Claims of insurrection and debates of voter turnout filled a third-floor courtroom at Tallahassee\u2019s First District Court of Appeal Tuesday morning.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Representatives from the city of Gainesville and the Gainesville Regional Utilities Authority Board met for an argument<\/a> to present each side of the ongoing referendum<\/a> litigation.\u00a0<\/p>\n The three-judge panel gave each side 20 minutes, a five-minute extension from what was originally planned for the hearing. Samuel J. Salario Jr., the attorney representing the GRU authority board, spoke first.<\/p>\n \u201cThe city of Gainesville is engaged in an insurrection against the state government,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n When Judge L. Clayton Roberts said \u201cinsurrection\u201d was \u201ca little strong,\u201d Salario defended his use of the term. By issuing the referendum, the city has tried to destroy an independent board appointed by the state legislature, he said, a power that doesn\u2019t fall to local government.<\/p>\n The hearing was the latest in a yearslong battle between the city, the authority and the state.<\/p>\n As established in a state law, Gainesville\u2019s utilities have been led by a five-member authority board appointed<\/a> by Gov. Ron DeSantis since 2023. Before then, the city controlled its own utilities.<\/p>\n Former state Rep. Chuck Clemons drafted the house bill establishing the board. Citing bankruptcy and high utility rates, Clemons said an independent board could help organize the service.<\/p>\n Gainesville residents voted twice to return control of local utilities to the city. After a 2024 referendum was nullified because of unclear wording on the ballot, Gainesville residents voted for the second time in a November 2025 special election.<\/p>\n Though the 2025 referendum passed by a three-fourths majority vote, an appeals court ruled it can\u2019t go into effect until ongoing lawsuits against the city \u2014 regarding the 2024 referendum \u2014\u00a0are settled.<\/p>\n It was the 2024 referendum, therefore, that brought the parties to Tallahassee on Tuesday \u2014 a fight Judge Thomas D. Winokur called unnecessary.<\/p>\n \u201cWhy are we talking about the 2024 ordinance at all?\u201d Winokur asked. \u201cHow is this case not completely moot?\u201d<\/p>\n \n Enjoy what you’re reading? Get content from The Alligator delivered to your inbox<\/p>\n The pro-Authority argument<\/p>\n The authority board is suing over the latest referendum, Salario clarified, which he expects will be similar to arguments against the 2024 version \u2014 which is why Tuesday\u2019s hearing was still valuable.<\/p>\n \u201cIn our view, it\u2019s an issue of importance,\u201d he said, referring to the hearing.<\/p>\n The city\u2019s referendum, he said, violated both the content and intent of the state statute.<\/p>\n When the state government creates an independent unit, only the state government can destroy it, Salario said. Attempting to disband a state-appointed entity like the GRU Authority, therefore, steps on the state\u2019s toes.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s the legislature\u2019s exclusive power to create,\u201d Salario said. \u201cIt\u2019s got to be the legislature\u2019s exclusive power to abolish.\u201d<\/p>\n The city shouldn\u2019t be able to \u201cdestroy the authority altogether,\u201d he said, especially when the authority board\u2019s creation was intended to resolve residents\u2019 concerns.<\/p>\n The GRU Authority arose in response to real concerns on the ground about debt and high utility rates, Salario said. In that context, the city\u2019s actions against the board are \u201cpretty dramatic,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe city can\u2019t flip on a dime and abolish it in one year from its enactment,\u201d Salario said.<\/p>\n The pro-city argument<\/p>\n But for Joseph T. Eagleton, who represented the city of Gainesville at Tuesday\u2019s hearing, the issue comes down to the \u201chome rule\u201d right. Florida\u2019s home rule statute<\/a> gives local governments the right to govern themselves.<\/p>\n Besides, Eagleton added, the city has no way to know what the state intended in forming the authority board \u2014 only what it wrote in the statute. When Judge Winokur protested that the intent was clear \u2014 to create an authority \u2014 Eagleton argued it wasn\u2019t that simple.<\/p>\n The legislature wouldn\u2019t create the authority board just for the city to turn around and abolish it, the judges added. But Eagleton said the process to fight the state-appointed board wasn\u2019t a snap judgment.<\/p>\n \u201cThat may be a good sound bite, but it\u2019s just not true with what the city has done here,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n The supermajority seen in both referendum votes, Eagleton said, offers a clear view of residents\u2019 preferences.<\/p>\n Judges, however, argued the special election\u2019s low turnout didn\u2019t attract a large enough voter base to represent the entirety of the city \u2014\u00a0let alone the rest of GRU customers, some of whom living outside Gainesville and unable to vote in the election.<\/p>\n But with the change written directly into the city charter, Eagleton said the state would need to be more specific if it wanted to prevent the city from amending it \u2014\u00a0a power guaranteed by state statute.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI think if the legislature intended for the city of Gainesville not to be able to amend this provision through its home rule authority, then the legislature needed to say so,\u201d Eagleton said.<\/p>\n While the city continues to fight for control of its utilities, a similar bill on utility services moves forward in the state legislature. Senate Bill 1724<\/a> aims to tighten rules governing how city-owned utilities serve customers outside municipal boundaries.\u00a0<\/p>\n