BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HB 563 (Amesty) would prohibit the use of TikTok, or other applications developed or provided by ByteDance Limited, on a government-issued device. (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)

HB 359 (Duggan) 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 bill amends 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)

HB 439 (McClain) revises and amends a variety of elements impacting local government comprehensive planning as well as methodologies in data usage and planning period timeframes. The bill specifies that 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. It includes a mandate to use the state Office of Economics and Demographic Research as the sole source of data for comprehensive planning. 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. The bill also prohibits the formation of new Design Review Boards unless established before January 1, 2020. The bill has a retroactive application to January 1, 2022. (Chapman)

HB 41 (Garcia) 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 bill would now also prohibit the use of initiatives or referendums for any amendment to land development regulations. The bill is 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 321 (Stevenson) and HB 323 (Stevenson) – Movable Tiny Homes

SB 102 (Calatayud) is a comprehensive housing bill that sunsets after 10 years. Of interest to municipalities:  

Funding and Tax Credits

•The bill proposes over $700 million for affordable housing programs including $252 million for SHIP, $259 million for SAIL and $100 million dollars for the Florida Hometown Hero Housing Program.

•The bill creates 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 bill authorizes municipalities to provide property tax incentives for developments that serve households at 50% AMI or below.

Zoning and Land Use

•The bill preempts municipalities’ regulation on zoning, density and height for certain multi-family affordable housing developments in commercial areas as well as prohibits any local government from enacting rent control.

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

SB 170 (Trumbull) imposes new requirements on municipalities for adopting and enforcing ordinances. First, the bill requires 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 bill exempts 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 bill requires 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 bill authorizes 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 bill authorizes 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 bill requires 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. (O’Hara)

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

HB 309 (Shoaf) allows for a fiscally constrained county bordering either the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean to utilize up to 10% 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) and SB 220 (Rodriguez) authorize 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) revises the timeframe under which certain appeals of value adjustment board decisions must be filed by a property appraiser under certain circumstances. It specifies when erroneous assessment of homestead property must be corrected as in the year the error is discovered and removes duplicative language from the sections pertaining to correcting the error when present in subsequent years. The bill authorizes a taxpayer to appeal the amount of a homestead assessment limitation difference with the value adjustment board. It also includes adding appeals for which a value adjustment board must meet to hear taxpayer claims for adjustments. (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)

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% 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% 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)

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)

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)

SB 124 (Avila) and HB 161 (Borrero) would 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)

SJR 126 (Avila) and HJR 159 (Borrero) propose an amendment to the Florida Constitution to increase the just value of a home that may be eligible to receive an additional homestead exemption for homes owned by seniors 65 years or older from $250,000 to $300,000. Under current law, a county or city may authorize an additional homestead exemption for seniors over the age of 65 if the value of the home is $250,000 or less, has been a permanent residence for at least 25 years, and certain income limitations are met. The legislation would simply increase the just value limit of real estate eligible for the homestead tax exemption from $250,000 to $300,000. (Cruz)

HB 127 (Smith) expands the current ad valorem tax exemption for not-for-profit homes for the aged to also allow a home for the aged owned by a separate entity that is owned by a not-for-profit corporation to also receive the exemption. (Cruz)