BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

CS/HB 415 (Porras) and SB 752 (Calatayud) preempt local governments from regulating temporary commercial kitchens as it relates to licensing, permits and fees. This mimics the current regulatory structure for food trucks. The bills define a “temporary commercial kitchen” as any kitchen that is a public food establishment used for take-out or delivery meals housed in a portable movable structure that include self-contained utilities. A temporary commercial kitchen that is operated on the same premises and by a separately licensed public food service establishment may operate during the same hours of operation as the separately licensed public food service establishment. The bills do not affect a local government’s authority to regulate the operation of a temporary commercial kitchen other than what is proposed in the bills. (Taggart)

SB 1010 (Gruters) and HB 1303 (Snyder) create the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment and Housing Task Force within the Department of Children and Families. The bills direct the task force to study issues related to the regulation of treatment providers and the impact of current regulations on the site selection of community residential homes and provide recommended changes. The bills direct the task force to conduct a statewide review of zoning codes to determine the effect of local regulations. The bills exempt all certified recovery residences from state and local zoning laws or ordinances, including all requirements included in Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, which do not apply to all other single-family and multifamily dwellings from July 1, 2023, until July 1, 2026, while the study is conducted. The task force would be required to submit all findings and recommendations to the Department of Children and Families by December 31, 2024. Any future changes to provisions relating to recovery residence credentialing would be adopted by department rule beginning October 1, 2023, rather than legislatively. (Taggart)

CS/HB 401 (Beltran) and SB 604 (Gruters) increase the statutory limits on liability for tort claims against the state and its agencies and subdivisions (which include cities). The current statutory limits for claims are $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. CS/HB 401 was amended to increase the caps for damages against state and local government entities to $2,500,000 per person and $5,000,000 per incident. SB 604 (Gruters) would increase the caps to $400,000 per person and $600,000 per incident. (Cruz)

SB 798 (Ingoglia) and HB 975 (Holcomb) provide that a city or county may not prohibit or "unreasonably restrain" a private entity from providing recycling or solid waste services to commercial, industrial or multifamily residential properties. In addition, the bills authorize a local government to require such private entities to obtain a permit, license or non-exclusive franchise but specify the local government's fee may not exceed the local government's administrative cost and that the fee must be commensurate with fees for other industries. The bills prohibit the use of exclusive franchise agreements and restrict a local government from providing its own solid waste or recycling services. Current contracts and franchises in place as of January 2023 would be permitted to continue to their date of expiration, but the bills specify that a local government may not recognize an "evergreen" contract or additional renewal or extension of a contract or agreement. (O'Hara)

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)

HB 405 (Tramont) proposes an amendment to the Florida Constitution that would prohibit nonpartisan municipal elections. The proposal also provides that only qualified electors in a municipal election with the same party affiliation as a candidate for office may vote in the primary election for such office (even if a candidate has no opponent with a different party affiliation). The same prohibitions and limitations are imposed on all other state, county and local primary elections, including school boards. In addition, the proposal specifies that a candidate for office may not be prohibited from disclosing his or her party affiliation to the electors and may not be prohibited from campaigning or qualifying for office based on party affiliation. (O'Hara)

SB 1372 (Ingoglia) and HB 1321 (Beltran) strike provisions in current law that prohibit the political advertisement of a candidate running for nonpartisan office from stating the candidate’s party affiliation and strikes provisions in current law that prohibit a candidate for nonpartisan office from campaigning based on party affiliation. This would authorize a candidate for a nonpartisan municipal election to state his or her party affiliation in a political advertisement. HB 1321 would require all candidates running for a partisan office to state their party affiliation in a political advertisement and would also require candidates running for any nonpartisan office (including municipal) to state their party affiliation or state “nonpartisan” in lieu of party affiliation. (O’Hara)

HB 1331 (Busatta Cabrera) substantially amends provisions of law relating to municipal water and electric utility extraterritorial surcharges, extraterritorial service and transfers of enterprise funds to general revenue. The bill amends Section 166.281, Florida Statutes, to provide that a municipal utility may impose and collect an extraterritorial surcharge that is based on the percentage of utility customers located outside of the municipal boundaries but specifies the surcharge may not exceed 10%. It prohibits a municipality from using the proceeds of the surcharge in a manner that is substantially similar to the levy of a public service tax by the municipality under Section 166.231. The bill would subject a municipal electric utility to regulation by the Public Service Commission if the utility provides service to customers located outside the corporate boundaries of the municipality. The bill would also subject a municipal water or wastewater utility to regulation by the Public Service Commission. The bill authorizes a municipal utility to transfer a portion of its earnings to the general fund of the municipality for public utility purposes. It specifies that if the utilities are supplied to customers within the municipal boundaries, the percentage of transfer shall be a fixed amount expressed as a percentage. If services are provided to customers outside of the municipal boundary, the percentage of transfer shall be a variable amount based on the percentage of customers located outside of the municipal boundaries. The bill requires the amount of the fund transfer to be established by local referendum, subject to a majority vote of customers located within and outside a municipality voting in the referendum. The bill prohibits the transfer of utility earnings to the general fund for nonpublic utility purposes and provides that a municipality that violates this provision may not receive state funds for infrastructure projects or water-related projects. (O’Hara)

SB 1380 (Martin) provides that any municipal electric utility serving any electric retail customer located outside of the municipality’s corporate boundaries is a “public utility” subject to regulation by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a minimum of five years. The bill directs the PSC to develop rules for such regulation. (O’Hara)

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)

SB 696 (Ingoglia) and HB 729 (Holcomb) prohibit a municipality from renewing, extending, or renegotiating employments contracts with the Chief Executive Officer of a municipality or a municipal attorney within 12 months before an August primary election for the municipality’s mayor or for members of the governing body. (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 1197 (Maggard) and SB 1240 (Burgess) prohibit counties and municipalities from adopting laws, regulations, rules or policies relating to water quality, water quantity, pollution control, pollutant discharge prevention or removal or wetlands, and preempt such regulation to the state. The prohibition does not apply to an interagency or interlocal agreement between the Department of Environmental Protection and any agency or local government and does not apply to any local government conducting programs relating to or materially affecting the water resources of the state. In addition, the prohibition does not apply to the authority of a county or municipality to regulate and operate its own water system, wastewater system or stormwater system. The bills require the Department of Environmental Protection to notify the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of any violations of the preemption and authorize the CFO to withhold state-shared revenues from such county or municipality. (O’Hara)

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)

HB 37 (Roach) and SB 774 (Brodeur) require all municipal mayors, city commissioners, elected members of a municipal governing body, and all municipal and county managers to file an annual Full Disclosure of Financial Interests (Form 6) with the Florida Commission on Ethics. These individuals are currently required to file only a Limited Disclosure of Financial Interests (Form 1). (O'Hara)

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)

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)

HB 1153 (Steele) and SB 1432 (Trumbull) would freeze the current local tax rate for CST for three years, from January 2023 to January 2026. Additionally, the bills would prevent local governments from charging franchise fees for the location of the utilities in the public right of way. Lastly, the bill reduces the state tax rate for CST percentage by 1.44%. (Chapman)

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 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)