Eastman: GRU in Numbers, Part 2

Understanding the GRU's Financial Landscape

In my previous article, I delved into the history of the General Fund Transfer (GFT) and highlighted how its role in the GRU’s budget is often exaggerated. One of the most insightful perspectives came from Ed Bielarski, whose statements have been frequently referenced. His past actions and words provide a valuable lens through which to understand the current situation.

Now, it's time to shift focus to the present and the future of the GRU. The key priorities are maintaining stability, affordability, and sustainability. To achieve this, it's essential to rely on factual information, which will be supported by quotes, links, and numerical data.

The GRU Authority's Role in Budget Cuts

A common claim is that the GRU Authority cut the transfer from $38 million to $8.5 million. However, 77% of that reduction was made by the City Commission. This decision was part of a forward-thinking approach to the budget, aimed at providing long-term security for the community. The plan included stabilizing GRU’s financial health now and in the future while supporting renewable energy goals.

In 2023, the City Commission adopted one of the most aggressive debt reduction plans in the country, committing to paying off over $300 million in debt by 2033. This move was praised by bond rating agencies and accepted by the State Auditor General. The plan involved significant costs, including $18 million in cuts, the elimination of 161.5 positions, tax increases, and deep cuts to city departments. Despite these challenges, the plan worked, leading to an upgraded bond rating from Fitch due to the material expenditure reductions.

This wasn't a new initiative. Starting in 2020, the City Commission followed recommendations from then-General Manager Ed Bielarski, beginning a series of debt actions, including scaling down the GFT. This work helped turn GRU’s finances around in 2021, when it began running a surplus, which was praised by Ed Bielarski.

The Responsibility of the GRU Authority

Another claim suggests that the City Commission caused the GRU Authority’s cuts. However, the GRU Authority is responsible for its own decision-making. Ed Bielarski once argued that reducing the GFT would require raising taxes or cutting essential services like police and fire. He consistently opposed such reductions.

Despite this, the GRU Authority has voted to slash the transfer by another $10.3 million next year, on top of the $19 million already cut. While the City protected public safety from those cuts, the cost was a tax increase—exactly the outcome Ed warned about.

The process has also been problematic. Under HB 1645, the GRU is required to submit a final budget and transfer amount 90 days before the start of the fiscal year. Instead, the Authority has claimed there’s a legal loophole to "amend" their budget on a whim, changing it mid-year and undermining the City’s ability to balance its budget.

Impact on GRU Rates and Services

There is a claim that GRU rates are lower. However, the reality is that GRU rates are higher. In December, the Authority reshuffled the electric rate structure, lowering tier rates slightly at 1,000 kWh but raising rates 8.2% above that. The result is that households using 2,500 kWh now pay $2.34 more for every $1 saved at 1,000 kWh. This change has made GRU the most expensive municipal utility in Florida at the 2,500 kWh level.

Additionally, water rates are set to rise next year, and GRU is now demanding mid-month "additional deposits" just to keep cash flowing. Base GRU electric rates—controlled directly by the Authority—are as high as ever, even as they divert another $10.3 million from the city’s taxpayers next year.

Representation and Accountability

A claim suggests that GRU customers outside of city limits are now being represented, when they weren’t before. However, the GRU Authority doesn’t "represent" anyone. There is no law stating that GRU Authority members represent anyone, and there are no elections, no accountability to voters, and no mechanism for removal. Representation isn’t just about your mailing address; it’s about accountability.

As former GRU Authority Chair Craig Carter revealed during his resignation speech, his motion to fire Tony Cunningham and hire Ed Bielarski came not because he believed this was best for the utility, but under threat from state officials. This highlights political control rather than community representation.

Moving Forward with Results

It's time to focus on results. The current City Commission has focused on building a stronger, more stable utility. With new professional leadership, they stopped the bond downgrades that became routine under Ed Bielarski. They brought in independent experts to plan affordable power for the future, avoiding costly mistakes like the biomass plant or Ed’s failed 2020 FPL privatization deal.

They fixed numerous financial and operational blunders created under Ed Bielarski, which have been well documented by senior GRU staff since his firing. They passed a debt reduction plan praised from Tallahassee to Wall Street—not with slogans or blame, but with steady, practical work that puts ratepayers first.

That’s what it means to have a utility owned by the people it serves. That’s what it means to work for the rate payers—not Tallahassee politicians.