GRU Authority’s complaint asks judge to keep GRU referendum off the ballot, prohibit the results from being tabulated, or prohibit the City from enforcing the result if it is approved by voters

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – A complaint filed today by the GRU Authority [GRUA or Authority] against the City of Gainesville and Alachua County Supervisor of Elections Kim Barton asks a judge to keep the GRU referendum off the ballot, prohibit the Supervisor of Elections from tabulating the results, or prohibit the City from enforcing the proposed charter amendment if the voters approve it.

The complaint can be found here.

The complaint asserts that an ordinance passed by the City Commission to place a charter amendment referendum on the November ballot is illegal under the City’s charter because “[a] plain reading of [the charter]… indicates that the City Commission is prohibited from taking action which is contrary to GRUA’s exercise of exclusive authority over GRU… As any referendum on the above-outlined issue will only have been placed on the ballot pursuant to [the ordinances creating the referendum] and such Ordinances are in direct conflict with The Special Act [HB1645] – it is clear and unambiguous that the referendum itself is illegal ab initio or, in the alternative, merely advisory to the GRUA.”

The Authority’s attorneys argue that “an actual and present controversy exists” between the Authority and the City regarding the validity of the ordinance and that the Authority “will suffer immediate and irreparable harm” if the referendum is placed on the ballot.

Count 1 – the ordinances creating the proposed charter amendment are inconsistent with the Special Act

Count 1 asks the judge to declare the City’s ordinance null and void and enjoin the Supervisor from placing the referendum on the ballot and/or enjoin the City from enforcing the proposed charter amendment if it is approved by the voters.

Count 2 – the ballot language is misleading

Count 2 argues that the ballot language violates a Florida statute requiring “clear and unambiguous language” because it is “misleading and fails to provide fair and adequate notice of the content of the proposed Charter Amendment… It purports to return GRU to the former status quo (pre-Special Act) in which there was a charter officer – GM of Utilities – who was responsible for the utility management, operations, and budget and reported solely to the City Commission. The ballot language does not restore that structure as it does not reinstate Section 3.06 of the City Charter eliminated by the Special Act.”

The Authority’s attorneys argue that the ballot language states that “GRU would report to a charter officer… Since there is no GM of Utilities nor CEO/GM in the restored charter under the proposed amendment, by default, the city manager, city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, or city EO officer would be the supervising officer of GRU.”

Without a CEO/GM, the attorneys allege, there would be no charter officer “to advocate for the almost 40% of GRU customers who live in the unincorporated areas outside the City of Gainesville, Florida… The subversive manner in which the CEO/GM position is being eliminated is an omission of a material fact with [sic] which the voter is entitled to know.”

The complaint states that GRU’s financial advisor, PFM Financial Advisors LLC (PFM) conducted an analysis to “ascribe a monetary value to the loss in investor confidence… It was PFM’s opinion that GRU’s bond rating would likely be downgraded, forcing GRU to incur approximately $28.3 million dollars [sic] in higher interest costs… GRU would have no other choice but to recover those higher interest costs from its residential and business customers in the form of higher rates and higher bills.” The attorneys further argue that the uncertainty makes it difficult for GRU to recruit and retain employees.

Count 2 requests temporary and permanent injunctions striking the ballot summary from the November ballot, enjoining the Supervisor of Elections from tabulating the results of the referendum if it is held, and enjoining the City from enforcing the charter amendment if it is approved by the voters.

Count 3 – the business impact estimate is “grossly misleading”

Count 3 states that the City failed to include a business impact estimate before adopting the first version of the ordinance (the first version of the ordinance was passed on first and second readings without a business impact estimate, and then a second version that included a business impact estimate iwas passed on first and second readings). The attorneys argue that although a business impact estimate was included in the second version of the ordinance, it “is grossly misleading, woefully inadequate, and failed to consider the impact of bond downgrades on GRU’s… rates.”

The City’s business impact estimate stated: “There is no direct compliance cost that businesses may reasonably incur due to the proposed ordinance. There is no new charge or fee imposed by the proposed ordinance. There is no anticipated regulatory cost associated with the proposed ordinance.”

Count 3 requests that the court declare both versions of the ordinance null and void and enter temporary and permanent injunctions that would nullify the referendum, if held.

City Commissioner weighs in

Gainesville City Commissioner Bryan Eastman sent the following comment: “This is absurd. The ballots have already been printed and the people will decide in November who they want running their local public utilities: Gov Ron DeSantis or the local ratepayers. If we want a utility that is affordable, sustainable, and community-focused we need one that is accountable to the actual ratepayers, not political appointees of the Governor. That’s just common sense. This GRU Authority knows that, and that’s why they’re so desperate to keep this off the ballot.”