My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/16/2014 (4)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2014
>
12/16/2014 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2018 3:57:56 PM
Creation date
5/26/2016 1:45:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
® municipal electric systems in the State of Florida; the referendum process at a City election; and <br />the state legislature to resolve the electric issue. <br />Mediator Alvarez indicated prior to breaking for lunch, he had a request from Dr. <br />Stephen Faherty to speak. <br />Dr. Faherty provided the mediator with a brief summary of electric issues stemming back <br />to the summer 2007, when he got involved and highlighted the electric rates and FPL rebates. <br />Tihe Mediator called a recess for lunch at 12:35 p.m. and reconvened at 1:37 p.m., with <br />all parties present. <br />Attorney Reingold referred to the Town's proposal and the dialog between the City and <br />the Town. He wanted to make everyone aware that the County was in favor of the proposal and <br />the County also wanted to be included in the Town's proposal. <br />Mediator Alvarez asked for the City's thoughts on the Town's proposal. Attorney Wright <br />said the City's mediation team reviewed the proposal and was not in support of it, but would take <br />it to the Vero Beach City Council Meeting on December 17, 2014. He referred to paragraphs <br />one (1) and two (2) of the proposal: <br />Settlement Terms <br />• For purposes of settlement, and in return for the Town continuing to abate its lawsuit <br />against the City, the City would: <br />1. Expressly acknowledge that the Town may provide electric service to its citizens upon <br />expiration of the Franchise Agreement either through direct provision of such electric <br />service or by contracting on behalf of its residents with another electric utility provider in <br />accordance with the Special Act creating the Town. <br />2. Honor the Town's right to conduct an evaluation, which may include but not be limited <br />to a Request for Proposal ("RFP') process, of the most appropriate means for the Town <br />to provide electric service to its citizens upon expiration of the Franchise Agreement. In <br />the event the Town issues an RFP, the Town would recognize the City's right to submit a <br />proposal in response to the RFP as a potential provider of electricity to the Town and its <br />residents after the Franchise Agreement expires. <br />Attorney Wright pointed out in Paragraph 1 of the settlement terms: (1) the City was <br />asked to expressly acknowledge that the Town could serve its citizens when the franchise <br />agreement expires. He felt the wording relayed that the City was giving up their position. <br />Mediator Alvarez questioned if Paragraph 1 was removed, what about Paragraph 2. <br />Attorney Wright stated it was the consensus of the City's mediation team that Paragraph 2 was <br />closely related to Paragraph 1. <br />Town of Indian River Shores - City of Vero Beach - Indian River County <br />Electric; Utilities Mediation <br />December 17, 2014 <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.