BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HB 49 (Bartleman) and SB 200 (Rodriguez) expand the eligibility for first responder post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) workers' compensation benefits to also include certain correctional officers, 911 public safety telecommunicators, and all volunteer law enforcement officers and firefighters. Current law only covers law enforcement officers and firefighters. The bills require the employing agency to provide at least one hour of educational training related to mental health awareness, prevention, mitigation and treatment annually. (Cruz)

SB 98 (Burgess) and HB 7023 (Pandemics & Public Emergencies Committee, Trabulsy) create the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund within the Executive Office of the Governor. CS/SB 96 (Burgess) and HB 7025 (Pandemics & Public Emergencies Committee, Trabulsy) authorize the Legislative Budget Commission (LBC) to convene to transfer or appropriate funds to the Emergency Preparedness Response Fund. Under the bills, after approval from the LBC, the Governor could transfer, expend and request additional moneys into the fund. (Branch)

CS/HB 215 (DiCeglie) and CS/SB 254 (Brodeur) provide that an emergency order may not expressly prohibit a religious institution from regular religious services or activities. (Branch)

SB 450 (Jones) and HB 857 (Nixon) repeal multiple provisions from HB 1, which passed in the 2021 Legislative Session, including allowing specified elected officials to appeal a municipal law enforcement operating budget that contains a funding reduction. (Hughes)

HB 117 (Fetterhoff) and SB 774 (Gruters) add COVID-19 and infectious diseases to the list of conditions that, if suffered by an emergency rescue or public safety worker, are presumed to have been contracted while at work for purposes of workers' compensation. Unlike similar presumptions in current law for hepatitis, meningococcal meningitis and tuberculosis, the bills do not require the public safety worker or emergency rescue worker to receive immunization against COVID-19 in order to receive the presumptive eligibility provisions afforded by workers' compensation coverage. (Cruz)

HB 233 (Willhite) and SB 408 (Jones) require businesses to accept cash payments for any good or service if the customer is physically present at the place of business. The bills exempt transactions above $5,000. Of interest to local governments, the bills exempt parking facilities owned by a municipality regardless of who operates the parking facility. (Taggart)

SB 706 (Perry) requires instead of encourages local governments that adopt school concurrency to apply such concurrency to development on a districtwide basis so that a concurrency determination for a specific development will be based upon the availability of school capacity districtwide. The bill specif that proportionate-share mitigation must be set aside and not spent if an improvement has not been identified. The House companion bill, CS/HB 851 (McClain), was substantially amended in committee and removed the requirement that school concurreny be determined on a districtwide basis. The bill now requires developers to tender, rather than execute, a written, legally binding commitment to provide proportionate-share mitigation. The bill further requires the local government to issue a final decision on the developer’s tendered commitment within 60 days from the date of receipt. If the local government fails to issue a final decision within 60 days, the tendered commitment will be deemed approved. Lastly, the bill requires a school board to set aside and not spend any proportionate-share mitigation if there is no school capacity improvement identified in the five-year school board educational facilities plan until such time as such an improvement has been identified. (Cruz)

SB 1824 (Brodeur) and HB 1415 (Robinson, W.) revise the requirements and best practices for local governments applying mobility plans rather than impact fees. The bills require a local government adopting a mobility plan to evaluate appropriate levels of service and potential impacts of development by using the elements of its comprehensive plan. Local governments that adopt mobility plans must adopt the mobility plan and a mobility fee system into its comprehensive plan. (Cruz)

HB 219 (Tuck) and SB 1380 (Rodriguez, A.) revise that rights that are not affected or extinguished by Marketable Record Titles Act (MRTA) and require persons with certain interests in land that may be extinguished by this act to file a specified notice to preserve their interests. The bills establish a bright-line rule to clarify MRTA's operation in light of the 2016 court decision and clarify that a property conveyance subject to existing encumbrances identified in a muniment of title does not restart MRTA's 30-year marketability period on such encumbrances. The bills add covenants, restrictions, zoning requirements, and building or development permits to the list of encumbrances extinguished by MRTA but excepts them from extinguishment. Additionally, the bills authorize owners or operators of private property used for motor vehicle parking to establish rules, rates and fines governing private persons parking on the property. The bills prohibit counties and municipalities from enacting any ordinance or regulation attempting to restrict or prohibit the owner or operator from adopting such rules, rates or fines. (Cruz)

HB 739 (Borrero) and SB 1248 (Gruters) specify that a county or municipality must review applications for development permits or orders within 30 days of receiving the application and issue a letter indicating that all required information is submitted or specifying any areas that are deficient. In an attempt to make a more uniform process for future developments, the bills also require that each local government adopt residential infill development standards in its land use regulations by October 1, 2022. The legislation requires local governments to adopt certain guidelines when adopting its residential infill development standards that may preempt existing land use regulations. (Cruz)

HB 681 (Rodriguez) and SB 1030 (Taddeo) clarify that impact fee credits are assignable and transferable any time after establishment from one development or parcel to any other as long as it falls within the same impact fee zone or district, or that is within the same impact fee zone in the county or municipality. (Cruz)

SB 1338 (Diaz) and HB 1411 (Avila) provide that a floating solar facility must be a permitted use in appropriate land use categories in each local government's comprehensive plan. The bills require each local government to amend its development regulations to promote the expanded use of floating solar facilities. (Cruz)

HB 1089 (Woodson) and SB 1924 (Rodriguez, A.) – Affordable Housing

HB 6017 (Eskamani)and SB 580 (Torres) – Rent Control Measures

SB 1170 (Brandes) and HB 1553 (Plakon) create a State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Block Grant Program. Instead of entitlement municipalities receiving direct SHIP funding, the bills would distribute all the monies to counties. A county would not be required to share any of the funding with any of the municipalities within their boundaries. (Branch)

CS/SB 518 (Brodeur) and HB 1555 (McClain) amend current law provisions that prohibit local governments from requiring permits for the removal of "dangerous" trees on residential property. The bills clarify what constitutes residential property and increase the level of assessment and type of documentation that must be provided by an arborist or landscape architect under the law. As amended, CS/SB 518 defines residential property as a single-family detached building located on an existing lot, actively used for single-family residential purposes, and which is either an existing conforming use or a legally recognized nonconforming use following the local jurisdiction's applicable land development regulations. (Branch)

SB 962 (Bradley) and HB 981 (Payne) allow a municipality or county regardless of zoning or a comprehensive plan to approve mixed-use residential development projects if the portion of the project is used for affordable housing. (Branch)

SB 152 (Farmer) proposes an amendment to the Florida Constitution that would require any general law that preempts a subject of legislation to the state to pass by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature. (O'Hara)

HB 6113 (Eskamani) and SB 1900 (Torres) repeal numerous provisions of current law that operate as preemptions of municipal and county authority on a variety of subjects. (O'Hara)

CS/CS/SB 280 (Hutson) and HB 403 (Giallombardo) impose new substantive 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 various ordinances from this requirement. The 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 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 and an appeal is taken, the bills authorize the court to consider continuing or lifting the stay of enforcement of the ordinance. Third, the bills authorize the award of attorney fees, costs and damages to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action commenced after October 1, 2022, in which an ordinance is alleged to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 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. (O’Hara)

SB 620 (Hutson) and CS/HB 569 (McClure) require compensation for business damages caused by local government ordinances or charter provisions. A business that has been engaged in a lawful business in Florida for at least three years may claim business damages from a local government if the government enacts or amends an ordinance or charter provision that will cause a reduction of at least 15% of the business’ profit as applied on a per-location basis of a business operating within the jurisdiction. A local government is not liable for business damages caused by: ordinances required to comply with state or federal law; emergency ordinances, declarations or orders adopted pursuant to the state Emergency Management Act; a temporary emergency ordinance which remains in effect for no more than 90 days; ordinances or charter provisions enacted to implement: Part II of Chapter 163; Section 553.73; Section 633.202; a contract or an agreement, including contracts or agreements relating to grants or other financial assistance; debt issuance or refinancing; budgets or budget amendments. The bills specify procedures and methodologies for a business to recover business damages, attorney fees and costs against a local government. The bills’ provisions on attorney fee calculation and award are nearly identical to the business damage procedures set forth in Florida’s eminent domain statute. (O’Hara)