BREAKING: Judge rules that if GRU ballot initiative passes, City cannot take control of GRU until a full hearing on the case is held in December

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the end of today’s hearing on a petition filed by the GRU Authority, asking for an emergency temporary injunction against the City of Gainesville, Judge George Wright granted the injunction. The ruling means that even if a majority of voters in the city of Gainesville approve the initiative that would give control of the utility back to the City Commission, no changes will be made until a full hearing on the case is held in December; if the voters do not approve the initiative, the case will be moot.

Following nearly four hours of testimony, Judge Wright went through the four prongs that determine whether a temporary injunction should be granted.

The first is that there is no adequate remedy of law available to the plaintiffs other than the injunction. He said that, based on witness testimony, dissolving the Authority would likely reduce the bond ratings and would be an “injury to the full faith and credit of Gainesville Regional Utilities… [that] certainly can’t be compensated.”

Advertisement

The second prong is whether there would be irreparable harm if the ballot measure passes and the City regains control of the utility but an appeals court rules that the ballot measure was invalid. Judge Wright said, “The law recognizes that a continuing constitutional violation, in and of itself, constitutes irrevocable harm. So my finding as to that is that certainly there is an allegation and evidence… that there is a conflict between the enacting statute and the resolution and ordinance presented by the City of Gainesville.” He said that both the City Commission and the legislature represent the people and added that he was persuaded by the argument that multiple changes in GRU governance would constitute irreparable harm, due to projected credit downgrades.

The third prong is whether the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Judge Wright said, “The argument advanced by the City is essentially, ‘By what right do they have to exist?’ And I think the answer is, ‘By statute.'” He said the issue was “whether or not the City has the legal authority to present an ordinance to the citizens of the city which would, in effect, defeat an Act of the legislature.”

Regarding whether an injunction would serve the public interest, Wright said he couldn’t find any cases that had directly considered the issue of whether the City has the right to present an ordinance overturning a Special Act of the legislature, so that would be an issue when he hears the case on its merits. He continued, “Ultimately, the issue is, ‘What is the status quo?’ The status quo is that GRUA is in existence… Public policy maintains that that status quo be maintained until we have… a determination [on the merits].”

Wright said he would order that whatever the results are of the ballot initiative, “the status quo will be maintained,” so if it passes, the City will not be able to take control of GRU until he rules on the merits of the case; if the ballot initiative does not pass, the issue will be moot. Wright said the trial on the merits will be a two-day hearing, likely around December 19th or 20th.

93 Comments