TCPalm.com and InsideVero.com each posted reader polls yesterday seeking some indication of public support for the latest terms proposed for the sale of Vero Electric.
TCPalm.com’s poll asks: Given the latest developments, do you support the proposed sale of the Vero Beach electric utility to FPL? VOTE
The InsideVero.com poll more specifically asks readers whether they support the latest changes to the deal: Do you support the proposed $26 million surcharge to be assessed the customers of Vero Electric to help fund the sale to FPL? VOTE
The following poll results are as of 5:30 a.m. Tuesday.
Indian River Guardian 
The uninformed voter will vote the wrong way nearly every time!
Vic, TCPalm/Scripps readers may be uninformed. It may be more accurate, though, to describe the as misinformed. I posted the following on TCPalm.com today. If Scripps readers what to know the fuller story, at least the information is available to them.
What, exactly, are the latest developments? The President of FPL announced Thursday that his company is accepting the FMPA’s offer to take Vero Beach’s power entitlements for up to three years for $52 million. There are reportedly some provisions for prorating that amount, if the FMPA assumes the power for less than three year, but basically that is the deal.
However, FPL has apparently attached conditions to the FMPA’s offer. IN doing so, they have essentially creating a counter offer. It seems to be FPL’s position that the FMPA must accept some quick and supposedly reasonable solutions to as yet unresolved issues having to do contingent liabilities, stranded costs and the notice requirements for Vero Beach’s withdrawal from the FMPA All Requirements Project.
In contrast to Silagy stated confidence in a 2014 closing date, FMPA Assistant General Manager, Mark McCain, said Thursday a closing this year would be “difficult.” McCain explained that contracts will have to be re-written and approved, and the deal will have to be reviewed by a consulting engineer, and must then also be approved by bond counsel, bond trustees, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Florida Public Service Commission.
None of these approvals, however long they may take to secure, will resolve the issue of Vero Beach’s membership in the ARP through September 31, 2016. As long as Vero Beach is a member of the ARP, it is not free to sell its electric system.
The FMPA has not as yet responded to FPL’s conditions announced Thursday, so for Silagy to have told the press he sees not reason why the deal cannot close this year seems premature.
Vero Beach County Councilwoman Pilar Turner attended a meeting of the All Requirements Project board Thursday, so presumably she heard the representative from Kissimmee Electric state unequivocally that Kissimmee will not agree to Vero Beach’s requested waiver to leave the All Requirements Project early.
FMPA leaders have made it clear they are not in a position to set aside contract provisions requiring that such a waiver be approved by each and every member of the ARP. Without unanimous consent for a waiver, it is hard to see how a closing will be possible before late 2016.
Mark
Lets see and please check my math! $26,000,000 over 5 years is $5.200,000 a year without weight spread over 34,000 customers comes to a surcharge of $152 a year to have the lower FPL rates which on my electric bill would save me $615 a year less the $152 or a net of $463 savings. You bet I’d vote yes for a surcharge. Go to FPL.com/verobeach to check your reduced cost under FPL (if you are on city elecric).
If that is a good deal, Bill, why not agree to pay a surcharge for another 20 years? At want point would enough be enough?
Mark: There’s an old saying, if you can’t make sense, make nonsense! I’m just looking at the possible surcharge for years!
Consider my point nonsense, if you like. Still, there remain those who believe the question of whether the price and terms are fair is an important consideration. There are others, I know, and you may be one of them, who are focused exclusively on getting FPL rates and who would be willing to see the city hand over the electric system at any price. I can only say that I would never want this crowd negotiation on my behalf.
It’s Bill again, I meant to say ,I’m just looking a the possible surcharge for FIVE years.. Sorry, left out the five. Again, if my math is wrong, please let me know.
Your math seems to be spot on. I’m not sure, though, about your logic.
Well, All of us customers (including out-of-city people on Vero electric) having to pay this $26 million because FPL will only fork over half the amount will not go over too well with those of us who are extra-careful about the amount of power we use. I consider FPL’s flea-market bargaining not my problem. If my frugal hubby and I have to pay the same amount as someone who takes half-hour showers, has a swimming pool, dishwasher, irrigation system, and all kinds of other electrical gadgets, we will be severely underwhelmed. I’d much rather give Mr. Kramer the chance to show us how the cost of our electric can be reduced and let the $52 million needed for FMPA and whatever OUC contract is….let them run their course or on the latter attempt to re-negotiate (as I’ve heard one other city did).