7/14/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUL 14 1987 BOOK Attorney Sundstrom agreed he did receive that letter, and the position of his client is that the operative effect of the 1979 contract was that upon expiration of 7 years the county would either acquire the system pursuant to a pre-set formula in that contract or make the consent permanent. Statues provide that where a private company is ready, willing and able to provide service to an area, the law is biased toward the private company over the county or city, and his client wants to take advantage of that bias. As to the allegations contained in Attorney Vitunac's correspondence re non-compliance, rates charged in excess, etc., that letter says those will be factors to be considered in their extension request, and he can ask his client to respond to those if that is the Board's pleasure. Chairman Scurlock asked if the existing franchise is exclusive or non-exclusive. Attorney Sundstrom claimed that doesn't matter as a matter of law. He believed Florida law provides there shall not be duplication of utility facilities except in particular instances where there is proof of inability to service, etc. Chairman Scurlock wished to know why, if it doesn't matter, you put such things in contracts. Attorney Sundstrom stated that all such contracts are subject to the reserved and implied police power of the state. What seems not to be getting through here is that regulation is classically designed as a substitution for competition. The bias In the law is in favor of competition, and that is why we have the Sherman Anti -Trust Act. Actually for utilities, the best thing is a monopoly, and as a consequence, the law recognizes that monopoly and all he is asserting is that this county's attempt to regulate while at the same time competing is an act of taking. As to charging rates in excess of those set out in the franchise, Attorney Sundstrom agreed that is true. Attorney Sundstrom stated that when Congress adopted the Internal Revenue 54