Blurt: Seven Days Staff Blog

NOTE: Blurt has been retired and is no longer updated regularly. For new content, follow these links:

OFF MESSAGE: Vermont News and Politics
BITE CLUB: Food and Drink Blog

« Housing Groups and Pizzigalli Craft Deal to Preserve Low-Income Housing | Main | Viva Rut-Vegas! Milton Rep. Seeks to Legalize Casino Gambling »

January 28, 2011

The Good, the Bad, the Burlington Telecom: Citizens Question Officials About the Future of BT

BTMeeting They came, they saw, they vented. More than 100 people crammed into City Hall Auditorium in Burlington for a special city council meeting Thursday night about the status of beleaguered Burlington Telecom.

The nearly four-hour meeting probably didn't change many minds. Diehard BT supporters are still insisting the utility can be saved. Likewise, those who would like to see the mayor resign and be held personally liable for returning the $17 million BT owes Burlington taxpayers weren't swayed by arguments that the company is now "cash flow positive."

In all, more than 40 questions were put to city officials, outside consultants, lawyers and city councilors. Of those, 35 were submitted in writing ahead of time (see below).

Mayor Bob Kiss and the outside consultants said while BT's financial troubles left a hole in the city's cash pool, the utility has turned things around and is in a better financial position to seek outside investors now. Kiss also refuted some of the claims that have been made about his administration's failing in regard to BT operations and oversight.

His words, however, didn't seem to resonate with most people at the meeting — even BT supporters.

In the end, the issue of "trust" came up time and time again: Could supporters trust BT would be there when they need it for their small business or household; could supporters trust that BT would be the same top-notch service if a new owner is found; could residents trust that taxpayers wouldn't be out $17 million and forced to repay the money through higher taxes; could residents or councilors trust anything the administration, or consultants hired by the city, had to say; could the public trust that CitiCapital wouldn't sue the city for terminating the lease and using what is essentially its equipment for several months to operate the network?

When it was their turn to speak, several city councilors — including three prospective mayoral candidates — did their best to ensure the public that they have been doing everything possible to protect taxpayers and clean up the fiscal mess created by Mayor Bob Kiss and Chief Administrative Office Jonathan Leopold.

Councilor Karen Paul (I-Ward 6) dismissed Mayor Kiss' claim that a proposed financing deal floated in late 2009 would have solved BT's cash crunch. She bluntly asked BT's interim manager Steven Barraclough, from the firm Dorman & Fawcett, if the Piper Jaffray deal would have been viable given BT's revenues. Barraclough said, not really.

Councilor Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4) called on Kiss to publicly admit there had been serious mistakes made — well-intentioned or not — as a way to begin to restore public trust. Kiss didn't take Wright up on his offer. In his opinion, Wright noted, the council's chief mistake was not holding more public forums to keep the public better informed about BT.

That the council went along with some of the administration's plans should not, he added, be seen as an act of complicity. "Could we have figured this thing out?" asked Wright. "It was a trust issue. We trusted the charter language and the 2008 budget resolution. We trusted that the administration was not doing what we later found out it was."

A budget resolution in 2008, crafted by former Democratic Councilor Andy Montroll, forbid BT from building out the system unless the money came from subscriber revenue.

Councilor Ed Adrian (D-Ward 1) also raised the issue of trust, noting that of all people CAO Leopold was not at the meeting to answer questions. Mayor Kiss said Leopold, who had hip surgery, could not be at the meeting.

Councilor Joan Shannon (D-Ward 5) told residents that the creation of the Blue Ribbon Panel, a special audit committee to review the city's audits and to look more closely at BT's books, disallowed BT's use of the cash pool and set new guidelines for how the CAO can use the cash pool.

Councilor Sharon Bushor (I-Ward 1), who was on the city's Board of Finance in late 2007 and early 2008 when the administration said it first alerted councilors to BT's financial problems, said she felt like everyone involved has been doing what they thought was best for the city. Also on the Board of Finance at the time was Councilor Wright.

"We were building on the understanding that we had underestimated the cost of the buildout, and much to my chagrin I am not one who feels like I can point the finger at someone and blame them," said Bushor. "Everyone made decisions in good faith."

She recalled that the Board of Finance was fully briefed in early 2008.

Wright, Paul, and others however, believe that the administration was not fully transparent in its use of the cash pool to keep BT operational, going much farther into debt to the city's taxpayers than had been anticipated — or allowed by the city's certificate of public good.

Some residents held up signs and had stickers that read "Give Us Back Our $17 Million." Another, David Grossnickel, held up a sign before the council and administration that summed up his inability to believe anyone about the BT updates given the past transgressions: "Liar Liar Pants on Fire!"

"I've been hearing you talk, but I'm not hearing you say anything," said Grossnickel. "I think today would be a great day for you to resign."

His statement drew applause.

Others were more forward-looking. Small business owner Nathan Smith Pete Jewett noted that BT was a valuable asset and should be preserved, and any newly structured BT should include repayment of the $17 million. "Telecom is going to drive the next 100 years the way that electricity drove the past 100 years," Smith noted.

Jewett, Smith, like others in support of BT, also drew applause from the crowd.*

Consultant Gary Evans, of Hiawatha Broadband in Minnesota, told residents that for BT to be viable in the long-term it needed one simple thing: more subscribers. He called the network a state-of-the-art system that has great potential to lure application developers and companies from around the world given its speed and capacity.

Once the financial situation is settled, Evans noted, "Then we need to get on with the job of building the subscriber base and we'll build something very special for this community, tomorrow and into the future."

In the end, residents were told:

• BT is "cash flow positive" if you don't take into account repayment of its roughly $51 million in current debt. Steven Barraclough said BT has a "surplus" of roughly $40,000-$50,000 per month and is not taking any money from the cash pool. In addition, BT is paying the interest on the $16.9 million owed to the cash pool.

• BT has priced replacement equipment it suspects it will need when CitiCapital seeks return of the equipment it now owns as a result of the lease termination. CitiCaptial has not yet fully identified that equipment, or when and how it will want it returned. Barraclough said the replacement equipment will cost about $6 to $8 million.

• BT is developing a plan to take out existing equipment and install new equipment that is designed to provide "minimal disruption in service," Barraclough noted.

• CitiCapital could still sue the city, but attorneys declined to speculate for what reason, since they believe the city took proper action in terminating the lease.

• If the city does not prevail in a taxpayer lawsuit, City Attorney Ken Schatz said the city would file a claim with the city's insurer to make payment.

• Likewise, if CitiCaptial sues the city, in all likelihood the city would file a claim with its insurance company, if it did not prevail in court, to pay any damage.

* Additional borrowing costs due to the bond ratings downgrades by Moody's could cost the city as much as $500 to $5000 in interest per $1 million borrowed per year. The city is also looking to issue bonds through the state Municipal Bond Bank to get better rates.

David Provost, the senior vice president for finance at Champlain College and chairman of the Burlington Telecom Blue Ribbon Committee, told the audience, "We would have loved to have it resolved sooner, but we were told early on by [the consultants] that this is a process and it takes time. The Blue Ribbon Committee is satisfied with Dorman & Fawcett and satisfied with their efforts to date and now it's onto the next steps of finding the next strategic partner."

Barraclough said BT is in talks with several prospective partners — none of whom he would name publicly because they had signed confidentiality agreements — interested in providing capital and possibly equipment to BT.

Once the consultants line up a few prospective deals, it will bring those first to the Blue Ribbon Committee. After the committee vets the deals, they would then go to the City Council for approval.

In the interim, BT has until February 28 to file a "cure proposal" with the Public Service Board — barring any requests to delay that date. That proposal should spell out how the utility plans to repay the $17 million and complete its network buildout in Burlington.

Download the list of pre-filed questions for the BT meeting: Download BT public questions

Download the FAQ handed out at the meeting: Download BT FAQ

* The original article misidentified one of the speakers in support of BT. It has been updated. Also, late this afternoon, the city made available the FAQ that was passed out at the meeting. It has been added as a PDF download.

"Mayor Bob Kiss and the outside consultants said while BT's financial troubles left a hole in the city's cash pool, "

Incorrect. Let's be clear: Mayor Kiss left a hole in the City's cash pool.

Anyone else feel like they're reading a missing chapter from Catch-22?

"BT is "cash flow positive" if you don't take into account repayment of its roughly $51 million in current debt. Steven Barraclough said"

Hogwash !! If it were why is the City still paying for BT consultants and lawyers? To be Cash Flow Positive it would have to be generating revenue. Considering right now BT is using Citi fiber, Citi boxes and Citi equipment they are simply running BT for Citi and are not entitled to that money. All they are doing is racking up more debt as Citi will likely sue for these monies.

Sell it, get what can be got and end the bleeding. Kiss and Leopold have done irrepreable harm to the City. It will be decades before taxpayers can begin to trust City Hall again.

(City attorneys) "believe the city took proper action in terminating the lease".

What a great civics lesson for our young people. It's no coincidence that the older folks in my neighborhood are the most appalled by BT's walking away from their obligation. You can argue all you want about BT's "right" to terminate, but I would never have tried anything similar while my father was still alive.

We got the "fiber is great" narrative from some hip entrepreneurs last night, which has nothing to do with BT's problems. If the supporters of BT want to change the hearts and minds of Burlington taxpayers then they need to stop talking about Gbit/s and start offering solutions.


You say "sell it" but what does the City of Burlington actually have to sell. CitiFinancial can sell it. The best the COB can do is ask CitiFinancial to sell it in place.

What's to stop CitiCapital from just selling everything in place to ComCast (or any other entity)? That would leave Burlington with an office building at 200 Church Street and some empty equipment racks.

Somebody please tell me I'm wrong.

The "Strategic Partner" should be a consumer co-operative of BT customers, not some random out-of-state financial interest. If the share price were set equivalent to a share of City Market ($200), BT would raise $9-10 million by selling a stake to the users - more than enough to buy the new equipment. This needs to be put forward as an option before we auction off public assets at fire-sale prices.

There is an error in your reporting, Shay. According to what the lawyers were saying last night, Burlington Telecom's now-ended lease with CitiCapital does not constitute a debt. The lease agreement states that appropriations have to be made on a yearly basis, and if they are not, Citi is entitled to take the financed assets back -- and that's the end of it. So the total debt load for BT is not $51 million. It is $17 million, and will likely increase by the amount required to buy replacement equipment for whatever CitiCapital wants to repossess (~ $7-9 million, according to Dorman & Fawcett).

As an IT professional, I find it totally plausible that BT can buy functionally equivalent hardware for a third the cost of 5 years ago. Is this a big financial loss for CitiCapital and an unfortunate blow to the city's bond rating? Yes. But it still might end up being a financial savings in the long run if BT can pull through.

CitiFinancial or its heirs will strike a legal blow to Burlington that will reverberate for years.

@Janice, the agreement also says that if they fail to make a scheduled lease payment within 30 days of the due date, they are in default, and they owe the whole amount. Nonappropriation (voluntary lease termination) requires 90 days' notice. Guess which event occurred first.

Being cash flow positive if you don't take into account repayment of its roughly $51 million in current debt...that's like saying, "if it wasn't for the $500K I owe to my mortgage, I would totally be in the black."

@Jimmy: As I understand it, the missed payments were covered by a $1 million reserve fund, so they don't count as a violation of the lease. Does that guarantee that Citi won't sue? Of course not. But there is no clear reason why they should, given a) the structure of the lease agreement, and b) the fact that there's no money to pay them even if they eventually win.

They went more than 30 days past their "amnesty period" (or whatever friendly term they gave the "negotiation/we ain't paying you" period), and I'm quite sure they didn't give 90 days' notice 60 days before that.

You should actually read the agreement, it's quite clear, despite what some at the meeting last night seemed to be implying.

Janice: Citi would sue the City, where there is money. BT is part of the Clerk Treasurers Office, not an independent legal entity. Of course they will sue the City.

@Jimmy: References? According to this memo from Kiss's office, there was an agreement between BT and CitiCapital on the use of the escrow fund and a delay on the appropriations for 2011 as far back as July 2010.

Last night's meeting has to be counted as a political win for the Kiss admin. While the mayor was his usual reticent, unleaderly self, he did assemble a knowledgable team of consultants, especially Gary Evans from Hiawatha in Minn, who projected a persuasive understanding of some key issues. Their presentations helped account for the generally civil tone of the proceedings. It would've been pretty weird to do a flame-out following their rational explanations. I don't think fair-minded Burlingtonians who were there (and are there any theories on why the audience was about 80 percent male?) can say BT is (still) being run by incompetents. The downside for Kiss is that most voters won't have seen how it went down at City Hall last night and will, rightfully, take away from the media reports that all the big items remain unresolved.

@Janice my reference is the lease agreement. It states that non appropriation requires 90 days' notice, during which they must make payments. The "forbearance period" deferred the default. As of September 30, they were in default. They don't get to make a determination not to appropriate at the end of the forbearance period and provide zero days' notice to that effect.

Again, read the agreement, it's very clear. Failure to appropriate w/90 days' notice (and equipment return) is lease termination. Other failure to pay within 30 days of due date is default. One of the default remedies is to take back the equipment, but that alone doesn't satisfy the outstanding debt.

@Kevin I strongly disagree. The suits came off as weasels, refusing to give straight answers to the simplest of questions over and over again. Testimony such as Nancy Kaplan's and Karen Paul's cast the admin's dealings in a decidedly sinister light. And the explanation(s) of the Piper Jaffrey "offer" put to rest any real culpability on the part of the City Council in refusing to pursue that "deal."

I only got to hear part of it because streaming with Comcast really sucks, but I liked what the one guy said when he mentioned that the 60+ percent who voted for BT never signed up. Voting for it without supporting it is tantamount to clicking the "like" button on Facebook.

@Jimmy: The original wording of the lease agreement does not negate any subsequent agreements that were made between the parties. If CitiCapital signed off on modifications to the agreement, that has legal repercussions. The memo I linked to is just one notice of such a change; there may be others that we don't know about. The point is that negotiations were going on for months, and the situation is far from the black & white picture you are trying to make it out to be.

By the way, I agree with Kevin. The guys at the Dorman & Fawcett table seemed like the smartest people in the room. The fact that they said the Piper Jaffray deal would have been a bad idea only made me respect them more. Too bad for Kiss on that one, but good for the possible survival of BT.

Absent any evidence that Citi is giving BT a pass on the 90 day requirement - and given the fact that no one would refer to such a pass being given upon repeated questioning about the likelihood that Citi will come after the rest of their money - what we have is what we have. And what we have says that they are in default. If any agreement had been struck that gets them out of that, last night was certainly the time to mention it, and no one did.

Remember that Citi is going to be VERY wary of setting a precedent here. The eyes of every struggling municipality that they've lent money to are on this case.

@Jimmy: I did not see any ambiguity in the responses to questions about the lease. The lawyers clearly said: a) BT is not technically indebted to Citi; b) the "remedy" is being negotiated, but will likely be limited to the repossession of a subset of the financed equipment.

In my view, the repeated questions from city council members about whether it was possible for Citi to file suit against BT were stupid in light of the information that had been provided. There is no way the lawyers could have honestly said it's *not* possible; after all, we live in a litigious society, and nothing prevents a corporation or a private citizen from filing a completely frivolous law suit, let alone one with any merit. But they clearly thought it was unlikely to happen, and I'm inclined to believe them absent any other indications from CitiCapital.

If the lease were terminated, the remedy would be clear. There would be no need for negotiation. They were asked repeatedly whether Citi was going to come after them for the full amount and all they would say was they believed that this was nonappropriation but they didn't know whether Citi was going to come after them. I heard no one say that they didn't think they were going to come after them. They just said they didn't know.

If they were in agreement with Citi that it was nonappropriation and a straight termination per section 7 of the agreement, they would have said that. IMO if reps from Citi had been in the room, you would have been hearing a very different tune.

@Jimmy: The remedy is not clear even in the event of a by-the-book termination, because a lot of the financed equipment cannot easily be repossessed (for example, fiber optic cable that has already been run through the ground). Citi *could* ask for that cable back, but what would be the point? If they ripped it out, it would be ruined and worthless. If they retain ownership, they have to do something with it to make it worth keeping. If they want to sell it, they have to find someone to sell it to. It really is not clear cut. Thus the need for negotiation.

bottom line #1.
I heard nothing last night that insured the 17 million would return to our wallets(maybe it will but did not hear it last night and I doubt we will see it.)
Bottom line #2.Kiss is holding us hostage by saying BT will not be a debt unless it folds. I guess that means that unless we all cut him a check to save it then it is our fault and we are responsible.
Bottom line #3. Check the passports of Kiss and leopold and hold them at the airport.
Biggest bottom line of reality.
Amazing that CAO Leopold was not their last night but could be at the meeting Monday to request a tax hike.
If the CAO is not capable of performing his duties due to his medical issues he must be put on medical leave and the issues must be solved without his interference(I meant input)
We should all be praying for CAO Leopold in his recovery as maybe the FBI has a warm bed in waiting.

We are all aware that there is an open question of whether Citi will take spools of cable in lieu of what's in the ground. If that was all they were dealing with, they would have said that, and everyone would have felt a lot better. Clearly there's more to it than that.

All I'm saying is that it's pretty clear that BT is in default as defined by their agreement with Citi, and that the remedy for default is repayment of all monies owed. See Sections 20 & 21 of the agreement. You can believe that Citi may be willing to take less than they are owed, despite the future ramifications of setting such a precedent. This could be in the form of accepting BT's interpretation of their actions as "nonappropriation," despite the fact that it's pretty clear that they did not meet the requirements. I just have no idea why they would do that. We'll all find out soon enough.

Ross, you can't blame voters who "liked" BT at the polls but did not sign up. I routinely vote for ballot items that I think are good ideas even if I personally will not benefit or participate. I like your Facebook analogy, because a ballot issue really is a "LIKE" button. It's not a "SIGN ME UP" sheet.

What might have helped was a well-run market research effort and phone poll of all residents to determine what the actual "take rate" might have been.

Janice, the councilors continue to press the administration on the $33M lease fallout because the city continues to treat that matter as largely "closed" in calculating BT's liabilities.

@Jimmy: I don't believe it is "pretty clear" that BT is in default of the lease. Bill Ellis has disputed this claim before, and frankly, I'm more willing to believe him than I am to believe you, given that he's actually been party to the discussions with CitiCapital, and you have not.

@Morgan: Maybe you know something I don't know about what the city councilors are thinking, but frankly, last night most of them came across as trying to cover their asses and/or position themselves for a run for mayor. I didn't see much actual concern about or understanding of the world of finance.


The lease agreement also states that at no time will illegal funds be used. By violating condition 60 of the CPG BTC violated the lease agreement. In the lease agreement it also states any violation of this agreement will constitute a default. Ergo, BTC is in default. It is that simple. It's worded very clearly.

Watch the lawyers Ellis for example is clearly uncomfortable and is doing his best to defend BTC, much in the same way some attorney will try and defend any criminal caught red handed. Just because the Schatz et al say there is no default, means little. They have an obligation to defend the City and they certainly are not going to come out and say yup, we blew it.

@ Janice

"because a lot of the financed equipment cannot easily be repossessed (for example, fiber optic cable that has already been run through the ground)."

I don't think the lease says that the equipment is repossed, merely that BTV must return it (or rights to it) back to Citi. Citi now owns the lines in the ground to sell if they like. So posit this...why would Citi accept a 500K spool of fiber when they can sell the fiber in the ground to comcast, fairpoint or anyone else for much much more? It's there line? It makes ZERO fiscal sense for them to do so.

And I again submit, BTC will have to hand over all reciepts the are currently collecting as they do not own the line or the equipment. Citi does and all revenue being generated right now is there. This will cost BTV more then 51 million when its all said and done. Oust Kiss and shut BTC down. Sell the building and try to sell the customer list and be done with it.

@ Dawley:

"According to this memo from Kiss's office, there was an agreement between BT and CitiCapital . . ."

And you believe "this memo" from Kiss and Leopold??? Why??? How have they convinced you that you should believe a single word they say? At this point, no one should believe them if they predict that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Fact is, CitiLease can, should, and will sue the city for $33 million dollars. That's the document that the city signed up for.

You're right, it's not pretty clear that they're in default, it's crystal clear. Of course, you have to actually read the agreement, which I'm pretty sure you haven't done.

"Subject to the provisions of Section 7, any of the following events shall constitute an "Event of Default" under any Lease: (a)failure by Lessee to pay any Rental Payment or other payment required to be paid under that Lease at the time specified in that Lease"

The $1m slush fund was exhausted, the forbearance period ran out, no 90 day notice, no payments. Default.

BTW, one clue is that "forbearance" means a mutually agreed delay of default, typically foreclosure in a mortgage context. It has nothing to do with a delay of nonappropriation. Also, nonappropriation can only occur at the end of a fiscal year (with 90 days' notice), which for Burlington is June 30. You can't pull the plug midyear.

@Jimmy: Once again, if there are mutual agreements that post-date the original lease, those take precedence.

If there were an agreement under which CitiLease agreed that it did not have the right to sue for more than the value of the repossessed equipment, or that it was waiving that right, the city would have eagerly announced that by now. It hasn't.

I had sent in a question that I did not hear answered or even offered up at the meeting. Why hasn't a legal termination agreement been offered to the public for review where is this document? My other question the 17 million dollar loan was made to BT with absolutely no collateral , is that correct/ was answered by mayor Kiss h e weaseled saying that it was not a loan. If it was not aloan it sure as hell isnt going to be paid back, any more than CITI will be payed back.
You can bet that CITI who is in first position will not twiddle their fingers if they take a 80% hair cut and the city of Burlington is made whole.

I also doubt that we will get a payout from Travelers because Leopold was negligent and Sharon Bushor just implicated the entire City council with her testimony regarding the finance committee meeting in january of 2008. Which means Kurt Wright is up to his beady little eye balls in a lie.

Our Lawyers are not doing us any favors telling us that they have terminated the lease we are still suing one hundred percent of CITI Capitals equipment. The master lease clearly staates in section 11 that all money made from their equipment must be used to satisfy the lease.
if we are still using the equipment we are acting as tenants at will same as if you broke the lease with your landlord you would still owe them the rent they just get to kick you to the curb whenever they want.

It is terrific that BT can be a going concern albeit one on the scale of a community with 15,000 households not the 100,000 the leaders in Burlington pretend they rule.

As a community I would like to see the fiber saved, I would also like to see the mayor pushing a shopping cart and picking up bottles on the side of the road. it seems to be the job he is most qualified to hold.

Right now we are lucky that CITI hasn't sold the business out from under us. Im sure they have a team of 22 year old investment bankers working on it. They own the asset not COB.

To the COB wthe question remains can you provide a lease termintion agreement? If not we are open to a huge lawsuit from CITI. They can attach the money we get from Travelers for Leopold and Kiss's screw up.

@Janice we have absolutely no evidence that such an agreement was ever struck. It makes no sense for Citi to do so and, as Finn points out, if there was such an agreement it would certainly have been trotted out by now. All we know is that there was a forbearance period, and as I've pointed out, that just means a period during which default is postponed. That period ended a while back. Fill in the blanks.

On the question of whether a stand-alone termination letter exists between the city and CitiCapital, I asked City Attorney Ken Schatz about the topic (and to produce copies of any such documents if they exist). This was his response:

"There isn't a stand-alone termination letter. Letters between the City and CitiCapital involve ongoing contract negotiations and settlement discussions. Therefore, in order to protect the City's interests, we need to keep them confidential."

Shay, thank you for clarifying the lease termination there is none.
Janice, this is the can of worms or whoopass because we do not a have a clear lease termination the psb requires the city to maintain service. The lease is still in force in some quasi manner Because we are using all of CITI's goods and capital. No doubt to be argued in court with hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money. If you refer back to the master lease agreement section 11 the security agreement and section 20 events of default. You will clearly understand that the lawyers are using words like "in my understanding." which is lawyer speak for Im not opening that can of whoopass and i will be too cute by half.
We are on the hook for more than the 17million let us be very aware of the jeopardy the actions of this Mayor and Cao have placed the city in. When the system is sold by Citi we will have to declare the debit a loss and it will impact every city department and our credit rating will be reduced to junk.

We all agree that fiber system is amazing for the internet it beats tubes and tin cans any day. But make no mistake the Mayor and the CAO have dug a hole that they should be buried in as I understand it.

"There isn't a stand-alone termination letter. Letters between the City and CitiCapital involve ongoing contract negotiations and settlement discussions. Therefore, in order to protect the City's interests, we need to keep them confidential."

Translation: they're threatening to sue the city for $33 million dollars.


Is it like when Citi said yeah we are terminating the lease but we will let you use it for $311,000 / month and Kiss countered with "maybe $40,000 / month." At which point Citi initiated the process of inventorying their assets?

Negotiations my butt... BTV is trying to negotiate 33.5 Mil of installed fiber cable for 0.5 Mil of it on a spool. And eventually Citi is going to ask Kiss if he ate lead paint as a child and tell him to cough up the cash or disconnect the system.

Mayor Kiss and the rest of his cottier of step and fetch it's all painted a rosy picture for the future of fiber optic cable.
However the mayor fails to admit or even understand the problems he has visited upon the city of Burlington. To pretend that 17 million was not a loan to BT flies in the face of credulity. Working capital extended to telecom would be two months of receipts or really it should have been free cash flow to meet the legal definition as defined by there operating rules as laid out by the Public service board.

His failure to beg forgiveness of the psb at six months out may have been construed as working capital. But 425 months out on the string becomes a loan. Adding insult to injury the loan was unsecured.

There is an old saw my grandfather used to tell and this applies to Mayor Kiss and his treatment of the Bondholders of Citi. You can shear a sheep twice but you can only eat it once.

I don't think we are in a strong enough position to eat CITI and their share holders, Kiss is wearing a clown suit and holding rubber shears.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Stuck in VT (VIDEOS)

Solid State (Music)

Mistress Maeve (Sex)

All Rights Reserved © Da Capo Publishing Inc. 1995-2012 | PO Box 1164, Burlington, VT 05402-1164 | 802-864-5684