X hits on this document

37 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

16 / 17

CITY OF MELBOURNE, FLORIDA MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 2009

live by its standards and keep its word from the joint meeting.

Mr. LaRusso asked how the 10% surcharge came about. Mr. Schluckebier said that some of our client communities were not happy with the rate making process. There was a special act of the Legislature in 1994, which was clarified in 1995. As a result, Melbourne is locked out of the general law in Florida, which allows up to a 25% surcharge without a study and a 50% surcharge with a study. In 1995 the special act was clarified, which allows the customer by agreement to pay more than 10%.

The City Manager stated that his second issue relates to the idea mentioned at the joint

meeting that West Melbourne should have a five year walk away clause. Melbourne should have an equal right to walk away after five years.

He noted that

Mrs. Corby asked for clarification on “Melbourne and West Melbourne will resolve the debt Melbourne claims that West Melbourne owes…”

Mr. Schluckebier replied that relates to the 2007 interim water development projects that West Melbourne was required to apply

agreement.

There were

for

a

reservation

of

water

capacity. West Melbourne did capacity is reserved and West regard to these projects.

not and the manner Melbourne loses all

in which the debt is resolved is that no rights under the interim agreement with

Mrs. Corby asked if the agreement means that customers west of I-95 would buy water directly

from Melbourne, even if they have been annexed into West Melbourne. replied yes and added that they would be direct retail customers.

Mr. Schluckebier

Mr. LaRusso pointed out that one of his main points in the agreement relates to West Melbourne not proceeding with its Comprehensive Plan amendment. He wanted to ensure that this was included, which would remove Melbourne’s lawsuit.

Mr. Schluckebier stated that the agreement is specific on those points. Both parties would stand down from the main points of conflict; it is a good conceptual move forward.

Mayor Goode said he would like to see the agreement tailored as close to what was discussed in Indialantic.

Moved by Goode/Meehan to approve the agreement with the understanding that when Melbourne receives comments from West Melbourne, the City Attorney is authorized to make minor, non-material changes to the agreement without bringing it back to the City Council. If West Melbourne proposes material changes to the agreement and the agreement needs revision, the agreement will be returned to the City Council.

Attorney Gougelman asked about the two points offered by the City Manager.

The maker/second agreed to add those two provisions (parity with surcharges and equal ability for Melbourne to terminate the agreement after five years).

Page 16 of 17

Document info
Document views37
Page views37
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 05:16:13 UTC 2016
Pages17
Paragraphs404
Words7430

Comments