It was obvious from the start this was another financial issue that would require trying to explain from a couple different angles. So here goes, lets begin with the basics.
Article No. 14 as it appears on the ballot:
"Shall the bonds of the City of Rutland in an amount not to exceed $2.5 million be issued for the purpose of public improvements to the water distribution and wastewater collection systems provided that bonding only shall occur if the funds are required in order to take advantage of funding included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Federal Stimulus Bill)?
To answer one question I've been asked, if this item passes, it does not mean the city automatically has another $2.5 million bond on its hands. The city will only exercise its authority to go to a bank and carry through this authority if securing federal stimulus funds means the municipality has to prove that it has bonding ability. Even then, the only federal stimulus funding Mayor Louras said the city will pursue is "free money" - which could mean forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans or grants. This means that even if the city does take out a $2.5 million bond in order to prove bonding ability, as Louras explained it to me he does not intend on drawing on those $2.5 million. To spell it out furthur - taxpayers are not going to incur the $2.5 million cost.
To cross check to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, I've also asked David Allaire, Sharon Davis, William Notte and David Dress and they reiterate that there will not be a cost to taxpayers.
Notte also emphasized that a public hearing on the entire ballot will be held March 2, but if city residents have questions or would like clarification about what this ballot article really means, they can call the mayor or get in touch with any members of the board at any time. While all of their contact information can be found on the city's Web site, he gave me permission to print his e-mail address. It is willnotte@gmail.com.
As for what the city might do with $2.5 million in federal stimulus money, Louras said that figure was chosen based on four water and sewer infrastructure projects that are "shovel ready." He said he would like to allot two projects and $1.25 million to each of the next two construction seasons, beginning this year.
I realize there's also been some question of how and when the meeting at which this ballot article was approved was held. These are the circumstances as I understand them: Midday Jan. 28, last Wednesday, a special Board of Aldermen meeting was warned for Friday at 5 p.m. because a meeting was scheduled very short notice with the attorneys from Boston representing the other party in the water plant roof litigation. Since this meeting was in regard to pending litigation, it was going to be held in executive session. I found this out Friday morning when I stopped in the clerk's office. It was my day off and I was coming down with the flu (sorry, sometimes these things can't be helped) so I did not attend the meeting. I was ill and out of the office through Monday, so I could not follow up on that meeting until this week, when I learned a couple things: 1. the attorneys from Boston canceled late Friday and 2. six board members (Aldermen Dress, Slattery, Davis, Notte, Robinson and Sherman) and Chairman Allaire still showed up for the meeting, at which time Louras presented them with the ballot item. Louras told me this week that he only read in the House bill on Thursday that bonding ability may be a requirement, and he wanted to get the question to the board members on Friday in case they determined they wanted to take Monday to review/consider the proposal. Instead, they unanimously approved the question.
Should it have been presented at the full board meeting on Monday for informational purposes despite having already been passed? Should Mayor Louras have been at Monday's meeting to do so? And why doesn't the ballot item more clearly explain there will be no cost to the taxpayer, if that's in fact the case?
