BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HB 935 (Jacques) and SB 998 (Burgess) prohibit a municipality from terminating a police chief without providing written notice, including just cause, and give them the opportunity to defend themselves against the termination in a public hearing. The chief may be represented by counsel at the public meeting at their own cost. The bills clarify that these provisions do not supersede any written employment contract, discipline, or termination standards or procedures. The bills create a civil cause of action, authorizing a police chief to sue for damages against anyone who knowingly files a false complaint against the police chief. (Taggart)

HB 347 (Bankson) specifies that a person who owns, operates or uses a public-use airport is not subject to civil liability or criminal prosecution as it relates to noise or nuisances that result from operation or use. The bill does not prohibit a local government from regulating the location and construction of a public-use airport after July 1, 2023. (Branch)

CS/HB 1317 (Roach) and CS/SB 1346 (Avila) allow private property owners to obtain a building permit to demolish any nonconforming structure, including those which are designated on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places. To be demolished, the structure must be a nonconforming use, located in a coastal high-hazard area, and fail to meet current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood standards for new construction. A local government may only prohibit the demolition of such a structure if the enforcement agency or local building official determines that demolition of the structure is a threat to public safety. Once the structure in question is demolished, the bills will automatically authorize a replacement structure to be built provided that the existing nature and degree of nonconformity is not increased. A local government may not impose or enforce any limitation or condition on the approval of the replacement structure other than compliance with applicable current zoning and building regulations. Local governments may not require the replication of the demolished structure or limit the size or height of the replacement structure.   The bills have been amended in committee to address local government concerns by limiting the scope of the bill to not apply to the demolition of a property on the National Register of Historic Places or to single-family homes. (Cruz)

CS/HB 359 (Duggan) and SB 540 (DiCeglie) would allow for the Capital Improvement Element of Local Comprehensive Plans to have the option to be modified administratively if all the projects have been adopted by the project’s appropriate board. Additionally, the bills amend language to allow for the prevailing party in a challenge to recover attorney fees and costs in challenging or defending a plan or plan amendment, including reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs. CS/HB 359 was amended to extend the deadline by which small-scale and large-scale plan amendments must be adopted. CS/HB 359 was amended to prohibit local governments from enforcing any land development regulations, other than those related to density or intensity, on any of the institutions within the Florida College System. (Chapman)

CS/HB 439 (McClain) and SB 1604 (Ingoglia):

As amended, CS/HB 439 in its current form revises and amends a variety of elements impacting local government comprehensive planning as well as methodologies in data usage and planning period timeframes. The bills include local governments must comply with Special Magistrate decisions where land use decisions were challenged by petitioners who were previously denied. Several key terms are redefined such as Density, Intensity, Urban Service Area, and Urban Sprawl. The bill requires the use the State Office of Economics, Demographics, and Research as the sole source of data for Comprehensive Planning. The bill removes the consideration of Levels of Service as a basis for denying a petition. Planned Unit Developments are removed from this section of Florida Statutes pertaining to architectural/design standards. The bills also prohibit the formation of new Design Review Boards unless established before January 1, 2020. The bills have a retroactive date of January 1, 2022.  SB 1604 includes many of the same provision of HB 439 but does not include the Special Magistrate mandate and data source requirements are different to allow for local data input into comprehensive plans. (Chapman)

CS/HB 41 (Garcia) and SB 856 (Rodriguez) would prohibit an initiative or referendum process for any amendment to local land development regulations. Under current law, the initiative or referendum process is prohibited for any development order and, under certain circumstances, local comprehensive plan or map amendments. The bills would now also prohibit the use of initiatives or referendums for any amendment to land development regulations. The bills are drafted to be remedial in nature and would render null and void any referenda or initiative actions pertaining to land development regulations commenced after June 11, 2011. CS/HB 41 removed the language for the land development regulations applicability to no longer be remedial in nature. (Chapman)

CS/HB 235 (Robinson, W.) and SB 350 (Brodeur) provide clarity to local government adoption of a mobility plan and a mobility fee system. A mobility plan identifies various multimodal projects necessary to permit redevelopment, infill projects, and development. A mobility fee is a one-time fee paid by a developer to a local government to cover the costs of the improvements necessary to fully mitigate the development's impact on the transportation system. The bill would prohibit a transportation impact fee or fee that is not a mobility-based fee from being imposed within the area that is within a mobility plan. The bills would require mobility fees to be updated every five years once adopted or updated. The bills outline the comprehensive requirements a local government must follow in implementing the mobility plan and mobility fee system. In addition, the bills make a revision to the impact fee statute that was substantially amended during the 2021 Legislative Session. Current law now limits the amount impact fees can be increased by, and it requires a phase-in period depending on the amount an impact fee is increased by. However, current law also provides an exception to the impact fee increase process by allowing for increases to be greater than the requirements if the governmental entity establishes the need for the increased fee pursuant to the rational nexus test, uses a study (completed within the 12 months preceding the increase) showing that extraordinary circumstances require the additional increase, holds at least two publicly noticed workshops, and adopts the increase by a 2/3 vote. SB 350 will eliminate this exception to impact fee increases. Therefore, all impact fee increases will have to comply with the increase limits and phase-in requirements provided for in the current law, with no exception. CS/HB 235 was amended, addressing League concerns with the impact fee provisions of the bill. CS/HB 235 allows for "extraordinary" impact fee increases but requires a demonstrated needs study to show that the projected population growth and demand for the specific services funded by the impact fee will exceed the projected rates of population growth and demand for those specific services statewide. (Cruz)

HB 1343 (Tuck) and CS/SB 1184 (Collins) increase the exemption from the levy of a county special assessment for fire protection services from $10,000 to $350,000 for the value of nonresidential farm buildings. The bills authorize the construction of housing for migrant farmworkers on land zoned agricultural without any local government approval by ordinance or resolution. The migrant farmworker housing may not exceed 5,000 square feet. The bills prohibit local governments from adopting a land use or zoning restriction, condition or regulation that requires the termination or surrender of an agricultural classification for any property. CS/SB 1184 was amended this week, increasing the migrant farmworker housing to not exceed 7,500 square feet and adding a requirement that the migrant workers have legal status to work in the United States. (Cruz)

CS/CS/SB 170 (Trumbull) and HB 1515 (Brackett) impose new requirements on municipalities for adopting and enforcing ordinances. First, the bills require a municipality to prepare a business impact estimate before adopting an ordinance and specifies the minimum content that must be included in the statement. The bills exempt various ordinances from this requirement. The business impact estimate must be posted on the municipality's website no later than the date of publication of notice of the proposed ordinance. Second, the bills require a municipality to suspend enforcement of an ordinance that is the subject of a civil action challenging the ordinance's validity on the grounds that it is arbitrary or unreasonable or expressly preempted by state law. This requirement applies only if: the action was filed within 90 days of the ordinance's effective date; suspension of the ordinance was requested in the complaint; and the municipality was served with a copy of the complaint. If the municipality prevails in the civil action, the municipality may enforce the ordinance unless the plaintiff appeals the decision and obtains a stay of enforcement from the court. Third, the bills authorize the award of attorney fees, costs and damages to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action commenced after October 1, 2023, in which an ordinance is alleged to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Attorney fees, costs and damages are capped at $50,000. The bills authorize a court to impose sanctions upon a party for filing a paper, pleading or motion for an improper purpose (such as to harass or delay). The bills require courts to prioritize and expedite the disposition of cases in which enforcement of an ordinance is suspended. The bills exempt various ordinances from the stay of enforcement provision. Additionally, the bills clarify current law relating to notice and publication of ordinances by specifying that consideration of an ordinance properly noticed may be continued to a subsequent meeting if the date, time and place of the subsequent meeting is publicly stated. CS/CS/SB 170 was amended to provide that properly noticed consideration of a proposed ordinance may be continued to a subsequent meeting under certain circumstances without further publication, mailing or posted notice. (O'Hara)

HB 473 (Eskamani) – Agreement for Best Practices in Economic Development

HB 251 (Trabulsy) and SB 476 (Gruters) create the Florida First Production Partnership Program within the Department of Economic Opportunity. The purpose of the program is to boost Florida's economic prosperity by providing a tax credit award to certified film projects that provide the greatest return on investment and economic benefit to the State. (Taggart)

HB 413 (Abbott) and SB 1628 (Simon) prohibit agency agreements from requiring local governments within a rural area of opportunity to expend funds in order to be reimbursed. Agency funding may be advanced to cities and counties based on an analysis of estimated costs, pay service providers or vendors directly or undertake other options to meet the requirements of the agreement. (Taggart)

CS/HB 5 (Esposito) eliminates Enterprise Florida, Inc. and transfers all duties and programs to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The bill authorizes Visit Florida and the Florida Sports Foundation to enter into an agreement with DEO to continue operations. The bill also eliminates several economic development programs. Of note to local governments, HB 5 eliminates the Urban High Crime Job Tax Credit Program, professional sports and spring training incentives, Brownfield Redevelopment Bonus Tax Refunds and film and entertainment-related incentives. (Taggart)

HB 1209 (Shoaf) and SB 1482 (Simon) modify provisions of the Rural Infrastructure Fund to increase the amount the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) may award for grants from 50% of the total infrastructure project cost to 75%. If the project is located within a rural community or a rural area of opportunity, they may receive up to 100% of the project cost. The bills also increase the grant award amount for infrastructure planning and preparation activities to $300,000 and remove the requirement for a local match. (Taggart)

CS/HB 1511 (Giallombardo) and SB 1708 (DiCeglie) make several changes to the Local Government Cybersecurity (Act). The bills revise the definition of “cyber incident” and revise timelines for local governments to report cybersecurity incidents. The bills would require local governments to report cybersecurity incidents within four hours of discovery; current law allows for 48 hours. Ransomware incidents would be required to be reported within two hours of discovery; current law allows for 12 hours. Incidents would be reported to Florida Digital Service, the Cybersecurity Operations Center, the Cybercrime Office of the Department of Law Enforcement and the sheriff who has jurisdiction. The bills establish an operations committee within the Florida Digital Service to assist with collaboration between state agencies and local governments. The bills also provide municipalities with a presumption from liability in connection with a cybersecurity incident for entities that are substantially compliant with the Act. The bills do clarify that they do not establish a private cause of action, and failure of a municipality to implement a cybersecurity program does not constitute negligence. (Taggart)

SB 682 (DiCeglie) and HB 671 (Esposito) are comprehensive building permit bills. Of concern to cities, the bills do the following:

•Require the local jurisdiction to reduce the permit fee by 75% if an owner retains a private provider.

•Reduce the time frame of when municipalities must provide written notice of receipt and any other additional information that is required for a properly completed application to an applicant.

•Reduce the amount of times a municipality can ask an applicant for additional information.

•Allow an application to be “deemed” approved if municipalities fail to meet any of the timeframes. (Branch)

CS/HB 383 (Griffitts) and CS/SB 346 (DiCeglie) require a contract for construction services between a local government entity and a contractor to include the estimated cost of each item necessary to complete the work. The bills restrict the ability of local governments to withhold certain amounts under the contract only to those subject to good faith disputes or claims against public surety bonds. CS/SB 346 also preempts the ability of a municipality to enact a local preference ordinance when awarding a public works project above $350,000. (Branch)

CS/CS/HB 327 (Bell) and CS/SB 408 (Perry) define a fire sprinkler system project as an alteration of a total of 20 or fewer fire sprinklers or the installation or replacement of an equivalent fire sprinkler system component in an existing building. The bills create an expedited permitting process for certain “fire sprinkler system projects,” which prohibits local enforcement agencies from requiring a fire protection system contractor to submit plans to obtain a building permit for a fire sprinkler system project. A local government may require a contractor as a condition of obtaining a permit for a fire sprinkler system project, but may not require a contractor to submit plans or specifications as a condition of obtaining the permit. All documents for a fire sprinkler system project must be available to the inspector at each inspection. (Branch)

HB 765 (Roth) is a bill dealing with building permit applications. The bill would require municipalities to notify the owner of a property and the contractor listed on the permit within 60 days before the permit is set to expire. The bill increases the permit reduction fee by 25% for each business day the local government fails to meet the established timeframes. HB 765 also requires a municipality to accept applications electronically and post the status update of each building permit application on their website. The bill prohibits a municipality from using a permit application unless it includes an attachment with a specified “notice” statement that is referenced in the bill. (Branch)

CS/HB 89 (Maggard) and SB 512 (Hooper) would prohibit a local government from making substantive changes to building plans after a permit has been issued. If substantive changes are made after a permit is issued, the local government must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the Florida Fire Prevention Code or Life Safety or local amendments, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based and provide this information to the permitholder. A local fire inspector, plans reviewer or building official who fails to comply will be subject to disciplinary action. (Branch)