Judge Wright files order enjoining City from taking any action to enforce GRU referendum until case is resolved on the merits

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – In a written order filed on November 15, Judge George Wright formalized his October 23 verbal order enjoining the City of Gainesville from taking any action to enforce the results of a referendum on GRU governance that received support from 72.56% of voters who live in the city limits in the 2024 General Election.

In his order, Judge Wright wrote that his evaluation of a motion for temporary injunctive relief is not decided on the merits of the case but on a four-pronged test:

• Lack of an adequate remedy at law
• Irreparable harm
• Substantial likelihood of success on the merits
• Consideration of principles of public policy

He added, “The only relief the Court may award in response to a motion for a temporary injunction is a determination of what the status quo is and an order that such status quo be maintained until the matter is heard and decided on the merits… [T]he Court explicitly states that it has not heard any evidence resulting in a merits-based decision on this matter.”

Lack of an adequate remedy at law

Chris Lover, CFA, who was accepted as an expert witness in the field of public financing and public bonds, testified that if control of GRU was transferred back to the Gainesville City Commission, it is likely that GRU would suffer a bond downgrade and that multiple changes in the governance of GRU could lead to a need to either increase rates or decrease services to customers to compensate for the financial costs of the downgrade.

GRU CEO Ed Bielarski, who was accepted as an expert witness in the field of public utility management and finance, testified that a change in GRU governance would have a “significant negative impact on how stable bond agencies perceive GRU to be and, therefore, would likely result in negative action by the bond agencies themselves.”

The judge wrote that the attorneys for the City argued that a decrease in bond rating could be compensated adequately with existing funds, but “[t]he Court does not find such argument compelling.”

Judge Wright wrote, “The Court finds that… failure to grant the requested injunction could have an impact on the full faith and credit and reputation of GRU and [the GRU Authority]… The above is a harm not compensable in monetary damages… The Court accordingly finds that there is no adequate remedy at law available to the [GRU Authority].”

Irreparable harm

Judge Wright referred to a finding in a previous case that irreparable harm is “a material injury that continues for the remainder of the case and cannot be corrected on appeal” and “the law recognizes that a continuing constitutional violation, in and of itself, constitutes irreparable harm.” Wright added, “Accordingly, the [GRU Authority] need only show evidence of conflict between State law and the City ordinance [placing the referendum on the ballot] in order to show irreparable harm in the form of the existence of a constitutional violation.”

The judge noted that a provision in the Special Act that created the GRU Authority states, “In the event that any City charter provision, ordinance, resolution, decree, or any part thereof conflicts with the provisions of this article, the provisions of this article shall govern” and the ordinance placing the referendum on the ballot “purports to delete in its entirety” the section of the City’s charter that established the GRU Authority.

Wright also referred back to Lover’s testimony about the likelihood of a bond downgrade and wrote that he “finds persuasive Mr. Lover’s expert testimony that the multiple changes of governance of GRU is an irreparable harm.”

Wright concluded, “[The City] asserted that [the GRU Authority] would cease to exist as an entity if the referendum were to pass and an injunction were not granted, which would be the ultimate irreparable harm.”

Substantial likelihood of success on the merits

Judge Wright wrote, “[The City] questioned what right the [GRU Authority] had to exist, and the Court finds that the answer is via State law through the Florida Legislature’s decision to enact the Special Act. The Special Act created the [GRU Authority] and this issue at hand is 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 Florida Legislature. The Court concludes that the [GRU Authority] has demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the City lacks such authority.”

The judge cited case law where ordinances have been invalidated as inconsistent with state statutes. For example, in City of Palm Bay v. Well Fargo Bank, N.A., the 5th DCA held that “[a]lthough a municipality has broad home rule powers to enact local ordinances… the ordinances may not conflict with a state statute.” In City of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., a court held, “If doubt exists as to the extent of a power attempted to be exercised which may affect the operation of a state statute, the doubt is to be resolved against the ordinance and in favor of the statute.”

Judge Wright concluded that the GRU Authority has “met the requirement of a showing beyond a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”

Consideration of principles of public policy

Judge Wright wrote that the City “argued that the granting of an injunction in this matter removes the vote of the people. The Court does not find this argument persuasive.”

The judge wrote that the Florida Legislature, which was elected by the people of Florida and represents the people of Florida, passed the Special Act creating the GRU Authority. He stated that the public interest is advanced by a clear understanding of which entity has the legal right to govern GRU, and public policy is advanced by a clear understanding as to whether the City has a right to put the referendum on the ballot.

He concluded, “There is no harm to the public interest in maintaining the status quo – with the [GRU Authority] running GRU – in this matter during the pendency of this case.”

Order

Judge Wright found that the GRU Authority was not required to post a bond and ordered, “The [City] is hereby enjoined from taking any action to enforce the proposed charter amendment set forth in Ordinance 2024-448 in the event the measure is approved by the voters until the resolution of the issues of this case on the merits.”

Next steps

At the November 6 GRU Authority meeting, Authority Attorney Scott Walker said he and City Attorney Daniel Nee have agreed to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. Walker explained that this can be done when there is no disagreement on the material facts of the case but only on the law; after documents are submitted by both sides, the judge rules on the law. Walker said this will likely happen in January or February.