Gainesville Regional Utility Authority v. City of Gainesville · No. 1D2025-1364 (Fla. 1st DCA) · Decided October 7, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
When the Legislature creates a utility authority through a special law that amends a city’s charter, the city cannot later adopt its own charter amendment that conflicts with that enactment, the First District Court of Appeal has held. The court reversed a summary judgment that had allowed the City of Gainesville to delete the charter article creating the Gainesville Regional Utility Authority, and it dismissed as moot the City’s cross-appeal over the ballot summary used in the 2024 vote.
What Happened
The City established Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) in 1912 as a publicly owned electric system. In 2023, after the City had operated GRU at a loss, the Legislature enacted a special law, Chapter 2023-348, Laws of Florida, which amended the City’s charter to add Article VII and created the Authority to govern GRU.
In June 2024, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 2024-448, submitting to voters a charter amendment deleting Article VII in its entirety. The Authority sued to keep the measure off the ballot, but the summary appeared on the November 5, 2024 general election ballot and voters approved it. Later that month, the trial court enjoined the City from enforcing the amendment pending resolution of the case on the merits.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled for the City on Count I, which alleged the amendment conflicted with the Legislature’s special act. It relied on section 166.031, Florida Statutes, which permits a municipality to amend its charter “notwithstanding any charter provisions to the contrary.” On Count II, it ruled for the Authority, finding the ballot summary misleading, emphasizing the use of the adjective “elected” to modify both the “City Commission” and the “charter officer.” The Authority appealed Count I, and the City cross-appealed Count II.
What the Court Held
The 2026 Act. After oral argument, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed chapter 2026-135, Laws of Florida, section 4 of which provides that “[t]he subject of a regional utilities authority created by the Legislature through charter amendment after January 1, 2023, is expressly preempted to the state.” The court declined to decide the Act’s effect, reasoning that its effect, “including its constitutionality, is a matter that should be litigated before we consider it.” The court said it reached its result “regardless of the 2026 Act.”
Count I. The Authority did not dispute the City’s general power to amend its charter; it argued that power does not reach an amendment conflicting with legislation. The court agreed. It pointed to Article VIII, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and to section 166.021(4), Florida Statutes, which extends municipal authority only where it is “not expressly prohibited by the constitution, general or special law[.]” The principle that a municipality may amend its charter regardless of contrary charter provisions, the court wrote, “applies only to conflicting charter provisions—not to limitations imposed by the Florida Constitution or by state law.”
The court discussed Gaines v. City of Orlando, 450 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and Lake Worth Utilities Authority v. City of Lake Worth, 468 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1985), in which utility bodies created by stand-alone special acts could not be curtailed or dissolved by local action. Gainesville’s Authority differs because it was created by a special law amending the charter rather than by a stand-alone act. The court found that difference immaterial: “Either way, the utility’s authority stems from a special law enacted by the Legislature.” It held 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 court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the Authority on Count I.
Count II. After correcting the issues the trial court identified, the City placed Ordinance 2025-416 on the ballot, and voters again approved removing Article VII. The Authority sued again, and that action has been stayed pending judgment in this case. Because both ordinances shared the same purpose, the court held, a ruling on the 2024 ballot summary “can have no actual effect” now that Ordinance 2025-416 “has already achieved the same outcome.” It dismissed the City’s cross-appeal as moot.
Why It Matters
The decision addresses a structural question not presented in Gaines and Lake Worth: whether a city’s charter-amendment power under section 166.031 lets it undo a body the Legislature placed inside the charter itself. The First District answered no, treating a special law that amends a charter the same as a stand-alone special act for purposes of municipal authority. The court expressly did not decide the effect or constitutionality of chapter 2026-135, and it did not rule on the merits of the 2024 ballot summary.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | First District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 1D2025-1364 |
| Lower Court | Circuit Court, Alachua County (Judge George Micah Wright) |
| Opinion by | Judge Winokur (Judges Roberts and Kelsey concurring) |
| Decided | October 7, 2026 |
| Result | Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the Authority on Count I; cross-appeal on Count II dismissed as moot |