12/17/2014 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 43. The City's newfound scheme for counting customers was contrived to avoid the • • referendum election requirements in Section 366.04(7), and is contrary to established utility practice for counting utility customers. Moreover, it differs radically from the method of counting customers which the City uses for purposes of its own audited financial reports, and its filings with the PSC and the credit rating agencies. 44. Section 366.04(7) in fact applies to the City, and all of the City's customers are entitled by that statute to participate in a referendum election and vote on the creation of a utility authority, which if approved, would give all customers a voice in electing the governing board of their utility. The Plaintiffs, along with the City's other Non -Resident Customers, continue to be harmed by the City's ongoing failure to comply with Section 366.04(7) because they continue to be disenfranchised and have no voice in electing those officials that manage the City's electric utility and set their electric rates. COUNT I For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Relating to the City's Unreasonable and Unjust Electric Rates 45. This count is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief by the Plaintiffs against the City relating to the City's unreasonable and unjust electric utility rates. 46. The Plaintiffs adopt paragraphs 1 through 44 as if set forth fully herein. 47. The City has a legal duty to its customers, including the Town and the Customer, to charge only "reasonable rates" for the electric services that the City provides, and to keep those rates as low as possible because the City is a monopoly electric service provider and is only allowed to operate as such in order to provide its customers with electric service at prices that are as low as reasonably possible. Ch. 14439, § 40, Laws of Fla. (1929); § 180.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2014); Ex. A, Franchise Agreement, § 5. 11 840