Not so fast.
A group of six Queen City residents is appealing to the Supreme Court last week’s Public Utility Commission decision to green light the sale of Burlington Telecom. The group members claim that the City of Burlington still owes its taxpayers $16.9 million “that was improperly invested in BT.” The sale to Schurz Communications doesn’t recoup all that money, the group contends.
In its 51-page decision, the PUC ruled that, while the group’s claim had merit, the commission did not have the authority to force the city to pay up.
Jim Dumont, the group’s attorney, wrote in the release that in 2018, “the Commission agreed with us that Vermont law requires that BT reimburse $16.9 million to taxpayers.” Solveig Overby, one of the appellants, also called the decision “a 180-degree turn” from the commission’s previous stance. The sale agreement will net the city $6 million.
The group announced the decision to appeal on Thursday. They must formally file with the court within 30 days of the PUC’s February 19 ruling. Neither city officials nor Schurz Communications representatives immediately returned requests for comment.
The appeal, which could take months to resolve, will drag out what has already been a decade-long process.
In 2009, then-mayor Bob Kiss diverted $16.9 million in taxpayer dollars to keep the struggling telecom afloat. The city has since worked to revive BT, settle lawsuits filed by creditors and ultimately find a new owner. The Burlington City Council decided in November 2017 to sell BT to the Indiana-based communications company for $30.8 million.
The city has the option to purchase up to a 33 percent share of the telecom.
That’s not good enough for the residents who plan to appeal the sale.
“BT has become profitable and could easily repay taxpayers over time,” the group said in a press release Thursday.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
If these folks weren’t so militantly pro-KBTL despite its obvious shortcomings, the City likely would have sold to Ting. The Schurtz deal is the direct result of irrational support for KBTL that deadlocked the Council. This is the bed you made, so don’t complain about sleeping in it.
Really? Are the very same people who would have supported Kiss and Leopold doing anything and everything back in 2008 to keep their beloved BT alive, i.e., the improper diversion of $17 million in city funds, are they really now pretending to be aggrieved city taxpayers who want all their money back? Are they really now arguing that the state shouldn’t approve the sale to Schurz because the city won’t recover the full $16.9 million “that was improperly invested in BT.”
Burlington Telecom was never properly supported by Burlington government. Cox cable made sure of that. Remember them? – they absconded with billions.
And it is very unusual for a municipal telecom to fail, to not have proper support, to not generate profit, to not be touted as a real benefit to jobs, to education, to disaster planning.
Look around Muny telecoms are a happening thing around the country. What we have here, in all aspects, is a disgrace. It is our equivalent of Flint, Michigan’s municipal water system.
Grownassman has some strong opinions on Burlington Telecom and some mental post it notes for Burlington Progressives to remember in the near future once Schurz starts ripping us off. I spoke with IT specialists at the time and they easily concluded that the service and pricing structure of Schurz wasnt worth it and the bargain was with Ting/Tucows the Canadian company and Miros choice. City councilor Joan Shannon also noted that the Schurz deal was a rip off before it went down. What happened next is one of the greater ironies and demonstration that the Progressives would rather shoehorn a shit deal in for Burlingtonians rather than give Weinberger another victory. Remember the backdrop was that the Keep Burlington Local (KBTL) folks were putting up roughly half the money of the other two bids and their financing was made up of a combination of wishful thinking, pixie dust and a very real 14% deadbeat loan interest rate.
(Part I)
(Part II)
A KBTL sale would have instantly triggered lawsuits from Blue Water Holdings and Citibank who could rightfully say they were not adequately made whole from the sale. The Public Service Board likely would not have approved such a flimsy proposal. Once KBTL was not chosen what do the Co-op or bust Progressive wing of the council do? They threw all their votes behind a company that only existed on paper for a few hours rather than go with Ting-Tucows who as a Canadian telecom is likely better with regulation and benefits.. Last summer one of the first things Schurz did as new owners was start taking away pensions and benefits from the BT employees. Yeah thanks Progressives you really did Burlington a solid. Progressives can never hang this on Weinberger and you have permission from the Grownassman to tell them that when the chips are down the Progressives would rather stick it to Burlingtonians than compromise and do whats right for Burlington. Their self righteous Burlington-People-First hypocrisy is pure rubbish and a good example as to why they shouldnt be put back in charge of the council or mayorship until they demonstrate more common and financial sense.
Can’t hang the Schurz deal on Progressive councilors. Check the vote, please. Hartnett brokered the deal, when he was an Independent who used to be a Dem and was a Dem again after the sale. Knodell was a Progressive who is now running as an Independent. You have to look at how each councilor voted.
I am one of the citizens challenging the BT sale and I am not a supporter of selling it to KBTL. I want BT to be a city owned utility.
There are many things wrong with the sale of BT to BlueWater and the proposed sale to Schurz. We don’t have the resources to fight them all. We are focusing on the clearest legal issue to attack the sale.
It is the same law that says that it was illegal for the Kiss administration to use taxpayer money to fund BT. The Weinberger administration continues to violate that law by selling BT without returning the taxpayers money. If we can’t get our money back, at least we should have the valuable asset.. We are getting neither.
If you think the mayor did the best he could with this, read the Blue Water deal for yourself and ask yourself if this is the kind of financial agreement that any city should ever be engaged in. Even the state regulators thought there were other options.
(Part III)
Lea Terhune, youre right, I got my voting for the last round mixed with the final round. Thanks for that correction. It doesnt change the fact that the Progressives supported a financially and legally irresponsible proposal that resulted in the Ting-Tucows deal not being pursued. Had KBTL done more financial research like Joan Shannon they would have recognized that the best deal was with Ting-Tucows and voted for it in the 2nd to last round. Hell Ting even offered KBTL 20% ownership that KBTL turned down in the deal they tried to broker for joint ownership. This was the best possible outcome for KBTL given the weak financials they proposed. They should have recognized it and taken the 20% ownership deal with Ting-Tucows before the final vote. Recognizing that your stand-alone deal is a non-starter is a sign of being realistic and responsible about what is possible. In the BT story the KBTL deal would have put Burlington back in legal jeopardy; resulted in potential credit downgrades and resulted in further financial loss for not concluding the deal in time per the agreement with Citibank and Bluewater. Do you still really believe the Progressives dont bear responsibility for Burlingtonians ending up being stuck with Schurz? In hindsight you can see that Miro and the Democrats by supporting Ting-Tucows had the best financial interest and outcome for Burlington and that had it been supported by Progressives it would have left us with a company that instead of cutting benefits and pensions like Schurz would have moved its eastern headquarters (Ting-Tucows) to Burlington. The Progressives ended up spoiling this outcome with their constant intransigence and denial of reality around KBTL. This is how the Progressives could have prevented our current Schurz fiasco and why they bear responsibility.
“Burlington Telecom was never properly supported by Burlington government. […] it is very unusual for a municipal telecom to fail, to not have proper support, to not generate profit, to not be touted as a real benefit to jobs, to education, to disaster planning […] many telecoms are a happening thing around the country. What we have here, in all aspects, is a disgrace. It is our equivalent of Flint, Michigan’s municipal water system.”
this has to be repeated. municipal telecoms are popping-up all over the country. we were ahead of the curve, and now we’re bailing AFTER we built one?
bt is a cash cow A CASH COW! despite its growing pains, it’s become a capital multiplier and a lucrative public resource. why are we letting, what amounts to, just a handful of our neighbors peel this meaningful and robust investment away from us from the rest of the citizenry?
let’s reverse this course of action. let’s end this game. let’s not let a handful of our neighbors sell our telecom gold mine.