VERO BEACH — Vero Beach City Councilman Brian Heady said Monday he plans to ask for changes to the Orlando Utilities Commission contract to remove the $50 million breach of contract agreement and to put in opt out clauses every five years.Heady’s position is that at present there is not a valid electric contract in place between the City of Vero Beach and the OUC because of changes that were made between a version the council voted to accept on April 7, 2008, and one signed by then-Mayor Tom White on April 21, 2008.
“You have to have two willing parties to have a contract in place,” Heady said. “And the council has to be one of those parties for this contract to be valid. They (the Vero Beach City Council) agreed to a version (on April 7) that did not exist when it was signed by Tom White and OUC officials (on April 21).”City Attorney Charlie Vitunac has said there were changes made to the April 7 and April 21 contracts, but that they did not significantly change to what the two sides had agreed. Heady did his own analysis and came to a different conclusion. His proposed solution to the matter is to modify the April 21 version by doing away with the two issues his constituents have most vociferously objected — the $50 million breach of contract clause and the 20- and 10-year opt out clauses. In addition, he wants to include a paragraph acknowledging the right of Indian River County and the Town of Indian River Shores to end their agreement to receive power from the Vero Beach utility in 2016 and 2017 respectively. Those entities must inform the city in 2011 and 2012 if the plan to look for electric power elsewhere.
He said he wants that added for full disclosure and for the city and OUC to work together to try and keep the county and Indian River Shores as happy customers.
If the council were to agree to Heady’s plan at the Feb. 2 council meeting, it would in effect open the contract up for renegotiation.
However, Heady said that is not his goal to re-visit the entire document.”I want to do what is fair,” he said. “I’m not one of those advocating getting out of this contract to go with FP&L. But what are the people most upset about? The $50 million penalty clause and the terms for getting out of the contract. “Right now we are both stuck between a rock and a hard place. The bottom line is we don’t need the $50 million penalty if they can produce a rate that is comparable to FP&L and if they can’t, we’ll know in five years and we should be able to go elsewhere.”
