Burlington taxpayers could be on the hook for any unpaid money owed to the city’s general fund if Burlington Telecom were to be sold for less than what it owes outside investors.
That admission came from Chief Administrative Officer Jonathan Leopold under tough questioning from Councilor Ed Adrian (D-Ward 1) at last night’s special city council meeting called to discuss financial problems at the city’s municipally owned telecom company.
In all, Burlington Telecom has borrowed roughly $17 million since early 2008.
To date, Leopold has stressed that city taxpayers would not see their money put at risk due to the loans given to BT. Instead, Leopold said refinancing the debt or a sale of the assets could cover the owed money.
But, when asked by Adrian how the loss would be accounted for if Burlington Telecom were sold for less than what it owes, Leopold said it would be a “negative balance” on the city’s general fund.
This article appears in Oct 21-27, 2009.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Laughable “To date, Leopold has stressed that city taxpayers would not see their money put at risk due to the loans given to BT. Instead, Leopold said refinancing the debt or a sale of the assets could cover the owed money.”LEopold has done nothing but put the taxpayers money at risk the money he stole is completelyand wholey at risk.He has nothing to back up his claim but another lie. Jonathan Leopold cannot snap his gnarled thieving fingers and make finacing for Burlington Telecoms Failures magically appear. His hole is does not contain a magic pot of money or he would not have stolen the money from the taxpayers.For just a small fine of say 1 million dollars… Well Jonathan how about this you and Kiss pay up the fines go to jail and we the taxpayers whom you have robbed get our money back.Lets not forget what an asset that we have twenty four hour access to Porn, The Kardashians, twitter and the Biggest loser. Serving less than 20 percent of Burlingtons elite! for the same price or more than the competition!Woot!
The Republicans on the council have been among Leopold’s biggest enablers. Why did they lock hands with the Progs and block BT from becoming a department? That was a huge mistake.I’m a little disappointed in my ward seven representation on this.
Burlington Telecom is an incredible asset and the service is outstanding. Funding issues are serious and deserve scrutiny, but in no circumstances can we lose Burlington Telecom’s service.
“but in no circumstances can we lose Burlington Telecom’s service”Carrying $60-70m in extremely sketchy debt vs. “having” to subscribe to Comcast for the exact same service – what a dilemma
This is tricky. I appreciate our Progressive administration. I voted for them. Are they the best Progressives we could have running our city? By no means. What I don’t want to come of this is Kurt Wright or other moderates/conservatives taking advantage of the politics and taking the Prog admin down. Yes, the Republicans are going to point to the fact that we have left-wing administrators and that they are too liberal with tax-payer dollars. In my opinion it was the republicans that pushed against proper oversight because they are so against municipally owned companies in the first place. Lets not bring the Progs down with this revelation. They have the right ideas.
Wasn’t this illegal $17 million dollar taxpayer loan already made before the failed vote a month or so ago to make BT a city department? In other words, that proposal wouldn’t have prevented this scandal even if it had passed.Leopold acted illegally and should be investigated and prosecuted. Kiss had to know (even though Leopold runs the place) and is responsible also.
Mark sez, “Are they the best Progressives we could have running our city? By no means.”Mark … you find the “best” Progressives and you put them up to run against Kiss and these other fools who made this nearly fraudulent loan to BT — then we’ll talk. Kiss and Leopold have been dishonest. They are not to be trusted. A dishonest pol is a dishonest pol, regardless of their party affiliation.
Progs are revealing themselves to be no different and no better than the rest of the politicians they like to look down their noses at: when one of THEIRS gets in trouble, they circle the wagons and claim that this is all much ado about nothing.Wrong! Kiss and Leopold broke the law. They’re corrupt. Get rid of ’em.
Transparency is a problem for all politicians, especially when they have a majority. They like to assume that the taxpayers would support them and they act in good faith. Maybe it was the right thing to do at the time. Maybe Kiss and Leopold have sacrificed their careers, or maybe they just suck at accounting. I really don’t no and until more info comes out I don’t think any of you do either. Just because BT is a municipally owned utility doesn’t make it inherently doomed. The inverse is also true. Public utilities are not always run competently and in the interest of the public. That being said, I think the best course of action is to do a third part audit. Have a post audit hearing and lay blame where it lies. This isn’t the end of the world and doesn’t discount progressivism with a small p.
**know** brain fart… Don’t want the spelling police to come after me.
city charter, Section 438 (c)(1), directs the Public Service Board to ensure that all of BT’s costs be “borne by the investors … and in no event are borne by the city’s taxpayers, the state of Vermont, or are recovered in rates from electric ratepayers.”and24 V.S.A. App. § 3-51. Ordinance enforcement(a) The violation of an ordinance, regulation or by-law adopted by the city,… may be prosecuted as a criminal or civil action#2: how can it be that the $17 million doesnot include taxpayer or electric ratepayers money?BT’s commercial debt now about $33.5 millionwas financed by “lease-purchase” agreementsbeginning with Koch Financial in 2003, 2004 and 2006 and subsequently in 2007 with Citicapital.The lease-purchase model is analogous to a mortgage.The Burlington Telecom system is the collateral for the loan. [$17M is NOT collaterized!](cmchoatelaw.com)”…honest services fraud is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346:…includes a scheme or artifice to deprive anotherof the intangible right of honest services..”biden sez:”..a new public corruption statute that will beused to bring charges against anyonewho attempts to deprive the citizens of the United Statesor of any State of the honest servicesof a public official,or against anyone who attempts to corruptthe election process..”