12/17/2014 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • • service to the residents of Indian Harbour Beach at rates which Indian Harbour Beach asserted were unreasonable. The Court resolved the dispute finding that, unless the cities mutually agreed to resolve their dispute, Indian Harbour Beach had the right to "expel" Melbourne and to obtain "substitute" utility service from other providers pursuant to an orderly process which the Court would supervise. Id. at 424-25. 65. There is nothing in the Franchise Agreement that prohibits or in any way restricts the Town's right to expel the City's electric facilities from its rights-of-way and other public areas when the Franchise Agreement expires. 66. There is nothing in the Franchise Agreement that requires the Town to purchase the City's electric facilities in the Town's rights-of-way or pay for the relocation of the City's electric facilities upon expiration of the Franchise Agreement. Thus, the City must bear the cost of removing its electric facilities from the Town's rights-of-way and public areas at the expiration of the Franchise, or negotiate a sale, lease or other transfer of those electric facilities to the substitute utility electric service provider selected by the Town. 67. The City has indicated that it will not vacate the Town's rights-of-way public property, or allow the Town to secure substitute electric service from other providers, when the City's Franchise expires. 68. The Town needs to act now to ensure that the City will remove its electric facilities from the Town's public property when the Franchise Agreement expires and that it does so in an orderly and efficient manner so that substitute electric utility service, other than from the City, will be available to serve the Town and its citizens when the City's Franchise expires. The Town also needs to ensure that the transition to such substitute electric utility service will not result in interruption of electric service to the Town or any of its citizens. A sufficient transition 15 10