“We’re not going to end this quickly”: Gainesville City Commission postpones decision on response to judge’s ruling on GRU referendum

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the beginning of their April 3 meeting, the Gainesville City Commission heard an update on the GRU Authority’s lawsuit against their ballot referendum to regain control of GRU and decided to wait before making any decisions about how to respond.

The discussion was added to the agenda at the last minute, requested by Mayor Harvey Ward, who said it was “a time-sensitive item” because “honestly, I thought there was a little more movement from the judge than I had expected. So I thought it important that we have a conversation this morning.”

Judge Wright ruled on three arguments from the GRU Authority

City Attorney Daniel Nee explained the verbal ruling from Judge George Wright on each of the three counts in the GRU Authority’s complaint that challenged the City’s ballot referendum to regain control of the utility; the referendum passed with almost 73% of the vote in the November 2024 election, but Judge Wright previously stayed implementation of the change, pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

The Authority’s first argument was that the City Commission did not have the authority to pass an ordinance that would have the effect of undoing a Charter amendment that was passed as part of a Special Act of the legislature. The City’s position is that the legislature’s Act amended the City’s Charter, and the Charter can subsequently be amended by the electorate. Judge Wright agreed with the City, which Nee said “is a significant Home Rule issue.”

The Authority’s second argument was that the ballot language was misleading. Nee said it’s “noteworthy that the issue [Judge Wright] raised was not within the issues raised technically by the GRU Authority… The judge… sort of jokingly cautioned us that this is what you get when you have a judge that was an English major… [He said] the term ‘elected’ prior to City Commission was a pre-positive modifier that could be construed by voters to be modifying both ‘City Commission’ and ‘Charter Officer.’ So it would be misleading if people thought that this Charter amendment was going to provide for elected Charter Officers. There’s no indication anyone, factually, was misled, and again, it wasn’t raised by the attorneys who were assailing the referendum.”

The Authority’s third argument was that the Business Impact Estimate was insufficient. Nee said the Authority argued that returning control of the utility to the City Commission could have the indirect effect of reducing the utility’s bond ratings, which could lead to increased utility rates that would affect private businesses. The City argued that was an indirect effect and the Business Impact Estimate requires the City to consider only direct effects. Judge Wright agreed with the City.

Ruling nullified the ballot referendum result

Nee explained that a loss on any one of those arguments invalidates the ballot referendum, so even though the City prevailed on two of the arguments, the ballot referendum was nullified. He said both parties can appeal the ruling, and his recommendation was for the City Commission to direct his office to “pursue all available appellate remedies, utilizing our resources, and retain counsel to again represent the City’s rights and represent the referendum approved by almost 73% of the voters.” He said the appeal process would probably take at least a year. Nee concluded, “Nothing has to be done today.” He said that once the judge renders his order in writing, the City will have 30 days to appeal.

Ward: “A victory for the people of Gainesville, for the rule of law, and for Home Rule as a concept in Florida”

Ward said, “I feel like that was a victory for the people of Gainesville, for the rule of law, and for Home Rule as a concept in Florida, and I know that that will continue to be challenged, but I think that was a good step along the way.”

Nee agreed and said the reason the City believed the referendum was valid was that the legislature chose to create the Authority by amending the City’s Charter, which can also be amended by the residents of the city. He acknowledged the objection that GRU customers who live outside the city limits were unable to vote on the referendum but said that’s because only city residents can amend the City’s Charter.

Eastman: “What we can do right this moment is, we can put a new ballot amendment on the ballot at a Special Election and fix the wording issues.”

Commissioner Bryan Eastman said, “I think what is clearly best for both the utility and for the City is for us to figure out a way that we could move forward with this whole thing, find a way that would bring the utility under the people, the ratepayers, the people of the city of Gainesville, whatever that looks like, and ensure that there’s some stability within GRU, and so I’m not necessarily in favor of appealing it today… What we can do right this moment is, we can put a new ballot amendment on the ballot at a Special Election and fix the wording issues.”

Nee said he respected the judge’s ruling, but “I wouldn’t concede that the language does not satisfy the requirements… I think the standard to nullify an election based upon the language is very high… I do not think that ballot language was ‘clearly misleading.’ Now, the judge does, and he’s the judge.”

Eastman said he didn’t think “a single person was confused by what the language is. This was the most discussed issue that we’ve had in our community for a long time.” He reiterated that he would still like to “see whether the GRU Authority would like to find a way to work with the City of Gainesville and try to find a way that the voters are heard and if there are certain ways that we could make that ballot amendment work, that would allow some of the issues that they would like to see in there… I would like to see if there’s some form of diplomacy here and if there’s some way that we can do it without having a year’s worth of what we just went through for the last two years; it’s been hard on everybody involved in this.”

Willits: “It does seem like it would be quicker, literally quicker, to re-run the referendum than to continue an appeal.”

Commissioner Casey Willits said, “It does seem like it would be quicker, literally quicker, to re-run the referendum than to continue an appeal. I lean towards not appealing for the sake of re-running. I believe the voters will amend their Charter again if we gave them that opportunity.”

Nee reminded them that the City “might be in an appellate posture, anyway,” if the Authority decides to appeal, “so your decision as to whether you want to appeal on Issue Two may also be partly contingent on whether they appeal.”

Ingle: “Is there any reason we can’t appeal and move forward with running another election?”

Commissioner James Ingle asked, “Is there any reason we can’t appeal and move forward with running another election?” Nee said, “No reason.” Ingle suggested negotiating with the Authority “on ballot language they would prefer to see or to get some of those issues done so we can get this back in front of voters,… but I’ve got very little faith that we’re bargaining in good faith with this other entity.” He said he wanted the City to “at least prep for appeal” and “start looking at ballot language and moving forward on what it’s going to take to… move forward with another election.”

Book: “We’re not in an exigent circumstance today”

Commissioner Ed Book said the City needs to be prepared for both an appeal and a referendum, but “we’re not in an exigent circumstance today,” and the GRU Authority meets this evening. He added, “I would not be in favor of voting today on something without the benefit of [the judge’s written order].”

Book said there are “probably advantages and disadvantages” to a joint meeting with the GRU Authority since “there wasn’t a lot of conversation” at a previous joint meeting. He said, however, that it might be “advantageous for us down the road to say we attempted to work out these things.”

Chestnut: “That is the elephant in the room: getting something back for the citizens for all that they have invested for a utility that they have owned over 100 years.”

Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut reminded the other Commissioners that since the next election is in August 2026, “we’re looking at a Special Election. And if we’re going to re-run the language, which I would support, I think that we should have a discussion with GRU on how they can return to the citizens on their investment in GRU.” She suggested that both the City and GRU can appoint staff members to “work together to see if they can come up with some language on getting that return on our investment back to the people, because that is the elephant in the room: getting something back for the citizens for all that they have invested for a utility that they have owned over 100 years.”

Ward: “The people already did their work… I feel like asking them to go back and do more work once again is not the direction I would like to go.”

Ward said, “The people already did their work. The people came to us and said, ‘Please put this on a ballot.’ We put it on a ballot. They went to the polls and they spoke. More than seven out of ten of them gave a very clear desire to bring this back to the Gainesville City Commission and to disband the new part of the Charter. They’ve done their work. I feel like asking them to go back and do more work once again is not the direction I would like to go. I’m happy to have another election – I love elections – but elections cost money, too, and elections cost time and effort on behalf of the citizenry. I would prefer us to say, ‘You spoke, people of Gainesville, and we will support your decision.’ And their decision was to bring it back. I think we ought to appeal because of that, because the people already did their work.” He said he would support “another election, particularly a Special Election… if the court did not support an appeal.”

Ward said the City would need to pay attorneys for the appeal regardless of whether they appealed or the Authority appealed, and the Authority has been charging the City for its attorney expenses, “even though they filed the suit, which I find absurd, but that’s neither here nor there.”

Ward: “We’re going to have to get comfortable with ambiguity as it relates to the utility, and that, frankly, continues to be the case.”

Ward said he’s been saying for over two years that “we’re going to have to get comfortable with ambiguity as it relates to the utility, and that, frankly, continues to be the case. We are not going to end this quickly… I wish there was a way to get to something that is mutually beneficial and move forward,… [but] this was adversarial from the very beginning, and it continues to be, and I’m sorry that that’s where we are.”

Public comment

During public comment, Janice Garry, who said she was speaking as a private citizen, thanked Ward for his comments “because the people did very good work and resoundingly arrived at the polls because of some of our local institutions that supported that. So just wanted to thank you for recognizing that.” She said she was “comforted that… our legislative delegation… has no appetite for being involved in GRU” but warned that the legislature could still act. She encouraged “just considering the idea of negotiating… I like the idea of taking some time to pause.”

After public comment, Book again said he thought the Commission should wait to hear what the Authority decides and to read the judge’s order before acting. He added, “And at least a couple of members of the Authority have changed since that one time that we had a joint meeting, right? There’s only four of them, and two are different from when we had a joint meeting… Doesn’t mean our discussions might change, but it means we’re not interacting with exactly the same people.” [Editor’s note: at the time of the joint meeting in February 2024, there was a vacancy on the five-member board; since that time, two of the four resigned, three new members were appointed, and one of those resigned and was replaced by a new appointee. There are now five directors on the Authority board.]

Eastman: “Constantly having these endless back-and-forth fights is not good for anybody.”

Eastman agreed that he didn’t want to “make any direct motions coming out of the gate… We care deeply about the City’s utilities, and the people of our city want to see some stability, and constantly having these endless back-and-forth fights is not good for anybody.” He said he wanted the ball to be in GRU’s court to decide whether to “cooperate or communicate or… continue on the same path we’ve been on, which is this constant back-and-forth.”

Nee said his office was prepared to preserve the City’s appellate rights and did not otherwise need any other direction right away, and Eastman said he was “comfortable waiting to see how the discussion goes tonight and then bring that forward at a later date.”

Ingle: “I don’t think any motion is necessary today, but… this is unjust.”

Ingle said he didn’t think “anything should be off the table,” particularly given the City’s budget deficit that is “almost exactly what they arbitrarily decided to cut out of the [Government] Services Contribution. This is a hugely important issue for our City, for our people… The people have been very, very clear on where it is they stand on this issue, and I think it is incumbent for us to push very hard in any available path to make that voice come into reality… I don’t think any motion is necessary today, but… this is unjust.”

Ward asked the Clerk to put a GRU Update item on the General Policy Committee agendas for April 10 and April 24 so it will be there if needed. He concluded, “I look forward to whatever comes next and floating down the river of ambiguity, as uncomfortable as it may be.”