House passes bill preempting control of GRU to the State, Hinson’s amendment fails

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The Florida House passed House Bill 1451 today, including a provision that would preempt the governance of GRU to the State, despite an amendment offered by Rep. Yvonne Hinson to delete that section of the bill; the fate of that provision is now in the hands of the Florida Senate.

House Bill 1451 would place additional regulations on municipal utilities

According to a bill analysis created after the amendment from Rep. Demi Busatta (R-Coral Gables) was adopted without objection by the House Commerce Committee, House Bill 1451 does the following:

• Requires certain public meetings and reporting for municipalities that provide utility service or intend to provide utility service in areas outside of their municipal boundaries.
• Limits the rates, fees, and charges that a municipal water or sewer utility may impose on customers outside the boundaries of the municipality to no more than 25 percent in excess of those imposed on customers within the boundaries.
• Limits the rates, fees, and charges that a municipal utility may impose on the water or wastewater customers it serves within the boundaries of another municipality, where the serving utility uses a water or wastewater treatment plant located within the boundaries of the other municipality to provide such service.
• Expressly preempts to the state the subject of a regional utility authority created by the Legislature through charter amendment after January 1, 2023.

Today’s debate of HB 1451 on the House floor

When asked to explain the bill, Rep. Busatta said, “This bill simply requires reporting, accountability, and transparency on municipal utilities.”

Rep. Fentrice Driskell (D-Tampa) asked how many regional utility authorities meet the definition in the fourth bullet point above, and Busatta replied, “I’m not sure exactly how many that would be.”

Rep. RaShon Young (D-Orlando) asked whether Busatta was aware that the City of Gainesville’s ballot referendum to amend the City’s Charter and return control of GRU to the City Commission is pending before the 1st District Court of Appeals, and Busatta said she didn’t know the answer to that question.

Rep. Robin Bartleman (D-Weston) asked whether the “locally-approved Charter amendment” would be prevented from taking effect if the bill passed, and Busatta said, “I’m not sure if you’re talking about something specific, but that section would preempt it to the State.” Bartleman asked whether it would make a difference that the vote occurred before the bill passed, and Busatta responded, “I’m not familiar with the logistics of the specific incident that you’re referencing.”

Rep. Dianne Hart-Lowman (D-Tampa) asked whether staff had reviewed “the constitutional concerns about changing the law while a voter-approved Charter amendment is under appeal,” and Busatta responded, “I’m not able to tell you what another person has or has not done.”

Rep. Hart-Lowman asked, “My question was, maybe you don’t know what other people do, but your staff, or the staff that does the analysis, have they taken a look?” and the Speaker responded, “I don’t think the Representative can speak on staff and staff analysis.”

Rep. Vanessa Oliver (R-Punta Gorda) asked how the bill “enhances representative government for those that receive utility services that are located outside municipal boundaries,” and Busatta responded, “Right now, municipal utility services operate beyond their municipal boundary. They are not regulated whatsoever. They say they don’t need to be regulated because the voters can vote for them, and if they don’t like what they’re doing, they can vote them out of office. But the reality is, the people that are beyond their municipal boundary cannot vote for them. That is taxation without representation. So this puts parameters in place that require that they have hearings beyond their municipal boundary so those people can have a voice and have a seat at the table.”

Rep. Kelly Skidmore (D-Delray Beach) brought up the Charter amendment regarding GRU and asked specifically whether the bill would preempt that Charter amendment. Busatta replied, “This is not about one specific utility system. Let’s make that clear. This is about many municipal utilities throughout our state that are using the utilities as their personal slush funds, and it needs to stop.”

Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-Orlando) asked where the date “January 1, 2023” came from, and Busatta responded, “I thought it was a great day to start.” When Eskamani said the date coincided with the bill creating the GRU Authority, Busatta said, “That portion of the bill would apply to anything that happens after that date; it’s not about one specific system.” Eskamani asked for examples of systems that would be impacted, and Busatta replied, “That is not part of this bill. I don’t name any specific utility system in this bill.”

Rep. Hinson’s amendment

Rep. Yvonne Hinson (D-Gainesville) offered an amendment that would delete the language about regional utility authorities and said, “My amendment is simple. It strikes out a late-added provision to the bill that has had very little analysis but would have a significant impact on my residents, including me. Section 4 preempts the governance of a regional utility authority created after January 1, 2023; that specifically was Gainesville Regional Utilities. As written, it applies to only one community at the moment — mine — and would nullify two certified election results, 73% in 2024 and 75% in 2025. It will also change the law in the middle of an ongoing judicial process; we have a lawsuit in place. My amendment removes that language and allows HB 1451 to move forward clearly on its own purpose, which is to regulate surcharges outside jurisdictional boundaries. I don’t understand why someone in Miami would care about what’s going on in Gainesville.”

Rep. Busatta said, “To clarify a few things that were just mentioned, this was not late-added. It was a timely filed amendment, part of a larger amendment during the committee process. Furthermore, I care about what happens to every single Floridian throughout the entire state, because we cannot forget, what we do up here affects every single Floridian, not just our district.”

Rep. Eskamani said, “This body has been debating GRU for a long time, and the residents have pushed back and have voted to really maintain iindependence on this. And so yes, the language comes from committee, but there’s concern from Gainesville and surrounding areas that we are targeting specifically GRU to preempt it back to the State of Florida, which was the debate we had during the 2023-24 session. So I would just encourage us — if you like other parts of the bill, this is the piece of really collective concern. And I think the language is just good policy, it respects local control, and also respects the will of those voters over in Gainesville.”

Closing debate on the amendment, Rep. Hinson said, “Colleagues, I’m offering this amendment for three simple reasons. First, the voters in my community spoke clearly and overwhelmingly, 73% and then 75% voted for change. That vote was certified, a court ruled they had the right to vote on it, and we should not override the people. Second, this issue is before the courts. The 1st District Court of Appeal is reviewing the case right now. This body has long respected the idea that we do not change the law in the middle of active litigation. We should allow the judicial process to play out. Third, the people most affected by this language have not had a real chance to weigh in. Section 4 was added at the final committee stop, not originally. My residents did not have the opportunity to review it. Local government in my area have raised serious concerns, and they sent thousands of emails out, by the way, about how this broad language could affect bonding operations and local authority beyond just this governance issue. And, may I add, the GRU Authority that the State has put in place has made a circus of our utility, a circus act. I tell you, the CEO is giving himself large raises, $20 and $30,000 at a time, and there’s more. Now I want to be clear. I am not asking you to vote yes because you think the GRU Authority is good or bad. I’m asking you to vote yes, to let the process play out. Don’t nullify the votes of 40,000 GRU ratepayers, 75% of the public — and I’m talking both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats want this change — and allow the judicial process to proceed without legislative interference.”

Hinson’s amendment failed on a voice vote, and the bill was rolled over to a third reading.

Roll-call vote on the bill

Closing debate on the bill, Busatta said, “Members, I ask for your support on this legislation that puts our residents first, that says that municipal utilities cannot fund their political wants off the backs of hard-working Floridians.”

The bill passed, 81-26, and it has been sent over to the Senate; the Senate version of the bill, SB 1724, does not include the language about regional utility authorities. Rep. Chuck Brannan (R-Macclenny) did not vote, Rep. Chad Johnson (R-Chiefland) voted in favor of the bill, and Rep. Hinson voted against the bill.