is an erratic solution to circumstances that require steadiness and careful consideration.”
This article appears in The Winter Preview Issue 2011.


Lots of criticism of Wright’s idea by 4 Democrat candidates and our Progressive mayor, but I don’t see any other ideas on the table. If you recognize the city’s financial position as a problem, you better figure out a way to address that problem. Leadership addresses it now, not 5-10-15 years from now.Or do those other 5 people think there is not a problem?
Well, Burlington’s finances are sure screwed up. They won’t be resolved anytime soon. I like the point Dale Tillotson makes. Bob Kiss is the biggest mistake in recent Burlington history and should resign. Even if Mr. Wright was elected mayor and a proposed sale of BED was made, it would still have to be approved by the voters of the city. That would be a tough proposition to make, given BED’s solidity in comparison. I personally dislike the idea of selling it off completely, but I would be open to a minority share being sold off to bring in more cash. Just because the screw-ups of the last decade have brought financial wreck to city coffers doesn’t mean one should get rid of a competently-run city-owned utility for a one-time cash infusion. If the city were to sell off a minority share, I would put language into the sale to ensure the city would have the option to buy back the minority share at a fair market price. For the moment, all of this is just hypothetical.Changing topics, I have noticed that the comments section on this blog is getting a bit nasty. Perhaps the Seven Days editors should think about maybe changing the comments section policy. People like Dale Tillotson have strong opinions for example, but they state their names and have a good, meaty argument to bring to the table, but others just make nasty remarks to people who disagree with them. Some blogs have dealt with this by either getting rid of comments entirely (think Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Beast), where reader comments only get posted when screened thoroughly and bring something thoughtful to the table, or ending the option to comment anonymously. In the latter case, require people to login using their Facebook account, etc. (sites like Mother Jones, for example) so they can be held accountable for their remarks. Civil discourse can only take place when people are out in the open stating their arguments. It won’t get rid of trolls necessarily, but it will help civilize the debate. Seven Days’ current commenting policy leaves me with little taste to read anything beyond the actual blog posts. If you require names and phone numbers when posting Letters to the Editor for the paper edition, something more than just an anonymous handle and an email should be required to post something on this blog.
JCARTER: ” BED is $84 million in debt”You know they just hired that guy who ran South Burlington into insolvency so who really knows what they’re worth? Assuming they don’t want to be sold, I’m sure they can cook the books to make themselves look like beggars.I’m voting communist, to the barricades Comrades!
This whole plan is based on the assumption that there’s a company out there with a pile of cash who’s going to hand it over for BED, then everything goes back to normal. In reality, the buyer is going to have to take on debt of their own, which can only be covered by raising rates. The common refrain from the right is that private businesses operate more efficiently than government, but electric service to Burlington is a monopoly. There will be no market pressure or accountability to provide that service efficiently or reliably.The best case scenario here is that service rates would only go up as much as we would be taxed to pay for the BT debacle ourselves.
So let’s get this straight : BED is $84,000,000 in debt and…Bran “BED is a model for municipally owned utilities”Miro “The Burlington Electric Department has been a valuable city asset”Peggy “BED is a very successful publicly owned utility”I think we have identified the problem in Burlington. Math. An entity that is 84 million in the hole is not an asset, nor is it successful. For full disclosure, I am not sure I am on board with this, however it deserves to be investigated. Burlington is 150 Million in the hole and that means drastic times and thinking outside the box. The norm clearly isn’t working.
Verplanck, a few problems with your “plan”:1. Municipalities don’t get to tax citizens based on income. They don’t even have access to that information.2. Even if they did, you’re talking about $50K/person/year. Which means every single one of them would leave immediately.3. When the BT bill comes due in the form of a verdict, it won’t be payable on an installment plan.Maybe this is why all of the candidates and most of the peanut gallery prefer to bitch about Wright’s plan rather than propose their own: there really aren’t any very good alternatives.Finally, since there seems to be some confusion on this point: BED’s rates are higher than GMP’s.
Kudos to Kurt for bringing an issue of substance to the campaign table. This is not a time for canned campaign speeches worshiping small town values and opining ideological platitudes. Kurt’s stink bomb sent everyone scrambling, shook everyone up, and gave candidate forum audience a front row seat on how our prospective mayors handle a new idea (even though it’s an idea that is 100 years old in Burlington) and think outside the box. Miro won that round. There will be tough realities to face in the years ahead: will we implement austerity measures, declare bankruptcy, sell off assets, or raise taxes? The pots and kettles are calling Kurt names — irresponsible? LOL, that one from the most irresponsible of us all, who ironically is currently trying to find a buyer for a city utility that he says is the best fiber optic network to home system IN THE WORLD.
Food for thought: The city of Chicago sold its parking meters to a multinational for billions less than it was valued for. Now residents are stuck with jacked-up rates and there’s nothing they can do about it. I think the problem is that Wright is trying to fix a long term problem with a short infusion of cash. It sure would be satisfying to eliminate a multimillion dollar hole in one shot, but there will inevitably be unforeseen long-term effects on ratepayers in the city. This isn’t “tough choices”, this is the easy way out. Wright deserves no credit for offering a shitty plan. Here’s mine: tax everyone earning more than 100k/ yr in the city whatever it takes to pay off the debt in 15 years. Wow, isn’t that great outside-the-box thinking?
“Might as well sell off the parks, too.”Why not? City Hall Park is of no use to anyone now except a bunch of squatters who think its theirs.
Might as well sell off the parks, too.