COMMENTARY

MARK SCHUMANN

Some proponents of the sale of Vero Electric, who at one time told voters they could count on as much as $156.5 million in cash from the sale, are now urging the City Council to approve Florida Power & Lights recent proposal to assess a $26 million surcharge on the customers of Vero Electric.

Pro-sale utility activists insist the result of the March, 2013 referendum on the purchase and sale agreement between Florida Power & Light and the City of Vero Beach represents the definitive expression of the will of voters to sell the electric system at any price.

That argument seems a stretch.  After all, fully 65 percent of registered voters in Vero Beach did not even participate in the special called election in which 2339 voters supported the sale – sans the surcharge. To look at the results another way, only 22 percent of the city’s registered voters bothered to show up at the polls to support selling the electric system.

In advance of the referendum, the public was assured by city leaders, FPL representatives and many in the press that the sale could be concluded by early 2014.  Would 64 percent of the 3669 who participated in the referendum have voted as they did, had they known it was far more likely the deal would not close until late 2016?  Further, if the public has been better informed of other steps the city can take now to lower rates, would voters have opted for lower rates sooner rather than later?

To put the vote in yet another context, it was a referendum in which FPL spent more than $125,000 to influence the outcome.  Some argue, then, that the March 12 referendum might not so accurately reflect broader public opinion.

In seeking to discern the will of voters, one might ask what other evidence is available about what voters are thinking. To be sure, voters have spoken to the power sale issue at other times and with a varying message.  Vice Mayor Jay Kramer ran for re-election making no secret to his unqualified opposition to the deal as it is structured.  Kramer received broad voter support and is now serving a second term.

Mayor Richard Winger first ran for the city council in 2011 on a platform of working to ensure the city would get a fair price, and presumably fair terms.  Having declined to approve and sign the sales contract, Winger won re-election, leading a field of five by a wide margin.

Tracy Carroll, one of the sales strongest and most outspoken supporters, was soundly defeated last October.  Challenger, Amelia Graves, who received nearly twice as many votes as Carroll, replaced her on the Council.   Grave’s strong support was apparently not diminished by attacks from pro-sale advocates, who claimed her election would derail efforts to conclude the sale.

As further evidence of eroding support for the changing terms of the sale, in two recent online polls held by TCPalm.com and InsideVero.com, participants, by a 4-1 margin, said they do not approve of FPL’s latest proposal to assess a $26 million surcharge on the customers of Vero Electric.

Supporters of the sale also harken back to the September, 2011 referendum in which Vero Beach voters gave the City Council a green light to begin negotiations with FPL.  At the time, FPL, several members of the City Council, the Press Journal editorial board and many utility activists assured the public a “yes” vote was not an approval to sell the system, but was merely an ok to begin negotiations.

Yet, just last week in a meeting with Florida power executives, FPL President Eric Silagy reportedly claimed the people of Vero Beach have twice voted to sell their electric system.  Silagy’s claim is more than a little disingenuous.  Silagy and his team of public relations specialists, along with many utility activists, now choose to ignore the context of the 2011 referendum on leasing the power plant.

If one accepts the assessment that recent Council elections and two referendums are all windows into public opinion, then what deductions or conclusions can be drawn from these apparently mixed messages?

Kramer argues that what voters really want are lower rates.  Some, including Craig Fletcher, Pilar Turner and many utility activists contend the only way to lower rates over the long term is to sell the electric system to FPL.  They are so skeptical of options such as a partial sale that they seem willing to sell the Vero Electric at any price.  A $26 million surcharge gives them no pause.

Others are not so sure.  Kramer, for one, continues to believe the city could run its electric utility differently and far more efficiently.  Closing the power plant, he says, would save $4.2 million a year.  Financing long-term capital improvements, rather than paying for them out of cash flow, would save several more million dollars a year.  Renegotiating with the Orlando Utilities Commission to get the same rates the OUC recently gave the City of Lake Worth could save another $10 million a year.  To address the concerns of out-of-city customers who want more of a say in how their rates are set, Kramer and others have suggested the formation of a utility authority.

When push came to shove, so to speak, in South Daytona, FPL spent nearly $500,000 to control the outcome of that city’s final referendum on whether to form a 7,500 customer municipal utility.   As one might expect, FPL got its way.

If FPL is willing to spend a like amount per customer to win yet another referendum in Vero Beach, the city will be flooded with more than $2 million in political advertising and who knows what all else in the way of political activities.

Concerned to forestall FPL’s continued intrusions into local politics, some see an urgent need to conclude the sale as quickly as possible, even at the expense of agreeing to a $26 million surcharge.  But, because a surcharge cannot be assessed without both Council and voter approval, it seems all but certain there will be yet another referendum, unless, of course, at least three members of the City Council conclude that enough is enough.

For those who do not want to see Vero Beach become a company town, persuading Jay Kramer to run for re-election, and then working to help ensure his victory, may become a pressing priority