BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

CS/HB 359 (Duggan) and SB 540 (DiCeglie) would allow for the Capital Improvement Element of Local Comprehensive Plans to have the option to 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. (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 of the State Office of Economic and Demographic 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 provisions of CS/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)

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. (Chapman)

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. The bills 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. (Cruz)

HB 1343 (Tuck) and 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. (Cruz)

HB 321 (Stevenson), HB 323 (Stevenson), SB 1404 (Trumbull) and SB 1406 (Trumbull)– Movable Tiny Homes

SB 570 (Powell) – Building Permits

HB 611 (Lopez) – Bonds of Contractors Constructing Public Buildings

SB 1212 (Rodriguez) and HB 1293 (Mooney) – Affordable Housing

SB 1586 (Trumbull) and HB 1417 (Esposito) – Residential Tendencies

HB 1535 (Rizo) and SB 1682 (Rodriguez) – Fees for Enforcement of Florida Building Code

SB 1394 (Perry) – Building Plans

CS/SB 102 (Calatayud) and CS/HB 627 (Busatta Cabrera) are comprehensive housing bills that sunset after 10 years. Of interest to municipalities:  

Funding and Tax Credits

•The bills propose over $700 million for affordable housing programs including $252 million for SHIP, $259 million for SAIL and $100 million for the Florida Hometown Heroes Housing Program.

•The bills create a new Live Local Corporate Tax Donation program for taxpayers to donate funds directly to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) for the SAIL program in return for tax credits against corporate and insurance liability tax.

Affordable Housing Tax Exemptions

•The bills authorize local governments to adopt an ordinance providing a property tax exemption for units dedicated to tenants with incomes at 60% of local AMI.

•The bills also authorize local governments to deny or revoke exemption based on the history of code enforcement violations or failure to pay fines or charges related to code enforcement violations.

Zoning and Land Use

•The bills preempt municipalities’ regulation on zoning, density and height for certain multifamily or mixed-use affordable housing developments in commercial areas but must otherwise be consistent with local comprehensive plans.

•The bills prohibit any local governments from enacting rent control.

•The bills also require municipalities to post an inventory of lands appropriate for affordable housing on its website. (Branch)

CS/SB 154 (Bradley) and HB 1395 (Lopez) are comprehensive condominium bills. Of interest to cities, the bills do the following:

•Authorize a municipality to determine that a milestone inspection is deemed necessary when a condo building reaches 25 years of age instead of 30 years for a building that is three stories or more in height. The condo association is responsible for the inspection.

•Allow a municipality to extend the deadline for a milestone inspection under certain circumstances upon showing a good cause. The bills provide a definition of a “good cause.”

•Require the condo association to submit a phase two progress report to the local enforcement agency that specifies a timeline for the completion of repairs. The phase two inspection must be performed if any substantial structural deterioration is identified during phase one inspection. (Branch)

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. (O'Hara)

HB 695 (Hawkins) and SB 1706 (DiCeglie) – Determinations for Tax Exemptions

HB 711 (Overdorf) – Aircraft Taxes

SB 882 (Brodeur) and HB 885 (Plasencia) – Local Government Infrastructure Tax

HB 29 (Eskamani) and SB 114 (Book) – Tax Exemption for Diapers and Incontinence Products

HB 103 (F. Robinson) and SB 182 (Rodriguez) – Taxpayer Delinquencies

HB 253 (Barnaby) and SB 180 (Gruters) – Securities Transactions

HB 205 (Gossett-Seidman) and SB 116 (Rodriguez) – Tax Exemption for Charges for Private Investigations

SB 372 (Ingoglia) and HB 507 (Overdorf) – Federal Taxation

SB 374 (Ingoglia) and HB 509 (Overdorf) – Trust Funds/Internal Revenue Service Civil Liability Trust Fund/DFS

HB 487 (Salzman) and SB 1158 (Diceglie) – Department of Financial Services

SB 672 (Avila)  and HB 717 (Amesty) – Homestead Property Tax Exemptions

SB 686 (Brodeur) and HB 681 (Plasencia) – Sales Tax Exemption for Certain Investigation and Security Services

HB 747 (Woodson) and SB 762 (Wright) – Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouses of Veterans

SB 756 (Calatayud) and HB 1589 (Fabricio) – Cigarette Tax Distributions 

HB 791 (Brackett) – Taxes on Purchases Made Through Private-label Credit Card Programs

SB 844 (Yarborough) and HB 867 (Griffitts) – Sales Tax Exemption for Renewable Natural Gas Machinery and Equipment

SB 1360 (Ingoglia) and HB 987 (Botana) – Public Deposits

SB 1710 (DiCeglie) – Taxes on Malt Beverages

HB 309 (Shoaf) and SB 640 (Simon) allow for a fiscally constrained county bordering either the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean to utilize up to 10 percent of the tourist development tax revenues received to reimburse for expenses incurred in providing public safety services needed to address impacts related to increased tourism and visitors to the area.  However, the revenues may not be used by a county or municipality to supplant the normal operating expenditures for public safety operations related to tourism or special events. (Chapman)

HB 229 (Cross) authorizes local governments to adopt ordinances to grant partial ad valorem tax exemptions to property owners whose properties are used to provide affordable housing. (Cruz)

SB 474 (Garcia) and HB 1131 (Fernandez-Barquin) revise the timeframe under which certain appeals of value adjustment board decisions must be filed by a property appraiser under certain circumstances. The bills specify when erroneous assessment of homestead property must be corrected in the year the error is discovered, removes duplicative language from the sections pertaining to correcting the error when present in subsequent years. The bills authorize a taxpayer to appeal the amount of a homestead assessment limitation difference with the value adjustment board. Including adding appeals for which a value adjustment board must meet to hear taxpayer claims for adjustments. (Chapman)

SB 698 (Ingoglia) and HB 731 (Temple) require referendums to reenact an expiring source of county or municipal revenue to be held at a general election immediately preceding the expiration or enactment date. Sources of revenue identified by the bill include: Tourist Development Tax, Children’s Services Special District Millage Rate, Dependent District Millage Rates, Municipal Millage Rates in Excess of Limits, Local Government Discretionary Sales Tax, Ninth Cent Fuel Tax, and Local Option Fuel Tax. (Chapman)

CS/SB 120 (Avila) and HB 471 (Fernandez-Barquin) would reduce the limitation on annual increases of homestead property tax assessments from 3% to 2% if SJR 122 or a similar constitutional amendment is approved by the voters at the next general election. (Chapman)

HB 1599 (Tuck) and SB 1716 (Yarborough) revise the interest rate and penalty that applies to property owners who unlawfully received a homestead exemption. (Chapman)

HB 101 (Woodson) and SB 184 (Polsky) expand the current homestead exemption for the surviving spouse of a first responder who dies in the line of duty to include first responders who die in the line of duty while employed by the United States Government. (Cruz)

CS/SB 288 (DiCeglie) and HB 499 (Stark) create the Main Street Historic Tourism and Revitalization Act, which provides a tax credit against corporate income taxes and insurance premium taxes for qualified expenses incurred in the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure. The tax credit may not exceed 20 percent of qualified expenses incurred in the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure that has been approved by the National Park Service to receive the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit or 30 percent of the total qualified expenses incurred in the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure that has been approved by the National Park Service to receive the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit that is located within a local program area of an Accredited Main Street Program. (Chapman)

SJR 122 (Avila) and HJR 469 (Fernandez-Barquin) would reduce the limitation on annual increases of homestead property tax assessments from 3% to 2%. In 1994, the State of Florida established a 3% Save Our Homes (SOH) Cap assessment limit on all residential properties that receive a homestead exemption. The 3% SOH Cap limits any increase to the assessed value of a homestead exempt property for tax purposes to a maximum of 3% each year. SB 120 would reduce the assessment limit to a maximum of 2% each year. SJR 122 and HJR 469 are constitutional amendments and would require the approval of the Florida Legislature and the voters of Florida. (Chapman)

CS/SB 124 (Avila) and CS/HB 161 (Borrero) increase the just value limit of real estate eligible for the homestead tax exemption that may be adopted by counties or municipalities for certain persons age 65 and older if SJR 126, HJR 159 or a similar constitutional amendment is approved by the voters at the next general election. (Cruz)