BY MARK SCHUMANN

Recent calls for opponents of the sale of Vero Electric to toe the party line will likely fall on deaf ears – and for good reason.

Many who have questioned the wisdom of selling the city’s electric system under the terms proposed remain convinced it is a bad deal, not only for the city’s residents and taxpayers, but also for all 34,000 customers of Vero Electric.

Believing the proposed deal is not in anyone’s best interest, save perhaps for the shareholders and officers of FPL, it would be an act of malicious obedience to support the sale simply because a majority of some 35 percent of the city’s registered voters gave it their approval.

During last week’s City Council meeting, Councilwoman Tracy Carroll urged her fellow Council members and all city employees to be careful what they say and with whom they speak about the proposed sale.  Offering a mini-lecture on the legal concept of “tortious interference of contract,” Carroll was clearly directing her comments to Councilmen Jay Kramer and Richard Winger.

Kramer shot back, “I get it. You are trying to shut me up. Well, it’s not going to work.  There is a lot wrong with this contract, and I am going to keep pointing it out.”

Clearly there are others, like Kramer, who believe deal is flawed, either because the terms are fixed but the closing date can be delayed up to three years, or because the city is having to spend $94 million to exit wholesale power contracts, or because the city is unnecessarily spending $20 million to move the substation simply so some can have a more pleasing view of the west bank of the Indian River Lagoon, or because the city will net no more than a few million dollars out of a $179 million deal, or because the sale faces such high hurdles it may never close, or for any number of other reasons.  Anyone who questions the deal has every right to speak his or her mind and be heard.

In today’s Press Journal, the newspaper’s editorial board continued to reference January 2014 as a possible closing date.  This is not just wishful thinking.  It is fantacy.  If the members of the paper’s editorial board remain unclear of the obstacles the city faces in receiving the waiver needed to exit the FMPA’s All Requirements Project before October 1, 2016, then perhaps they are not reading their own newspaper.

Any continued talk of a 2014 closing only serves to create unrealistic expectations among those who are eager for FPL rates.  The more forthright position is to admit it will likely be late 2016 before the city and FPL are able to transact this deal, if ever.

The simpl truth is that because negotiations on the deal are far from complete the referendum was premature.  At a rate of $500 per hour, the city’s transactional attorneys are busily reworking one provision after another in the power purchase agreements, which serve as the cornerstone of the deal.

Having rushed through a referendum on a sales contract that is still far from reaching its final form, FPL and the Council troika are now under pressure to work out a plan that is “substantially similar” to the agreement voters approved.  For example, if FPL ultimately agrees to assume Vero Beach’s contingent FMPA liabilities, and if the city must then make a “substantive” concession on the sale price, it can be reasonably argued that the results of the March 12 referendum will have been rendered null and void.

In making a case for supporting the referendum, the Press Journal pointed out that the deal had the support of Finance Commission Chairman Peter Gorry.  To be fair to Gorry, though, it should be acknowledged that his cost-benefit analysis was predicated on an early 2014 closing.  In fact, during a Finance Commission meeting Gorry said, “If the deal closes three years later, all bets are off.”

Given all the propaganda disseminated in advance of the referendum, many voters almost surely went to the polls believing approval of the deal would lead to lower rates in early 2014.  Little did they know the city was committing to follow a FPL-charted path that will for at least the next three years bypass other measure that could be taken to lower rates now.

As the city and its transactional attorneys run hand in hand down a path obstructed with issues of contingent liabilities, Internal Revenue Service regulations, Justice Department anti-trust considerations and more, those who believe this approach is unwise and irresponsible have both the right and the responsibility to speak out.