The Right to Re-vote

A group of Rutland City residents followed the law by conducting a petition drive to have a re-vote on the Giorgetti Expansion Bond. We had our petition and our rights validated by the Vermont Secretary of State and the City Attorney. We will continue to exercise our rights as taxpayers of this City and State. Apparently, those who favored this expansion do not want us to have this right. The following is posted on the "Vote Yes for the Giorgetti Expansion" facebook site:

Nan Richenderfer Hart: I find it very puzzling why this is allowed to occur...the voters have already spoken and unless (as in the case of an elected official who does something illegal) there is something illegal about original vote this should NOT BE ALLOWED! Rutland city voters have spoken and there is no legitimate reason to re-vote other than the sour grapes of those who opposed it. I would like to start a petition to stop the petition...that is how absurd this is....anyone want to support that? 6 hours ago Lori Manning Hickey, Mary Barron, Peggy Shinn likes this.. Nan Richenderfer Hart: I am referring to the announcement today of a petition to re-vote on this matter to defeat the expansion project that won the approval of the Rutland City voters ..just ridiculous...

Deb Roy I agree....so if it is voted down, do the pro-Giorgetti voters get to re-vote it again, and again....and again.....talk about a waste of time and money and people's energy!

Giorgetti Revote Petition Filed!

A door-to-door petition drive may have put the Giorgetti Arena bond back before the voters.

A group of a half-dozen people presented City Clerk Henry Heck with a petition on Wednesday to revote the $3.9 million bond for expansion of the Giorgetti Park facilities into a full-scale recreation center.

Such a petition requires signatures from 5 percent of the registered voters in the city — just shy of 600 — and the petitioners said they had around 750, with more they could turn in before the deadline today.

Heck said he could not recall the last petitioned revote in the city, and Mayor Christopher Louras said his research did not find one since a vote on fluoridation in 1982.

Heck said if enough signatures prove valid a special election would be scheduled for 60 days from today — the deadline for the petition.

Proponents of the bond argued that the recreation department's facility in the Dana Center would never be adequate to the city's needs and that a modern recreation center would serve as a developmental tool for the city. Voters approved the bond at town meeting, 1,710 to 1,603.

James Mattison, who spoke for the petitioners Wednesday, said they felt the bond went through too quickly and the city should focus its attention elsewhere.

“For four years, we've listened to this administration complain about potholes, antique sewer systems, water pipes that were ready to explode,” he said.

Mattison said they collected signatures by going door to door over a period of 10 to 12 days.

“We picked certain streets, different times of day,” he said. “We didn't go together — we spread ourselves out. This was a very good operation.”

Heck said it could take a few days to verify all the names on the petition.

“You have to look up every single name,” he said. “It takes more time than you think and we have other things we do.”

The Recreation Committee voted earlier this week to recommend putting out a request for proposals on engineering for the project. Chairman Thomas DePoy said the city would not proceed with the request for proposals if the petition was certified.

“We're not going to waste any money or waste any time if there's a revote,” he said.

Louras, on the other hand, said he saw no reason to wait on that step and would recommend to the full board that it move ahead.

“The RFP process can continue,” Louras said. “As long as we don't expend any funds, we can have a contract signed with the proper stipulations.”

Louras said he did not believe an impending revote would discourage engineering firms from bidding on the project.

Even if the request for proposals is delayed, DePoy said he did not think that would hurt the chances of breaking ground on the project this year if it passes on a revote.

“I'm still hopeful we can get started in August,” he said. “I don't see it's going to put a huge damper on that. It may. If it does, it does.”

DePoy, who advocated strongly for the project while running for re-election, said he would continue his advocacy and he was not fazed by the petition.

“If they've got the signatures, they've got them,” he said. “My only hope is, when we have the revote, people will be energized to get out and vote for it again. I think it's something that's a true investment in the community. This is the democratic process and I'm fine with it. I'll be disappointed if it fails. ... If it's passed a second time, that's a reassurance this community wants to invest in itself.”

Either way, DePoy said, he will sleep well at night.

Others had more animated reactions.

“I think it's a slap in the face to the city voters and the process,” said Paul Gallo, who campaigned for the bond and was credited by some city officials with its success. “Voters came out and pledged their votes. I think it was clear they saw Rutland moving forward and with all the good things happening in Rutland, this is part of it.”

Louras said he was confident the bond would pass a second time.

“It's just my sense, my feeling, the community wants to move forward, not step backward,” he said. “My sense is more individuals were pleased it passed than were upset.”

Friends of Giorgetti Arena raised almost $8,000 in cash and in-kind contributions. Gallo said he expects the group will make some kind of effort if the second vote happens.

“When City Hall tells us that we'll have another vote, we'll take it up then,” he said. “We'll do what we've got to do.”

Mattison said his group plans an active campaign to get out the vote.

“By Monday we should be on the road and running again,” he said. “This is going to be a long battle.”

Rutland Taxpayers United Strike Again!!

Petition may send Giorgetti bond issue back to polls
1:50 p.m.

By Gordon Dritschilo
Staff Writer - Published: March 30, 2011


The Giorgetti Arena bond appears to be headed back to the polls.

A group of Rutland residents turned in a petition at the City Clerk's office early this afternoon they said has about 750 signatures calling for a second vote on the $3.9 million bond. John Mattison, who spoke for the group, said they had sheets of additional names they planned to turn in the next day.

City Clerk Henry Heck said it would be a couple days before his office would be able to verify the signatures. If the total number of legitimate signatures reaches one-fifth of the number of registered voters in the city -- a number just under 600 -- a special election will be scheduled for 60 days from Thursday.

Heck estimated a special election will cost around $5,000.

Voters at town meeting approved the bond by a margin of about 100 votes

Vt. House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill - Video News Story - WPTZ Plattsburgh

News video regarding Single Payer Health Care.

Vt. House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill - Video News Story - WPTZ Plattsburgh

Is a Housing Study Needed?

The Rutland Redevelopment Authority plans to study the city’s housing needs.

The Board of Aldermen voted unanimously Monday to support the organization’s application for a $10,000 municipal plann...ing grant from the state to fund the study.

“We want to find out what the city has available and compare it to what was needed — what kind of senior housing is needed, what kind of single-family housing was needed,” RRA administrative assistant Barbara Allen told the board Monday.

Mayor Christopher Louras said Wednesday the need for such a study was pointed out by the recent census data showing Rutland’s population falling for a second census period in a row.

“With a great many vacancies in the city, we had to do some long-term planning to determine what levels and types of housing the city needs going forward,” he said.

Louras said he does not expect the population trend to reverse in the immediate future and that the city has more units under construction as Forest Park is rebuilt. He said city government influences the housing market through its sponsorship of grant applications for housing projects.

“It would stand to reason that if we have 100 available units of multifamily, it would not be the most prudent action to bring new ones on board,” he said.

Allen said Wednesday she did not know if the RRA would hire a consultant for the study or do the work in-house. She said she expects the grant application to go out in April and that the study would likely be conducted in the summer and completed some time in the fall.

The last such study, she said, was the Rutland County Housing Needs Assessment, spearheaded by the Rutland County Community Land Trust and published in January 2005.

Meanwhile, Allen said the RRA board conducted telephone interviews of some candidates for the executive director job Tuesday. The group had about 30 applicants, she said, mostly from New England and upstate New York. She said they intend to have someone in place by July 1, when the new fiscal year begins.

Giorgetti Re-Vote Petition Drive

Taxpayers are uniting by circulating a petition for a re-vote on the recently passed Giorgetti Expansion Bond Article. The passage of a $4.3 million dollar bond for the expansion of Giorgetti Park passed on Town Meeting Day by just over 100 votes. Voters can ask for a re-vote on a bond article if you get 5% of the registered voters to sign a petition within 30 days of the initial passage. This would mean approximately 550 signatures are needed by April 1st. A special election would take place within 60 days of Town Meeting.

Please download the petition and have your friends and neighbors sign. Petitions can be handed in at DT Supply on River St in Rutland Vermont. All petitions need to be handed in by next week.

Vermont Single Payer Health Care?

What is Vermont's Single Payer Health Care Bill? That seems to be the question over the past few weeks. There are many more questions than answers regarding this Bill. For those seeking to read the Bill, please click here: Vermont Single Payer

The Rutland Region Chamber of Commerence has posed the following question regarding this legislation:

We are concerned that reform of Vermont’s $5 billion health care industry is being hurried through the legislative process potentially exposing the State to many unintended consequences that may be hard to back up from.

We are concerned that the proposal does not include a mechanism for who will pay for this and how much? Answers to funding questions are critical.

We all agree that cost containment is critical and that we need to get health care costs under control. But how does this bill do that? How, exactly, will costs be contained? Will it result in health care rationing? What are the benefits that will be covered and omitted by he proposal?

Currently Government (through Medicare & Medicaid) reimburses at a rate below cost (40%-70%). How does the proposal address the cost shift that currently exists?

What happens to Vermont’s program if Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements fall? How will the employers/employees be held harmless if this occurs? How will Vermont retain and attract doctors?

Companies who are self insured could see a double digit increase to labor costs, or be forced to drop their program in favor of the state medical plan at a higher cost. Will these companies be held harmless in this legislation?

Will the single payer system take away the high-value insurance coverage enjoyed by teachers, state and municipal employees and other organized workers? Or will this plan create a two tiered system, with the taxpayers financing both the gold-plated heath care benefits for government workers, and a less robust system for themselves?

How will the single payer system achieve its claimed efficiency benefits, when providers still have to bill Medicare, insurance carriers offering privately-paid supplementary coverage, the insurance plans of non-Vermonters, and perhaps carriers of high-value insurance for teachers and municipal employees?

How will two-income families accommodate paying potentially double or triple their out-of-pocket costs - through a payroll tax - for coverage that is much-less robust than their current plans?

Ninety-three percent of Vermonters already have health insurance and half of the remaining 7 percent are eligible for Medicaid. Is this the only option for insuring the uninsured? Why aren't we waiting to see if federal health care reform works first.

How can a five member part time board possibly manage the complexities of a $5 billion health care system given the range of responsibilities?