Key Points

  • The First District reversed summary judgment for the City of Gainesville and directed judgment for the Gainesville Regional Utility Authority on Count I.
  • The court held that a municipality cannot adopt a charter amendment that conflicts with a special law, even when the special law itself amended the city's charter to create the utility authority.
  • The court extended Lake Worth Utilities Authority v. City of Lake Worth and Gaines v. City of Orlando, which involved authorities created by stand-alone special laws, to a special law written into the charter.
  • The court declined to decide the effect or constitutionality of the 2026 preemption act, chapter 2026-135, saying those questions should first be litigated.
  • The City's cross-appeal over the 2024 ballot summary was dismissed as moot because voters approved a corrected 2025 ordinance with the same purpose; the Authority's suit over that ordinance is stayed.

Gainesville cannot use a voter-approved charter amendment to abolish the board the Florida Legislature created in 2023 to run the city's publicly owned utility, a Florida appeals court ruled on Wednesday, reversing a trial judge who had held that the city's home-rule powers let it rewrite its own charter.

A three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal ruled for the Gainesville Regional Utility Authority, which governs the city-owned Gainesville Regional Utilities. Judge Winokur wrote the opinion, and Judges Roberts and Kelsey concurred. The panel sent the case back to the Alachua County Circuit Court with instructions to enter judgment for the Authority on its central claim.

The decision applies an existing rule to a new form of legislation. Florida courts had already held that a city may not dissolve or curtail a utility body the Legislature created through a stand-alone special law. The First District held that the same rule protects a body the Legislature created by amending the city's charter directly, rejecting the city's position that voters could remove what the Legislature had placed in the charter.

Gainesville established its utility in 1912 as a publicly owned electric system, the opinion said. In 2023, "after the City had operated GRU at a loss," the Legislature enacted Chapter 2023-348, Laws of Florida, which added Article VII to the city charter and created the Authority to govern the utility. Article VII provides that the Authority "shall be free from direction and control of the Gainesville City Commission" and that Article VII controls over any conflicting charter provision or ordinance.

In June 2024, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 2024-448, which asked voters to delete Article VII entirely. The Authority sued to keep the measure off the ballot, but it went before voters on Nov. 5, 2024, with a summary describing it as "eliminating the governor-appointed Gainesville Regional Utility Authority" and "placing that responsibility with the elected city commission and charter officer." Voters approved it; the city later told the court that 73% had voted in favor. Later that month, the trial court barred the city from enforcing the amendment while the case proceeded.

On summary judgment, Circuit Judge George Micah Wright sided with the city on the Authority's first count. He relied on section 166.031, Florida Statutes, which permits a city to amend its charter "notwithstanding any charter provisions to the contrary," and on a 1982 Attorney General opinion. The city had argued that if the Legislature had meant to stop the city from amending the charter, it would have created the Authority by a separate special act outside the charter. Judge Wright ruled for the Authority on a second count, finding the ballot summary misleading, in part because it applied the word "elected" to both the commission and the charter officer.

The First District grounded its reversal in Article VIII, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution, which lets cities exercise power for municipal purposes "except as otherwise provided by law," and in a statute limiting home-rule power to actions not prohibited by general or special law. The panel acknowledged that cities may amend their charters regardless of contrary charter text, but Judge Winokur wrote that "that principle applies only to conflicting charter provisions—not to limitations imposed by the Florida Constitution or by state law."

The panel drew on two earlier cases. In Gaines v. City of Orlando, the Fifth District in 1984 struck down a charter amendment curbing the Orlando Utilities Commission, which a 1923 special act had created. In Lake Worth Utilities Authority v. City of Lake Worth, the Florida Supreme Court in 1985 held unconstitutional a city ordinance dissolving a utility authority the Legislature had created by special law. In both cases the special law stood outside the city charter.

Judge Winokur wrote that the difference did not change the result. "Neither the Florida Constitution nor the Florida Statutes distinguishes special laws based on their purpose or title; so, for purposes of municipal authority, special laws are treated uniformly," the opinion said. Whether the Legislature acts directly or through a charter amendment, he wrote, "the utility's authority stems from a special law enacted by the Legislature." The court concluded that "even when the Legislature enacts a special law that amends a municipal charter, a municipality cannot subsequently adopt a charter amendment that conflicts with that legislative enactment."

The panel declined to rule on a 2026 law that the Legislature passed and the governor signed after oral argument. Section 4 of chapter 2026-135, Laws of Florida, provides that "the subject of a regional utilities authority created by the Legislature through charter amendment after January 1, 2023, is expressly preempted to the state." In supplemental briefs, the city argued that the law lacked clear retroactive intent and could not constitutionally apply to the case, while the Authority argued that abolition is the "ultimate act" of regulation and control. The court wrote that "the effect of the 2026 Act, including its constitutionality, is a matter that should be litigated before we consider it," and said it would reach the same result regardless.

The court dismissed the city's cross-appeal over the 2024 ballot summary as moot. After the trial court's ruling, the city corrected the problems the judge had identified and placed Ordinance 2025-416 on the ballot, and voters again approved removing Article VII. Because both ordinances "shared the same purpose: to eliminate Article VII and dissolve the Authority," the panel held that a ruling on the 2024 summary "can have no actual effect."

The Authority's second suit, challenging the 2025 measure, has been stayed pending judgment in this appeal, the opinion said.

Lawyers for the Authority included Alan Lawson of Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC. Lawyers for the city included Sean M. McDermott of the City of Gainesville.

The case returns to the trial court for entry of judgment for the Authority on Count I. By its own terms, the decision is not final until the court disposes of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.