My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/17/2014 (3)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2014
>
12/17/2014 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2018 4:15:40 PM
Creation date
3/23/2016 9:09:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Joint Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
12/17/2014
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Town of Indian River Shores
Book and Page
140
Subject
Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Process
Electric Rates
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000H\S0005BI.tif
SmeadsoftID
14486
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Indian River County <br /> Mediation Statement <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> Pursuant to the Franchise, over time the City has erected within the Franchise certain poles, <br /> fixtures, conduits, wires, meters, cables, and other such electric transmission and distribution <br /> facilities for the purpose of supplying electricity within the Franchise. By its terms,the Franchise <br /> expires on March 4, 2017, absent a mutual agreement to continue. <br /> On February 22, 2012,the Board properly noticed the City that the County would not renew <br /> the Franchise when it expires. It is the Board's position that without the Franchise, the City no <br /> longer has the legal authority to occupy or otherwise utilize the roadways, easements, and public <br /> property within the Franchise Area. Without this legal authority, City will not be authorized or <br /> permitted to provide electric service within the Franchise Area. <br /> Additionally,the Legislature adopted Section 366.04(7),for the purpose of allowing electric <br /> service customers of an "affected municipal electric utility" the opportunity to choose self- <br /> governance. According to the City's own records, the City's customer base was within the <br /> customer range set forth in this statute and the City, otherwise met all of the other statutory <br /> preconditions for such an election. However,the City failed to conduct the required election. This <br /> issue is important since more than half of the City's customers are outside the city limits and these <br /> customers have no vote, no voice, and no redress to the Vero Beach City Commission or city <br /> officials since they cannot vote in City elections. <br /> Finally, in February 2013, the City and FPL agreed to the sale of the entire City electric <br /> utility system to FPL, and the sale of the electric system contemplates FPL serving the Franchise <br /> Area, as well as within the City limits and the Town. In March 2013, the citizens of the City <br /> overwhelmingly voted to approve a referendum supporting the sale. However, since that time the <br /> sale as described by City representatives has been "on the backburner" and is prohibited by a <br /> condition precedent. <br /> It is also important to note that the County is not a party to the lawsuit filed by the Town. <br /> The County has filed a Petition for a Declaratory Statement from the Florida Public Service <br /> Commission. The County will have filed an Amended and Restated Petition for a Declaratory <br /> Statement by the time of this mediation, seeking the Public Service Commission's guidance as to <br /> the authority of the County with respect to seeking a successor electric franchisee. <br /> Key Interests <br /> The County's key interests are as follows: <br /> 1) The County believes that the City needs to complete the sale of the City electric <br /> utility to FPL. This is the best alternative to providing all electric ratepayers within the County <br /> with a utility that is responsive to all customers, has fair and reasonable rates, and is not using <br /> electric customers to subsidize City government. <br /> 2) In the event the sale cannot be completed, the City needs to provide a functional <br /> equivalent of such a sale based upon the following three principles: <br /> a. Rates substantially similar to those of FPL. Since the mediator has requested that the <br /> parties be as specific as possible, the County would expect such rates to be in a range of <br /> plus or minus 5% of FPL rates; <br /> ly <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.