Pixabay Stock Image.JAMESTOWN – The average price for a gallon of gas continues to drop.According to AAA, the demand for gas is going down with summer vacations wrapping up.Virtual learning has also contributed to a lesser need for gas since fewer students are actually going to school facilities due to the pandemic.The average price of gas across the Unites States is $2.19, a drop of three cents since last week. New York’s average price of gas is also going down, as it currently sits at $2.28. That’s one cent last than last week.One year ago, the national average was $2.57, while the state’s was $2.73.In Jamestown the average price for a regular gallon of gas is $2.35, according to GasBuddy.com. Share:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Show Closed This production ended its run on Sept. 4, 2016 My favorite line in the show “Possibly Javert’s best line, showing his inevitable breakdown.” My favorite co-star “Has to be Kyle Scatliffe. He’s so adorable…he’s my friend! Lol!” The coolest prop in the show “It has to be Javert’s truncheon. Sorts the beggars and whores out once and for all.” My favorite thing in my dressing room “My Bose speaker systems…the best!” My favorite fan gift “This brilliant cup with a few roles I’ve played printed on it.” Related Shows View Comments The crew member who saves my ass “MK Flynt. It’s actually the tourist choices she’s helped me out with that have saved me! Thanks, MK.” My view from the stage door “This incredible show from audiences here. Took a while to get used to, but it’s amazing!!” My favorite spot in the theater “Sitting in the theater between shows. So quiet!” A selfie right before I go on stage The best costume piece I wear “Has to be my first costume. Classic and classy: Javert at home.” The best thing to eat on a two-show day “Yum, yum, yum, yum and yum.” British musical theater star Earl Carpenter has crossed the pond in search of the ever-elusive prisoner 24601—he’s making his Broadway debut as Inspector Javert, reprising the role he played in the West End and Toronto productions of Les Miserables. Before he plays his final performance October 7 to make way for the revival’s original star Will Swenson, Broadway.com sent Carpenter on a backstage scavenger hunt! We asked Carpenter to take photos of a few of his favorite things at the Imperial Theatre, including a prop that “sorts out the beggars and whores.” Check out a day in the life of Javert below! Les Miserables
The Mount Family Group Ltd. (MFG) headquartered in Burlington and operator of 9 Westaff offices in Vermont, New Hampshire and New York is pleased to announce the acquisition of three offices in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, bringing their total to 12 offices. The seller is the Koosharem Corporation, owner of Westaff and of Select and Remedy Staffing Services.The three offices are located in Leominster and Billerica, Mass. and Providence, RI. The Providence office has been branded as a Westaff office and the Massachusetts offices will continue to operate under the brand Select Remedy.Karen Mount, VP of Administration of MFG, said that it was the people in those offices that impressed the Mounts the most. “After all, as a service business, the people are the principal reason for any acquisition. We met with the managers and their staffs and were so impressed that we worked to make the deal happen.”“We wanted to offer our clients a region-wide service and now, we can service virtually all of New England and the adjacent parts of New York,” said James Mount, Chief Operating Officer. “It was a win-win for both us and the franchisor.” David Mount, Chairman of MFG added that this recessionary time is ideal for well positioned companies to make strategic acquisitions.Koosharem is the owner of the Westaff, Select and Remedy brands of staffing firms and has offices throughout the United States. The privately held company is one of the ten largest staffing firms in the United States.Mount Family Group Ltd. is a privately held company headquartered in Burlington and has annual sales in excess of $20 million. The company was founded by David and Fran Mount in 1982.
The Douglas Administration has announced that Vermont State Parks are going solar as part of the state’s strategy to fight back against the recession, create jobs and grow the economy. The Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation is planning to install solar hot water systems at its toilet buildings and bathhouses in state park campgrounds statewide. The Department has designated $600,000 for these solar hot water conversions.“The potential to tap renewable energy in more locations throughout the park system is a high priority for my administration,” said Governor Jim Douglas. “This project puts people to work, helps the state parks save money and is another small smart step in addressing climate change.”As part of the 2010 capital bill, the Legislature approved the funds specifically for energy efficiency and alternative energy systems in the parks.Vermont State Parks has a 20-year history of using alternative energy, including solar heated hot water showers at Little River, Molly Stark and Smugglers Notch State Parks, as well as a unique water system at Underhill State Park that is powered by photo voltaic panels.FPR is seeking proposals and will contract with one or more firms or individuals who can coordinate and oversee the installation of these solar hot water systems. A request for proposals and submission requirements can be found online at www.vermontbidsystem.com(link is external). Source: Governor’s office. August 12, 2009###
People’s United Financial, Inc.(PBCT 14.00, -0.15, -1.06%) today announced net income of $16.0 million, or $0.04 per share, for the second quarter of 2010, compared to $13.6 million, or $0.04 per share, for the first quarter of 2010, and $25.3 million, or $0.08 per share, for the second quarter of 2009. Included in both this quarter’s and first quarter’s results are pre-tax merger-related, system conversion and one-time expenses totaling $23.2 million and $23.4 million, respectively. Excluding the effect of these items, net income would have been $31.8 million, or $0.09 per share, for the second quarter of 2010 and $29.2 million, or $0.08 per share, for the first quarter of 2010. People’s United is the parent company of the former Chittenden Bank.As previously reported, People’s United Financial completed its acquisitions of Financial Federal Corporation on February 19, 2010 and Butler Bank on April 16, 2010. Accordingly, Financial Federal’s and Butler Bank’s results of operations are included as of the respective acquisition dates, and prior period results have not been restated to include Financial Federal and Butler Bank.The Board of Directors of People’s United Financial declared a $0.1550 per share quarterly dividend, payable August 15, 2010 to shareholders of record on August 1, 2010. Based on the closing stock price on July 14, 2010, the dividend yield on People’s United Financial common stock is 4.4 percent.People’s United Financial also announced today definitive agreements to acquire Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. based in Hauppauge, New York, and LSB Corporation based in North Andover, Massachusetts. Further information regarding these acquisitions is included in a separate release.”The announcement today of the acquisition of two financial institutions within markets contiguous to our existing footprint, while at the same time reporting another solid quarter of operating results, is a testament to the strong financial position of People’s United Financial,” stated Jack Barnes, interim President and Chief Executive Officer. “The strength of our capital and liquidity, asset quality and earnings, as well as the fact that our balance sheet remains funded almost entirely by deposits and stockholders’ equity, continue to set us apart from most in the industry.”Barnes added, “While we continue to evaluate potential acquisition opportunities, we are actively pursuing other capital deployment activities. In this regard, we plan to open two new branches in downtown Boston – one in the Prudential Center and one in the Financial District – before year end, thereby providing an important extension to our growing footprint in the greater Boston area. Further, during the second quarter we repurchased 3.7 million shares of our common stock for approximately $52 million.”Barnes concluded, “In connection with the final phase of our core systems conversion, which is scheduled to be completed this weekend, we have begun the process of rebranding our branches in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine to People’s United Bank. We are pleased to have reached this milestone, which will provide all of our customers with the added convenience of being able to bank seamlessly at any of our nearly 300 branches along with the instant recognition of the People’s United Bank name on branches from Bangor, Maine to Scarsdale, New York.””On an operating basis, excluding merger-related, system conversion and one-time expenses, earnings were $31.8 million, or 9 cents per share this quarter,” said Paul D. Burner, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. “Significant drivers of the company’s performance this quarter were an improvement in the net interest margin and modest loan growth across our strategic lending businesses, partially offset by higher net loan charge-offs. The net interest margin improved 21 basis points to 3.68 percent, primarily reflecting the benefit of a full quarter of Financial Federal. A single non-performing commercial loan accounted for $6.0 million, or 72 percent, of the quarterly increase in net loan charge-offs.”Commenting on asset quality, Burner continued, “Loans acquired in connection with the Financial Federal and Butler Bank acquisitions have been recorded at fair value, including a reduction for estimated credit losses, and without carryover of the respective portfolio’s historical allowance for loan losses. As such, selected asset quality metrics have been highlighted to distinguish between the ‘originated’ portfolio and the ‘acquired’ portfolios. For the originated loan portfolio, representing all loans other than those acquired in the Financial Federal and Butler Bank transactions, non-performing loans totaled $219.7 million at June 30, 2010, and the ratio of non-performing loans to originated loans was 1.56 percent, compared to $192.3 million and 1.36 percent, respectively, at March 31, 2010. Non-performing loans in the acquired loan portfolios, which represent those loans acquired in the Financial Federal and Butler Bank transactions that meet our definition of non-performing but for which the risk of loss has already been considered by virtue of our estimate of acquisition-date fair value and/or the existence of an FDIC loss-share agreement, totaled $60.1 million at June 30, 2010.”Non-performing assets totaled $284.5 million at June 30, 2010, a $37.0 million increase from March 31, 2010, of which $13.1 million is attributable to REO acquired in connection with the Butler Bank acquisition. Non-performing assets equaled 2.01 percent of originated loans, REO and repossessed assets at June 30, 2010 compared to 1.74 percent at March 31, 2010. At June 30, 2010, the allowance for loan losses as a percentage of originated loans was 1.23 percent and as a percentage of non-performing originated loans was 79 percent, compared to 1.22 percent and 90 percent, respectively, at March 31, 2010.Second quarter net loan charge-offs totaled $17.8 million compared to $9.5 million in the first quarter of 2010. Net loan charge-offs as a percent of average loans on an annualized basis were 0.46 percent in the second quarter of 2010 compared to 0.26 percent in this year’s first quarter. The level of the allowance for loan losses is unchanged from March 31, 2010.In the second quarter of 2010, return on average tangible assets was 0.32 percent and return on average tangible stockholders’ equity was 1.7 percent, compared to 0.28 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively, for the first quarter of 2010. At June 30, 2010, People’s United Financial’s tangible equity ratio stood at 18.0 percent.Source: BRIDGEPORT, Conn., July 15, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ —
San Antonio’s city-owned utility looking for 900MW of solar, 50MW of battery storage FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享San Antonio Express-News:CPS Energy is embarking on two major green energy initiatives — one to increase the amount of energy generated by solar power and other sources and the second to allow large companies to buy power from clean energy sources.On Monday, the city-owned utility’s board of trustees set an Aug. 31 deadline for companies’ first step toward submitting plans to bolster CPS Energy’s solar power and battery storage capabilities.Overall, the initiative is expected to add up to 900 megawatts of solar power, potentially doubling the utility’s solar power generating capacity. Battery storage — to store solar power for use when the sun is not shining — would add another 50 megawatts of power. A third component adds 500 megawatts of energy from new energy technology and would be used when solar or wind power wasn’t available. CPS Energy currently has more than 5,000 megawatts of generating capacity.The utility’s “request for information,” asks energy companies to submit formal bids on how much they would charge the utility to provide the alternative power. CPS Energy expects to solicit formal bids by early 2021.Chief Operating Officer Cris Eugster said more alternative power will help the utility meet the goals of San Antonio’s climate action and adaption plan, which calls for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases to “net zero” by 2050. He said there was another key reason for adding generation capacity — to keep the lights on in San Antonio. “The real need is to replace aging power plants,” he said.The second initiative that trustees approved, known as a “green tariff,” would allow large commercial power users, such as an H-E-B or a USAA, to purchase all their power from an alternative power provider, such as energy companies that provide solar or wind power.CPS Energy would act as the middleman in securing long-term contracts on behalf of commercial customers.[Randy Diamond]More: CPS Energy moves forward with sweeping clean energy plan
Unless the Florida Supreme Court issues a clarifying opinion, amend F.S. § 201.02(1) to specify when a transfer of real property into any business entity, whether it is a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or otherwise, will or will not be subject to the documentary stamp tax. Amend the Florida blue sky statute to delete the “dealer” registration requirement for offerings in Florida of a federal-covered security (government by appropriate rules of the Security and Exchange Commission) in order that an offering of a federal covered security need not satisfy the requirements of the Florida private placement exemption under F.S. § 517.061(11) solely for the purpose of averting the requirement that the issuer and its bona fide employees engaged in selling securities in that offering be registered as a “dealer” under the Florida blue sky statute. Tax and Business Law sections take legislative positions In separate requests to the Bar Board of Governors, the Tax Section is seeking legislation clarifying a variety of issues including the Department of Revenue’s authority, while the Business Law Section is seeking to amend a law on commissions for securities dealers. The sections will present their legislative requests first to the Legislation Committee and then on December 15 to the Bar Board of Governors. Unlike Bar-wide positions, sections lobby in their own name and use only their own voluntary dues to support such advocacy, and consequently have a greater scope for their lobbying activities. Sections can also oppose each other on the same position. The Bar rules require that when section representatives present their positions to lawmakers, they clearly identify that they represent the section and not the Bar as a whole. Because the sections’ legislative activities are supported with voluntary dues, Bar members cannot seek a refund, as they can with Bar-wide positions, of their annual Bar membership fees when they disagree with the position. Anyone with questions about a section legislative position can find a list of section officers in the September Journal directory issue. The Business Law Section is requesting four positions relating to the securities issues, while the Tax Section is requesting eight positions on a variety of matters. The Business Law Section is seeking to: Tax and Business Law sections take legislative positions Provide that interests in non-SEC registered entities should be exempted from the intangibles tax. Amend the revenue statutes to allow a taxpayer, whether or not in audit, to establish an overpayment of sales or use through sampling. Taxpayers would have the right to do so through statistical sampling, with the results binding on the department unless the department can establish some defect in the sample methodology employed by the taxpayer. Alternatively the refund amount can be established using some other sampling method agreed upon by the taxpayer and the department. Amend the Florida blue sky statute to delete, as one of the conditions to the availability of the private placement exemption to the offering registration requirement of that statute, the right of a purchaser in that offering to void the sale to that purchaser within three days after the first tender of consideration for that sale is made by such purchaser or within three days after the availability of that privilege is communicated to such purchaser before such sale and regardless of compliance with any dealer registration or other requirement in connection with that offering. That change would delete subsection (5) of F.S. §517.061(11)(a). Create F.S. § 220.03(2)(d) to expressly adopt the federal check-the-box regulations. December 1, 2000 Regular News Further study is needed on whether deference to Department of Revenue interpretations of tax statutes is warranted so that a well-reasoned recommendation can be presented to the legislature. The section and department have different opinions on the issue and the section has promised its final recommendation will reflect an understanding of the department’s concerns. The Tax Section is seeking authorization to present its positions on a number of issues, some relating to the Department of Revenue. They include: Amend the Florida blue sky statute to delete the requirement that any issuer of securities in any offering in Florida, or any bona fide employee of that issuer which employee is not primarily engaged in that offering or sale of securities, be registered as a “dealer” under that statute solely for the purposes of that offering. Requiring the department to waive penalties that are assessed in cases where a taxpayer can demonstrate he or she exercised reasonable care. The courts and administrative law judges in the Division of Administrative Hearings should be authorized to independently review the facts and circumstances to determine whether reasonable cause exists, without deference to the department’s determination of that question. Amend the Florida blue sky statute to delete, as one of the conditions to the availability of the private placement exemption to the offering registration requirement of that statute, the requirement that no person defined as a “dealer” in that statute but not registered as a “dealer” thereunder be paid a commission or compensation for the sale in that offering, provided that the commission or compensation arrangement is disclosed to each purchaser in that offering. Amend F.S. § 72.011 to provide the venue for actions brought under that statute is in Leon County Circuit Court, of the circuit court in the county where the taxpayer regularly maintains its books and records in this state. The statute also would be amended to remove venue from among the jurisdictional provisions of the section. Single member limited liability companies and other legal entities that are disregarded as entities separate from their owners for income tax purposes should be treated as separate legal entities for sales tax and other non-income tax purposes.
The court, in its unanimous opinion, rejected opponents’ claim the amendment on access to adverse incident reports violated the single-subject rule by affecting more than one branch of government, or could impinge on the attorney-client relationship between doctors and their lawyers.Opponents raised five objections about the accuracy of the summary, but the court rejected them all. That included a contention the language is misleading because a patient can get the information in litigation, and trend information on adverse incidents is available from the Agency for Health Care Administration. The court rejected that out of hand.“Opponent’s arguments are without merit,” the court said. “The summary of the amendment states that Florida law ‘restricts’ information concerning adverse medical incidents. This language is consistent with opponent’s own assertion that patients are entitled to receive information in only certain circumstances. By opponent’s own admission, access to this information is ‘restricted.’ The amendment creates a broader right to know about adverse medical incidents than currently exists.”The full texts of the opinions, which includes the ballot summary and full text of the proposed amendments, can be found on the court’s Web site at www.flcourts.org. The cases are: Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Re: the Medical Liability Claimants’s Compensation Amendment, case no. SC04-310; Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Re: Patients’ Right to Know about Adverse Medical Incidents, SC04-777; Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Re: Public Protection from Repeated Medical Malpractice, SC04-778; and Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Re: Physician Shall Charge the Same Fee for the Same Health Care Service to Every Patient, SC04-779. August 1, 2004 Gary Blankenship Senior Editor Regular News Supreme Court okays dueling amendments Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, Florida Medical Association ready for the fray Senior Editor The battle between Florida’s trial lawyers and doctors is heading to the statewide stage this fall as the Supreme Court has approved four constitutional amendments for the November general election ballot.On July 15, the court said the four amendments — one proposed by the Florida Medical Association and three by the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers — met the technical requirements to go to voters. However, a few days later the academy withdrew, for the time being, one of its proposed amendments.The FMA is backing an amendment that would limit the contingency fees paid to plaintiff lawyers in medical malpractice cases to 70 percent of the first $250,000 awarded and 10 percent above that. The academy is backing amendments that would increase patient access to adverse incident reports about doctors and health care facilities, require the revocation of the license of any doctor who loses three medical malpractice cases or administrative disciplinary actions, and require doctors to charge all patients the same rates. It was the latter of those amendments the academy decided not to pursue on July 22.The academy had offered to drop all three amendments if the FMA withdrew its initiative, according to academy spokesperson Jacqui Sisto. The academy decided to drop the doctors’ fees proposal because it was the least popular of the three amendments, according to the organization’s polls.The academy had collected around 700,000 signatures for all three amendments, but decided not to turn in for verification the signatures for the third amendment. It takes just over 488,000 verified signatures to get an amendment on the ballot. The academy may, Sisto said, resubmit those signatures to place the issue on the November 2006 general election ballot since the signatures are valid for four years.The decision to withhold the third amendment will allow the academy to concentrate its resources on the other two amendments, as well as opposing the FMA amendment, she said. Sisto noted that polling showed overwhelming support for the two amendments and that less than half the voters are in favor of the FMA amendment.She said the academy did try to compromise with the FMA.“The Florida Medical Association leadership refused to meet with us,” she said. “We kept trying through the [March and April legislative] session. They turned us down every time.”Sisto said the academy is ready for a tough and expensive campaign. She noted in 1988, when the doctors pushed an amendment to limit noneconomic damages in personal injury cases, the academy spent $8 million and that amendment eventually lost 43-57 percent.This year, in opposing the FMA amendment, “I can’t give you a number, but I can tell you our members are prepared again to do whatever it takes to defeat it,” she said.State officials announced, as this News went to press, that enough signatures had been verified to place the FMA amendment on the ballot this year.Liz Hurst, a spokesperson for the FMA, said the doctors plan a vigorous campaign.“We’re excited that our language made it through the court process; we’re extremely excited that we’re going to have all the signatures,” she said. “Now we’re going to work very aggressively at the grass roots level, working with our physicians and working with citizens about putting more award money in the hands of patients.”According to the St. Petersburg Times, the FMA has raised $4.5 million for its campaign, while the academy has bankrolled $12.8 million.The court’s review of proposed amendments is narrow in scope. Under law, the justices are charged with determining two things: whether the amendment encompasses only a single subject and whether the ballot summary, which can be no more than 75 words, accurately reflects the proposed amendment.The justices themselves noted in some of the opinions they are not charged with determining the sensibility or effectiveness of the amendments, or whether they might result in protracted litigation to sort out all of the meanings and results.Despite the limited nature of the review, the court had dissents on three out of the four proposed amendments. Only the amendment on medical records was unanimously approved, the other three producing 4-3, 5-2, and 5-2 splits.Contingency Fee The amendment requiring doctors to charge the same fees of all patients was also approved by a 5-2 margin. The text of the amendment provides that while doctors and health care facilities are free to set fees, they cannot charge any patient more than the lowest price they have contracted to accept for the same service.The court did note the amendment would affect only future contracts and would not affect those in place if the amendment passes.Wells, in a dissent joined by Anstead, said the summary is defective because it “fails to set forth the true meaning and adverse ramifications to the availability and affordability of health care to the citizens of Florida, which the adoption of this amendment will have.”Anstead, in a separate dissent, said while the summary noted the effect the amendment could have on third-party payors, it does not mention how it could affect access to health care. “If this amendment should pass, it could potentially have a dramatic effect on a Florida citizen’s access to medical care generally, and especially under these various health care provider plans,” he argued. “In my view, citizens should be directly informed of this consequence before voting on this measure.”Medical Records The amendment that would revoke a license for a doctor found to have committed three instances of malpractice produced the 4-3 opinion.Although the proposal would affect the executive branch by limiting the discretion of the Board of Medicine and restrict the legislature’s authority to enact laws in that area, the majority said it does not substantially alter the functions of the legislative and executive branches. They held it passed the single subject test.Justice Kenneth Bell dissented, joined by Justices Charles Wells and Raoul Cantero. Bell argued by failing to inform voters that there already is a disciplinary process for doctors, the ballot summary is misleading.“A summary that gave voters fair notice would inform them that current Florida law gives a professional licensing board discretion to decide whether or not a medical doctor who repeatedly commits malpractice may continue to be licensed,” Bell wrote. “The chief effect of the amendment would be to remove any such discretion. By reading the current ballot summary, a voter of reasonable intelligence could easily assume that there is currently no mechanism in place to revoke the license of a medical doctor who has repeatedly committed malpractice.”Doctors’ Fees Supreme Court okays dueling amendments The opinion on the FMA amendment on contingency fees produced one 5-2 result.The court majority found the amendment both encompassed a single subject and did not violate that provision by altering or performing the functions of more than one branch of government. The majority did agree that the amendment could affect more than one branch, but not significantly.The majority also rejected the arguments of opponents that the ballot summary is misleading, noting it is not necessary for the summary to explain every nuance or possible effect of an amendment.“Although the opponents argue that the efficacy of the amendment is at issue because of the vague ‘medical liability’ term, the issue as to the precise meaning of this term is better left to subsequent litigation, should the amendment pass,” the majority ruled.Justice R. Fred Lewis dissented, arguing the amendment title and summary are deceptive on their face. Justice Harry Lee Anstead concurred with Lewis.“If the sponsors of this amendment seek to restrict or eliminate medical liability actions involving contingency fee agreements, then they should say exactly that.. . , ” Lewis argued. “They should not falsely claim they are providing a benefit to those injured by medical malpractice when they are in fact restricting their rights to secure adequate legal representation.There really is no other purpose of this proposed amendment.”License Revocation
To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters
Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.