BY KEN DAIGE
For at least four years the public has been bombarded with rabblerousing rhetoric inflaming the public view of the Vero Beach Electric issue.
The public has been saturated with propaganda spread through the various services clubs, charities, newspaper opinions and editorials, radio personalities, email newsletters and FP&L open house and mailers.
We were told all negotiations would take place in the public view.
They have not.
In the summer of 2011 the Vero Beach City Council was advised to hold a Cure Meeting to cure a possible Sunshine Law violation. In that cure meeting we discovered negotiations were being held concerning the electric assets and city property at the Vero Beach Airport. Fast forward to Monday, January 7, 2013; after a public record request by me there surfaces another negotiated document about the electric assets and city owned property at Vero Beach Airport. NONE of these negotiations have been done in the public view. City residents own the electric assets at the Vero Beach Airport.
After my public records request another document surfaced. This one concerns the city owned fiber optic network and assets. NONE of these negotiations have been done in the public view. City residents own the fiber optics network.
I attended the FP&L negotiated presentation to Dick Winger and Jay Kramer. There another document surfaced.
Winger and Kramer had well-thought-out questions for FP&L, which were not satisfactorily answered. The public relations employee representatives from FP&L admitted they were not legal experts and could not address legal questions or distribution or transmission questions. There were three FP&L representatives stating one was there to negotiate, another to enforce FP&L policy (who stayed in constant phone contact and texting with others unspecified) and the other did not state their role.
At the January 8, 2013 City Council meeting the transactional attorney gave a briefing about the negotiations held. NONE of those negotiations were held in the public view. We only have the word of the transactional attorney and the negotiated documents.
We are told to trust your elected officials who represent you. Well, I trust fact and truth, which I see little of in the negotiated process.
The current City of Vero Beach Utilities Commission and Finance Commission were hand picked by some on the seated City Council to specifically sell Vero Electric to FP&L; no other option is permitted. Those who have questioned policy, due diligence and process have been removed from those commissions.
There are still unanswered questions and yet the City Council drafted a referendum to vote yes or no on selling a city resident owned asset and they are willing to vote on documents next month.
Here is a partial list of unanswered questions and facts:
*Will the City of Vero Beach receive a waiver to apply to exit FMPA before the contracted date? In 2010 questions concerning exiting, costs and legalities were already answered by FMPA – they just don’t happen to be the answers some on the seated City Council want to hear. How will the city residents be compensated for FMPA shared assets?
*Is FP&L allowed to benefit from tax-exempt bonds the City of Vero Beach owns?
*When was an RFP advertised and bids taken for the taxpayer owned postal annex land, corner of Indian River Blvd. and 17th Street Bridge, that the city manager gave to FP&L for a new electric substation that the city residents do not need? FP&L needs the substation to supply power to the county beachside customers, not the city residents. The city managers authority to negotiate land without proper procedure needs to be questioned.
*Kramer is correct – will the city burn the oil reserves at the benefit of the city or will FP&L profit from the oil when they siphon the tanks and use or sell the oil? Why pay for more environmental cleanup than we have to?
*Environmental concerns have not been satisfactory answered to Federal and State requirements. And liability needs to be properly, clearly and concisely addressed in favor of the city for the benefit of its residents.
*If we become FP&L customers we will be last on the grid. That means last to be turned back on when there are catastrophic events or other outages. FP&L re-activates concentrated populated areas first.
*We will be last on the grid because FP&L intends to utilize the St Lucie Nuclear Plant and the Cape Power Plant; we are in the middle of larger metropolitan areas. We will no longer be self-sufficient. If an event occurs we will wait longer periods of time before power is restored. It’s called economics in the private industry.
*FP&L presented a document to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council when growth was anticipated in the region including Indian River County. Their intent was to build a power plant in the western section of Indian River County as part of the Seven/50 Plan. The same plan FP&L and the six southern counties have been working on for the last 18 months. Will FP&L continue its plans to build here considering the upgrades to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant and rebuilding of the Cape Plant?
*FP&L presented a document to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council when growth was anticipated in the region including Indian River County. Their intent was to build a power plant in the western section of Indian River County as part of the Treasure Coast Regional Plan; which is now part of the Seven/50 Plan. Will FP&L continue it?s plans to build here considering the upgrades to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant and rebuilding of the Cape Plant?
*The transactional attorney mentioned the necessity of a 90-year lease. Supposedly FP&L intends to lease the power plant land for 3 years, option for extension for 1 more year. Will the transmission lines from the Cape Plant be done by then? FP&L chose not to answer Kramer’s question at the Monday meeting.
*Any delay or extension costs the ratepayers more money. It was a poor judgment call to pay for repairs out of the reserves. In doing so the City Council has to raise rates to replenish the reserves. Why hasn’t City Council investigated rate savings in other forms for customers? If this sale-giveaway-takeover occurs and if it drags out further it will be at least 3 to 5 more years before savings if any are experienced.
In the meantime FP&L could request rate or other increases that may offset any supposed savings to the ratepayer.
FP&L is allowed to charge current customers, who may or may not benefit from supposed savings, to pre-pay for all nuclear construction costs – whether or not such nukes are built; and FP&L does not have to return the money it collects for nuclear construction costs if the plants are never built.
Indian River Guardian 
One has to wonder why some of our City Council members, who are elected to do what is best for the City of Vero Beach and its residents, are pushing to have one of the City’s major income producing assets sold to FP&L. If we in the City of Vero Beach wish to maintain, at least the level of services that we currently have, we need to keep every utility service that adds to the City’s income under our control. Our choice is keep Vero Electric or raise taxes on the City residents to make up for the loss of income. That is a no-brainer. The only remaining question is how much to raise the taxes without gutting the City. Do you want a substantial increase in your local tax bill? At present all users of Vero Electric are contributing to the running of our City. There are about three times as many users of Vero Electric living outside the City limits than inside the City. If we lose that income, our tax increase will far exceed the small savings on our electric bill and as Mr. Daige points out, FP&L is regularly seeking, and getting, rate increases and will be charging their customers for possible future nuclear plants that they MAY construct. We will be charged for them even if they are never built and we will have no say in the matter.
Mr. Daige clearly notes in his column that some Council Members have been meeting with FP&L representatives behind closed doors. One wonders why. One questions the need for secrecy. Is FP&L offering inducements for their support? We will never know will we. What has happened to the Sunshine Law or doesn’t it apply here? Has it been removed from the books? One also wonders how much of an investment some of our council members may have in FP&L Stocks. One has to wonder what other behind the scenes activities and promises may be being made to some of our City Council members and their associates. Which City residents really benefit from this sale. Could it be only the 2 or 3 who are pushing so hard for it.
Keep in mind that Vero Electric got the City up and running very quickly after the two hurricanes in 2004. Can we be sure that FP&L would do the same for us? As Mr. Daige points out, we would be at the bottom of the list since we are not a major metropolitan area. That’s logical.
The sale could possibly benefit the county residents who currently are using Vero Electric, depending of course on FP&L rates in the future, but we expect our City Council members to put the City’s concerns above everything else. That includes the County residents benefits and also their own possible personal or political gains.
Thanks Susan for your insight and reminders.
Ken
The Finance Commission has continued to inquire regarding the strategy, timing and complications of the FMPA “negotiations”. Responses from the City have been, discussions are ongoing and the expectation is that issues and concerns raised by the Commission will be resolved (including the 2016 ARP commitments)
Currently the FC is projecting anticipated post sale financials (budget shortfalls would be in the $3-3.5M range, assuming a 1/1/14 sale date).and alternatives to address the revenue/expense gap.
Of interest, according to the 2010 census, only @ 60% of VB’s residences are owner occupied (some not full time).
Peter Gorry
Interesting, Peter. Thank you.
Sharon Shelton Wisbey Gorry brings up an interesting statistic. If only 60% of VB residents are owner occupied, the public needs to have the same information about commercial entiities. Will these rate payers enjoy much higer profits once the city is no longer involed in providing electrical service? Can a commercial property owner vote in the upcoming referendum or are they in the same unjust situation of taxation without representation as are those who live on the barrier island? Has any assessment been made as to the number of commercial entitiies that will move to the barrier island if the relief from the high costs of COVB utilities is not provided?
Susan Seidler has asked some interesting questions that can be easily addressed:
1. Government entitites are not in business to make a profit. Therefore, it is obvious that the City of Vero Beach should never have been in the utility business in the first place.
2. A substantial increase in anyone’s utility bill should not be dependent on continually gouging those whol live on the barrier island.
3. The alleged reliability of City of Vero Beach utilities has been drastically over-hyped. The COVB has a difficult time in providing electricity even under normal circumstances. Residents of the barrier island several times a year have to endure power outages.
4. The statement that the sale “could” benefit county residents. Should be changed to read, the sale WOULD be beneficial to the pocketbooks of county residents who have subsidiized their neighbors in the city for decades.
5. The City Council should meet the needs of city residents without a significant subsidy from county residents. It is grossly unfair that the proposed referndum will not include all rate payers. Thus, the City Council already has set itself up for major lawsuite if there is no substantial relief monetary relief made to those who have been subsidizing the city residents for decades.
There is also another means of possible savings that city residents and their “leaders” continue to ignore. The fact that the school system has to pay the uutility bills for the city that are far greater than those schools that enjoy FP&L has resulted in higher taxes for alll.
IT IS INDEED A “NO BRAINER” THE SALE OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH UTILITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A DECADE AGO.
Pat,
When you say that Vero Beach “should never have been in the electric business,” are you suggesting the residents of the city AND the city’s county customers would have been better off going for decades without electricity while waiting until investor owned utility such as Florida Power & Light was willing and able to supply power to the area? With all due respect, regarding reliability, your comment is about as “fact-free” as the claim that Seven50 is connected in any way to Agenda 21. There are reliability reports available through the FMPA. Vero Beach is more reliable that FPL, though the difference is not significant enough to justify be a factor in this issue. Finally, your comment seems completely devoid of any appreciation for the many, many ways county residents benefit from much of what the city has to offer. They are able to do so without having to pay taxes to the city.
Mark Schumann
Yes, I continue to assert that a local government should not be in the electricity business. There are very few communities that have the kind of situation that Vero Beach has that mandates the city government earn income from providing a public service, The situation is a classic conflict of interests situation.
The reliability reports on availability of continuous electrical service differ from my actual experience. I have never experienced multiple power outages when I lived in other communities with different electrical service. My personal experience has been having to throw out expensive meat in my freezer because of health fears caused by power outages that have lasted for hours. My personal experience in living in Indian River County has included living in different parts of the community. From my personal perspective, FP&L is far superior in providing electrical service at less cost. This is the reason that there are so many ratepayers who want to sell.
The county residents who live on the barrier island have for decades provided a subsidy to the City of Vero Beach residents who have enjoyed artificiallly low property taxes. From a cost-benefit basis, the city gets far more from non-rate payers than the few services that are provided.
The issue of the sale of the COVB electrical serivice has been the number one topic for years in Indian River County. If the utility customers were happy with the reliability and rates, the issue would not have been raised by any rate payer. Again, it comes down to an issue of cost-benefit. The city through its electrical costs has goffen far more from those who do not live in the city than the city provides in services.
The sale of the utility comes down to a basic issue of fairness as far as I am concerned. I want to enjoy the greater reliiability and less cost that my friends who have FP&L. The situatiion has it stands today is that I am being held hostage. I have to pay the high rates to the COVB but I am not allowed to vote on the referendum. The “leaders” of the COVB do not want to allow all ratepayers to have a say on the sale issue because they know the majority of the hostages would vote to sell.