GRU Authority formally asks Superintendent of Elections to reject City’s ordinance placing GRU governance on the November ballot

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the request of the GRU Authority, Scott Walker of the Folds Walker law firm has sent a letter to Alachua County Supervisor of Elections Kim Barton, asking her to reject the City’s ordinance that places the governance of Gainesville Regional Utilities on the November ballot.

The ordinance, which the Gainesville City Commission unanimously approved at their June 18 Special Meeting, places a referendum on the November ballot for voters who live in the Gainesville city limits; the referendum asks voters whether they want to delete Article VII of the City Charter, the section that was added by HB 1645, the statute that created the GRU Authority to govern the utility.

Walker’s letter can be read here.

First objection: The ordinance does not “effectuate an orderly transition”

Walker argues in his letter that he has identified three objections to the ordinance. The first is that the ordinance violates Article VII, Section 7.10(1) of the City Charter. That section states that “the City and the Authority shall perform all acts necessary and proper to effectuate an orderly transition of the governance, operation, management, and control of all utility systems, properties, and assets held in the possession of GRU as of January 1, 2023, to the Authority, including, but not limited to, the creation of such instruments as are necessary for the Authority to function in accordance with this article.”

Walker writes that the ordinance does not “effectuate an orderly transition” because “the main goal of this Ordinance is to dissolve the Authority altogether.” He writes that although some argue that the transition has been completed, he does not believe that to be true because the GRU Authority and the City “have yet to formalize the transfer of operation and management regarding matters ranging from IT services to fleet maintenance, and more.”

Second objection: Through the Ordinance, the City Commission seeks to exert direction and control over the utility

The second objection is that the ordinance violates Article VII, Section 7.10(2) of the City Charter. That section states: “There is created a regional utilities authority to be known as the ‘Gainesville Regional Utilities Authority’ (‘Authority’)… [The Authority] shall be free from direction and control of the Gainesville City Commission. The Authority is created for the express purpose of managing, operating, controlling, and otherwise having broad authority with respect to the utilities owned by the City of Gainesville.”

Walker writes, “The Commission now seeks, through the use of this proposed Ordinance, to exert power and control over an area from which their authority has been stripped.” He argues that the “only process to amend or repeal House Bill 1645, which is a Special Law of the State of Florida, is to have the Florida Legislature enact a law which amends or repeals HB 1645. A local referendum cannot repeal an act of the Florida Legislature.”

Walker also notes that GRU serves customers who are not citizens of Gainesville, and the legislature provided representation for those customers by allocating one seat on the Authority to a non-city-resident rate-payer.

Third objection: The referendum language is vague and misleading

The third objection is that the proposed referendum language is vague and misleading, “as it does not make clear that the office of general manager (referred to as ‘appointed administrator’), which existed prior to House Bill 1645, would be removed and the role would fall under the City Manager.” Walker writes that placing GRU under the City Manager would “limit transparency” about the General Fund Transfer from the utility to the City’s General Fund.

Walker argues, “The language in Ordinance 2024-352 leads the average voter to believe that a ‘yes’ vote on the proposed referendum would have the effect of simply returning the utility to ‘business as usual’ which – based on the language and the apparent actions of the City Commission – is inaccurate and therefore the language impermissibly misleads voters.”