BY MARK SCHUMANN
An island weekly, which has carried out a four-year-long assault on the city, editorialized recently about the proposed sale of Vero Electric to Florida Power & Light, arguing that accepting an admittedly poor deal is the only path to lower electric rates.
By the editorial writer’s own admission, the city is loosing its shirt on the deal. And yet, the newspaper sought to convince readers there is no realistic alternative.
Don’t be fooled by this false choice. As dismissive as some may be about the potential of a partial sale, the option is a viable alternative, and one that would bring rates down sooner for everyone. Given the exceedingly unfavorable terms of the contract Mayor Craig Fletcher plans to sign tomorrow, a partial sale may quite possibly be the best option available.
Why? Because of the city’s contractual obligations to the Florida Municipal Power Agency, a sale of the full system, if it is even possible, cannot take place until late 2016. If city voters approve the agreement, they will be condemning themselves and Vero Electric’s 22,000 county customers to pay unnecessarily high electric rates for nearly four more years.
The island weekly also sought to cast aside legitimate concerns about how the power plant site may someday be developed. Anyone who believes the land will be used for a public park is likely in for a big disappointment.
To be sure, developers have their eyes on the property. If the day comes when the city is forced to disincorporate, as some are hoping it will, charter provisions protecting the land for public use will fade into history.
In an uncharacteristic understatement, the island weekly acknowledged that the agreement is not the “absolute best possible deal the city could have negotiated with FPL.” More accurately, the contract to go before voters March 12 can be fairly described as the worst possible deal the city’s $500-an-hour attorneys could have negotiated.
The Council threesome of Tracy Carroll, Craig Fletcher and Pilar Turner proposes to hand over to FPL a $200 million asset for $3 million in net proceeds. As a part of the deal, they also plan to give FPL the valuable postal annex site on the southwest corner of Indian River Blvd. and 17th Street, where the company will build a substation. Further, Carroll, Fletcher and Turner are exposing the city to great risk by locking in terms now on a deal that cannot close until late 2016.
It may have been prudent for the city to explore the option of finding a buyer for the electric system. But committing to sell before determining exactly what terms could be negotiated, and before knowing $94 million of the value in the deal would have to go to extricate the city from its wholesale power agreements, has resulted in a contract voters should reject.
While the proposed sale is a sweetheart deal for FPL and the Orlando Utilities Commission, it is a bad deal for the city and for all 34,000 of its electric customers.
Indian River Guardian 
It is important to recognize the realities learned from the real estate market. Homes that at their peak were able to command million dollar prices are no longer able to do so. So it is disingenuous to claim that a sale price that is not at the maxium price that was once possible is not beneficial to the seller.
Like the real estate seller any sale that removes obligations due such as a mortage balance is beneficial. The fact that the COVB will be able to repair the mistakes of past political leaders who failed to fund local pension obligations must be considered as a profit gain for the city.
The Florida laws of eminent domain would make it extremely difficult to sell the land for commerical development.
The likelihood of the COVB being disenfranchised is very remote.
Any deal that will reduce electrical costs for the hospital, school district and municipal facilities is a good deal for COVB and county residents.
The cost of negotiating the deal have been unnecessary and are reflective of poor management by previously elected officials.
The time for debate is over. Now is the time to sell.
As to your first two paragraphs, I’m not clear what you are trying to say. Your first point is simply illogical. The column I rate makes no such claim.
Second, because a partial sale would also enable the city to restructure its pensions, a full sale can hardly be argued for on that point.
Third, the city’s pensions were adequately funded until the stock market crashed in 2009, and the city has been making up the underfunding to the tune of $3 million a year.
Eminent domain laws will do nothing to prevent the city from leasing the land long-term for commercial development.
By “disenfranchised,” did you mean disincorporated? On what basis do you conclude such a possibility is remote? Wishful thinking?
To say that any deal that reduces electric costs for the hospital, school district and municipal facilities in a “good deal,” is exceedingly simplistic. Besides, a partial sale accomplishes exactly that objective.
Just because you are tired of debating, doesn’t mean the time for debate is over. However, given the news that broke yesterday on the front page of the Press Journal, the time for debate may well soon be over.
Not to worry, though. You’ll be getting lower rates years sooner through a partial sale.