GRU Authority asks judge to stop special election on GRU governance

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

Updated on August 30

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Today, the GRU Authority filed a lawsuit against the City of Gainesville, asking a judge to enjoin the City and the Supervisor of Elections from holding a special election in November to ask voters whether they want to transfer governance of Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) from the Authority to the City.

The lawsuit, filed in the 8th Judicial Circuit, argues that the special election violates a provision of HB1645 that prohibits the City from enacting any “charter provision, ordinance, resolution, [or] decree” that conflicts with the provisions of the City’s current charter, which gives the Authority governance of GRU.

In April, Judge George Wright ruled that a previous referendum was invalid because its language was misleading, but he left open the possibility of a new ballot referendum with different language. The GRU Authority is appealing the second part of the ruling, and the City is appealing the first part.

The lawsuit also argues that the City’s charter currently “vests a representational interest in the GRUA with those residing in ‘the unincorporated area of the county or a municipality in the county other than the City of Gainesville,'” and the Florida Constitution “prohibits a municipality from exercising extra-territorial powers inconsistent with general or special law of the State of Florida.”

The lawsuit asks the Court to declare that the ordinance establishing the referendum is null and void, enjoin the City from holding the referendum, enjoin the Supervisor of Elections from placing the referendum on the ballot, and/or enjoin the City from enforcing the result of the referendum if it is approved by the voters.

Count 1

Count 1 argues that the proposed Charter amendment is inconsistent with HB1645, the Special Act that created the Authority, because HB1645 requires the City to “perform all acts necessary and proper to effectuate an orderly transition of the governance, operation, management, and control… of GRU… to the [Authority].” The attorneys argue, “Rather than effectuate an orderly transition of the GRU to the GRUA, however, the City Commission… seeks to dissolve the GRUA.”

Count 2

Count 2 argues that because the utility provides services outside the city limits and cities’ extra-territorial powers must be “supported by or derived from legislative grant,” the City’s powers outside the city limits have now been limited by HB1645. The attorneys argue that the City cannot restore its extra-territorial powers by amending its charter; that can only be done by a subsequent act of the legislature.

Count 3

Count 3 argues that Section 166.021(4) of Florida Statutes states that home rule powers do not extend to permitting “any changes in a special law or municipal charter which affect the exercise of extraterritorial powers or which affect an area which includes lands within and without a municipality.”

Count 4

Count 4 argues that the ballot referendum language misleads the public because it refers to GRU as “Gainesville Local Public Utilities” and fails to define which Charter Officer will manage the utilities. The attorneys argue that the phrase “Governor-Appointed Gainesville Regional Utilities Authority” is misleading because “it is the board members of the Gainesville Regional Utilities Authority that are governor-appointed — GRUA is a creation of the legislature.” The attorneys also argue, as they did in the previous lawsuit, that the ballot referendum language does not “return Gainesville’s local public utilities to its previous mode of operation” because the City’s charter previously provided for a Charter Officer position of GRU General Manager, and that position will not be restored if the referendum passes.

Count 5

Count 5 argues that the ballot referendum contradicts the City’s charter because the charter states that the Authority “shall be free from direction and control of the Gainesville City Commission.”

Count 6

Count 6 argues that the ballot referendum violates the Florida Constitution’s prohibition on “invidious discrimination in arbitrarily voiding the representational interest of a specific class of electorate with an existing franchise” because the proposed Charter amendment rescinds non-city residents’ representational interest in the governance of GRU “through a process that fails to include and arbitrarily disenfranchises the affected non-City resident electors.”

The attorneys argue that HB1645 granted a franchise to the non-city residents who are GRU customers, and “once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Count 7

Count 7 argues that, based on Florida statutes, the ordinance must be suspended because a constitutional challenge was filed within 90 days of enactment. The relevant statute reads,

166.0411 Legal challenges to certain recently enacted ordinances.—

(1) A municipality must suspend enforcement of an ordinance that is the subject of an action challenging the ordinance’s validity on the grounds that it is expressly preempted by the State Constitution or by state law or is arbitrary or unreasonable if:

(a) The action was filed with the court no later than 90 days after the adoption of the ordinance;

(b) The plaintiff requests suspension in the initial complaint or petition, citing this section; and

(c) The municipality has been served with a copy of the complaint or petition.