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
Exhibit "B." Likewise, the Franchise Agreement between the Town and the City expressly <br /> requires that the City only charge "reasonable" rates for the electric services it furnishes to the <br /> Town and its citizens. Ex. A, Franchise Agreement, § 5. <br /> 30. The City has engaged in improper rate-making practices that require the Plaintiffs <br /> and other Non-Resident Customers to unfairly subsidize City operations that are not related to <br /> the furnishing of electric service to customers. For example, upon information and belief: <br /> a. The City has diverted electric utility revenues to the City's general revenue fund <br /> to cover non-utility costs, including propping up the City's unfunded pension <br /> obligations to current and former employees that had nothing to do with the <br /> operation of the City's electric utility or the furnishing of electric service; and <br /> b. Under the pretense of eliminating a 10% surcharge on the Plaintiffs and other <br /> Non-Resident Customers, the City actually adopted an aggressive inverted rate <br /> which resulted in a net increase in base rates that disproportionately affected Non- <br /> Resident Customers. <br /> As a result of these improper rate-making practices,Non-Resident Customers are being forced to <br /> subsidize approximately 24% of the City's total budget. These and other improper rate-making <br /> practices of the City have resulted in unreasonable and excessive rates, which the Plaintiffs and <br /> other Non-Residential Customers are being forced to pay. <br /> 31. In order to protect against unreasonable rates, the City has a legal duty to the <br /> Plaintiffs and its other electric customers to operate and manage its municipal electric utility with <br /> the same degree of business prudence, conservative business judgment and sound fiscal <br /> management as is required of private investor owned electric utilities. State v. City of Daytona <br /> Beach, 158 So. 300, 305 (Fla. 1934). <br /> 7 <br /> bOZ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.