An Alachua County judge ruled Wednesday that the Gainesville City Commission has the power to place a ballot referendum that changes elements of its charter specifically added by the Florida Legislature. However, Judge George Wright also declared that the city’s referendum on the November 2024 ballot failed to meet state requirements for clarity, annulling the 73% vote in favor of the referendum.
The Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) Authority filed a lawsuit when the referendum was placed on the ballot. The referendum sought to eliminate the GRU Authority, created by the Florida Legislature and added to the city’s charter in 2023, and return control of the utility to the City Commission.
While the referendum passed, the results were delayed from taking effect until the GRU Authority’s lawsuit was settled. With Wednesday’s summary judgment by Wright, the lawsuit is finished unless one of the parties appeals.
Wright’s decisions mean the GRU Authority will remain in control of the utility because the referendum was declared invalid, but the decisions also give the City Commission the backing to change its charter in the future.
Just two hours after the ruling, the city of Gainesville said it respected the court’s decision and released the following statement: “The Gainesville City Commission is expected to discuss at a future meeting the possibility of a reworded ballot referendum designed to honor the will of the 72.5% of city voters who supported returning GRU to city control.”
Wright ruled on three separate counts on Wednesday.
On the first count, the GRU Authority argued that the City Commission has no power to change a section of its charter that was placed by the Florida Legislature. Lawyers for GRU said the governor-appointed board was clearly intended to take the utility away from the City Commission.
GRU’s legal staff, including attorneys Scott Walker, David Theriaque and Kiersten Ballou, said a city’s ordinances and powers are secondary to that of the Florida Legislature.
Theriaque said the Florida Legislature could not have been clearer about its intentions and that the GRU Authority was to be free from the City Commission’s control or influence.
“I would submit, your honor, that an ordinance that initiates the process to dissolve an entity created by the Florida Legislature is improper, and it violates the sections that I just read from House Bill 1645 [which created Section 7],” Theriaque said.
Attorneys Sean McDermott and Dan Nee for the city argued that Section 7 of the city’s charter, which creates the GRU Authority, doesn’t preempt the city’s home rule authority to amend its charter, a power given by state law.
McDermott said every city charter is created by a special act of the Legislature. Nevertheless, cities are expressly permitted to put forward referendums to change that charter. Section 7 placed in 2023 by the Florida Legislature should be no different.
McDermott said the Legislature has often created legal entities separate from a city or outside a city’s charter in order to prevent a city from interfering with that entity. But the Legislature didn’t do so in this case.
Theriaque said that the city claims it’s only following the normal procedure to amend its charter, but he said chaos would follow if cities can just do away with special acts, like governor-appointed boards.
“The wisdom of anyone voting or not voting for [the referendum] is not for me to consider,” Wright said. “It’s whether or not there’s the legal authority to do so, and whether or not chaos will ensue, that’s the legislative process, which I’m not part of and so I can’t consider that.”
On this count, Wright sided with the city of Gainesville. He said he can’t get around the legislative powers and home rule powers given to cities.
On the second count, the GRU Authority argued that the ballot language that voters read in November was unclear and misleading.
The ballot language states that the operation of GRU will be placed with the City Commission and charter officer. Ballou argued that not specifying which charter officer made the language unclear.
November 2024 ballot language:
- “SHALL THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO DELETE ARTICLE VII, ELIMINATING THE GOVERNOR-APPOINTED GAINESVILLE REGIONAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY AND ITS APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR THAT MANAGE, OPERATE AND CONTROL THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE’S LOCAL PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND PLACING THAT RESPONSIBILITY WITH THE ELECTED CITY COMMISSION AND CHARTER OFFICER; AND ELIMINATING LIMITATIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT SERVICES CONTRIBUTION AND UTILITY DIRECTIVES, AS PROPOSED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2024-352?”
She said voters might change their vote if the ballot language specified the director of the Office of Equity and Inclusion versus the city manager versus the city clerk. Ballou said five different voters could have five different charter officers in their minds when voting. She said the referendum failed to clearly establish authority.
While McDermott for the city rebuffed the charge, Wright focused on another ambiguity altogether.
According to grammar, Wright said that the adjective modifying “city commission” is also modifying “charter officer.” Meaning someone reading the referendum could reasonably think the control of GRU will go to the elected City Commission and the elected charter officers.
Wright said since some cities have elected charter officers, a voter could have—and according to grammar should have—read the ballot language and thought the city would create a charter officer elected by the people to run the utility.
Since that wasn’t the city’s intention, Wright asked if that constituted unclear ballot language.
McDermott, who presented on all the city’s counts, said the judge had brought up a nuance of grammar that neither the opposition nor a voter had ever raised. McDermott said he’s never heard this interpretation of the ballot language.
He also said that Florida law expects a voter to be educated on the ordinance at hand and on the ballot. McDermott said that would include knowing Gainesville’s charter and that the city had charter officers appointed by the City Commission.
Voters, required to be informed, would know that the language meant an existing charter officer appointed by the commission.
However, Wright said Florida law only requires the voter to be knowledgeable about the ordinance being proposed, not the whole city charter.
On Count 2, Wright sided with the GRU Authority and called the ballot language invalid for being unclear and ambiguous—though not for the reason stated by the attorneys.
On Count 3, Wright quickly sided with the city. This count had to do with a recent requirement, established in October 2024, that cities include a Business Impact Estimate when voting on an ordinance.
The city listed no impact to economic impact on businesses because of the ordinance that created the referendum. However, the GRU Authority argued that another rapid change in management at the utility would negatively impact credit ratings, resulting in potentially higher interest rates which could lead to higher rates for businesses.
Wright dismissed the argument and agreed with the city that the state law intends the estimates to list immediate costs needed to comply with the new ordinances in question, not tertiary impacts and probabilities down the line.
Both the GRU Authority and the city of Gainesville could appeal the decision. Until an appeal or further action by either board, the management question of the GRU is settled from the court’s perspective.
The ruling opens the door for another referendum that could correct the ballot language. State Rep. Chad Johnson, R-Chiefland, released a bill in January that would amend parts of Section 7 to clarify the intent. But Johnson pulled the draft bill just days after reports on its release.
A future state bill could change the structure again and place the GRU Authority in a place where the City Commission couldn’t touch it with a future referendum.
Both the Gainesville City Commission and GRU Authority have regular meetings scheduled for Thursday and could discuss future action.
For background information on the GRU Authority, Mainstreet has compiled its list of stories that chronicle the first 18 months of efforts to create the authority—from February 2023 through July 2024.
Good summary of what happened. It was a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and you did a good job of putting it in layman language. My question now is, how soon could the city put this on a ballot? Does it have to be a general election with other city issues or could it be a special election?
Excellent job of boiling a pretty complex judicial ruling down to brass tacks language. Thank you, Mainstreet. The judge has sided firmly with the right of the people of Gainesville to amend the city’s charter within whatever restraints superceding law might impose. He was equally firm, and informative, in his ruling that the referendum item lends itself to misinterpretation. I’d give the judge an A and the drafters of the ballot language an incomplete. The good news is the semester ain’t over.
How quickly people forget receiving $800+ utility bills from the city commission-controlled GRU, same city commission who raided GRU’s coffers at every opportunity, who voted to give themselves a raise when they couldn’t complete a financial audit or budget, who failed to make pre-paid contracts for discounted natural gas, who failed to maintain powerlines, roads and rights of way, who failed to pay off the outrageous 1.8 Billion dollar debt they they got this city’s residents into by horrible decision making. It’s just incredible how much short-term memory loss Gainesville residents have (oh right, are most voters just students who buy the BS they read in the Alligator, and tow the line?).
I agree. I don’t necessarily care who runs it, as long as it’s run properly. The city mismanaged it and stole money for years leading to the problems they currently have.