A circuit court judge ruled on Wednesday that a referendum on the November 2024 ballot that passed with overwhelming support to return control of Gainesville Regional Utilities to the City of Gainesville was null due to unclear language on the ballot summary.
During the four-hour hearing, Judge George M. Wright ruled that the city did have the authority to pass such ordinances for citizens to vote as to who they want to hold control over GRU.
He also stated that the city did not violate any laws when it came to the requirements of the Business Economic Impact.
However, the judge ruled that the votes that occurred in November were rendered null as the language used on the ballot summary was misleading to voters.
“An objective, ordinary citizen reading this [ballot summary] would reasonably conclude that by voting yes, they would be placing the responsibility with an elected city commission and an elected charter officer,” Wright said.
However, in Gainesville, charter officers are appointed by city commissioners, not elected.
This ruling means that the referendum, which passed with nearly 73% of the vote, was void and another referendum could be held again for the city commissioners to dissolve the Gainesville Regional Utilities Authority Board.
The legal battle began on Sept. 10 after GRUA filed three complaints against the city, with each citing separate arguments against a city ordinance.
Ordinances 2024-352 and 2024-48 were passed by the city commissioners on May 23. That allowed residents to vote on a referendum during the November election that would return control of Gainesville Regional Utilities to the city. Back in 2023, HB 1645, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, gave this power to a board appointed by him.
GRUA filed three counts of declaratory and injunctive relief against the city when the ordinance passed. It cited three different situations.
First, the city did not have the authority to pass the ordinance as the authority board believed it directly conflicted with HB 1645. Second, the language used in the ballot summary for the referendum was not unambiguous. And thirdly, the city failed to comply with the need for a Business Economic Impact to be posted with the passing of any ordinance.
“It misses the crux of this case, which is the Florida Legislator breathed life into an entity and charged it with certain powers, and the governor appointed the board to perform certain activities,” said David A. Theriaque, an attorney for GRUA.
Attorneys for the authority board argued that the ordinance was in direct conflict with HB 1645, which states that the board would be free of control from city commissioners. It also states that, if an ordinance were to be in direct conflict with the bill, the provisions of the bill would prevail.
Assistant City Attorney Sean McDermott argued that city commissioners had the authority to pass the ordinance. He argued that the original HB 1645 was one method of changing the charter, with the other being referendums and ordinances.
“More specifically, [this case] doesn’t involve a conflict between a lower insignificant law and some higher state law, but rather it involves the city exercising its authority found in the charter and given explicitly by the state to amend another provision in the charter,” McDermott said.
McDermott referenced how in previous court rulings referenced by opposing counsel, state legislators had made it a point to create these authority boards as a separate entity.
However, in this situation, legislators chose to have the special act be an amendment to the city charter. Thus, the city has the power to amend the charter at will.
In the end, Wright said there was enough support from Florida statutes and constitution giving municipalities the authority to amend their charters.
GRUA attorneys argued that the ballot summary used during the November election for the referendum was not clear.
Kiersten N. Ballou, an attorney for GRUA, stated that the ballot title and summary did not fairly inform residents of the chief purpose of the proposed charter amendment. She further argued that the amendment would not restore the previous position of general manager of utilities as part of the designated charter office.
The city’s assistant attorney argued that this complaint was essentially moot as the referendum had already passed. McDermott referenced how the Supreme Court of Florida previously ruled that once the votes have been proposed and passed, they should not be taken down. He also argued that even overlooking the mootness, the ballot summary stated its chief purpose and did not mislead the people.
Wright ruled in favor of GRUA on the second count, however, it was for separate reasons. He cited that the line “with the elected city commission and charter office” would mislead an objective voter into thinking that the charter office is also an elected position.
Wright also ruled in favor of the city on GRUA’s complaint that the city had failed to comply with the requirement for a Business Economic Impact alongside the ordinance’s passing.
The Business Economic Impact requires city commissioners to provide a good faith estimate as to any direct costs private and for-profit businesses may incur to comply with the ordinance. The city had originally stated that there was no direct financial impact.
McDermott argued that the Business Economic Impact only states direct costs, such as fees or other costs to comply with the ordinance, on any private and for-profit business. This would also exclude GRU, as it is a public entity.
After the hearing, Gainesville Communication Director Jennifer Smart emailed various media about what may happen in the future. She said the Gainesville City Commission is expected to discuss the possibility of a reworded ballot referendum “designed to honor the will of the 72.5% of city voters who supported returning GRU to city control.”
“City leadership and staff will continue to work with the GRU Authority Board to resolve issues of mutual importance, advocate on behalf of city residents and GRU customers, and ensure reliable utility service for our community,” according to the city’s statement in response to the ruling.