BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

SB 782 (Yarborough) amends Section 102.012, Florida Statutes, to require election boards to include at least one member from each of the two largest political parties in the state. (O’Hara)

SB 190 (Garcia) and HB 671 (Borrero) require a law enforcement officer to transport ballot boxes or ballot transfer containers from a supervisor of elections to a precinct and require that all ballot boxes and ballot transfer containers be supervised by a law enforcement officer at all times. The bills require all ballot boxes, ballots, ballot stubs, memoranda and papers relating to the tabulation of votes and proclamation of results under Section 102.071, Florida Statutes, to be transported by a law enforcement officer. (O’Hara)

CS/SB 7014 (Ethics and Elections Committee) and CS/HB 1597 (Brackett) create timeframes for the completion of investigations of alleged ethics violations conducted by the Florida Commission on Ethics (Commission), modify financial disclosure requirements relating to disclosure of identifying information of a legal client and impose additional requirements on local government lobbyist disclosure requirements. With respect to financial disclosure, the bills provide that if disclosure of identifying information regarding a source of income will violate a legal confidentiality or privilege, a filer who is also an attorney may indicate the income source is a “legal client” without providing further information. The bills provide that if a local government has more stringent standards of conduct and disclosure for lobbyists, any noncriminal complaint procedure relating to such standards must: require a complaint be written and signed under oath by the complainant; require a complaint be based on personal knowledge and information other than hearsay; prohibit initiation of a complaint or investigation by the governing body or any entity created to enforce the standards; and establish a process for the recovery of costs and attorney fees against a person found to have filed a complaint with malicious intent to injure the reputation of a public officer or employee or filed with knowledge the complaint contains false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the complaint contains false allegations. In addition, the bills provide that terms of Commission members are limited to two terms total, rather than two successive terms. It adds candidates for public office to the categories of persons authorized to recover costs and attorney fees for defending against a maliciously filed ethics complaint. A complaint filed with the Commission must be based upon personal knowledge and information other than hearsay.

The bills authorize an alleged violator to request a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings or to select an informal hearing with the Commission. Finally, the bills conform the maximum penalty (changing the penalty from $10,000 to $20,000) for a violation of the constitutional prohibition against lobbying by a public officer to the penalties authorized for violations of other ethics laws. (O’Hara)

HB 919 (Rizo) and CS/SB 850 (DiCeglie) require political advertisements, electioneering communications or other miscellaneous advertisements to include a specified disclaimer if the advertisement or communication was created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence and the generated content appears to depict a real person performing an action that did not actually occur. The bills subject a person who fails to include the disclaimer in an advertisement or communication to civil penalties. (O’Hara)

CS/CS/HB 473 (Giallombardo) and CS/SB 658 (DiCeglie) exempt cities, counties and political subdivisions of the state, from liability in connection with a cybersecurity incident if the local entity has substantially complied with the current training and cybersecurity standards requirements under Section 282.3185, Florida Statutes. (Wagoner)

CS/CS/CS/HB 1555 (Giallombardo) and CS/CS/SB 1662 (Collins) make several changes to the State Cybersecurity Act (Act). 

CS/CS/CS/HB 1555 revises the reporting timelines and requirements for the “Cybersecurity Operations Center,” adding additional requirements for the state chief information officer and the chief information security officer. The bill requires the Cybersecurity Operations Center to immediately notify the Department of Law Enforcement and the state chief information officer of an incident. The state chief information officer will be required to notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. The bill requires the Cybercrime Operations Center to notify the Cybercrime Office of the Department of Law Enforcement of any incidents, provide regular reports and provide aid to investigate the incident. The bill requires the Cybersecurity Operations Center to provide a consolidated incident report to the Governor, the Attorney General and the Executive Director of the Department of Law Enforcement by the 30th day after the end of each quarter. 

Both CS/CS/CS/HB 1555 and CS/CS/SB 1662 update the mission, goals and responsibilities of the Florida Center for Cybersecurity (“Cyber Florida”) housed within the University of South Florida (USF) and authorizes the USF president to assign the Center to an appropriate college within the university, with approval of the board of trustees. The bills outline the goals of “Cyber Florida” to research and develop initiatives in cybersecurity and related fields, among other things. The bills provide that the Department of Management Services contract with independent verification providers to implement cybersecurity resiliency program. (Wagoner)

SB 972 (Gruters) creates the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council within the Department of Management Services. The purpose of the Council is to study and monitor the development of artificial intelligence systems in state government and prepare a report due to the Legislature by July 1, 2025. The bill preempts a county or city or any political subdivision thereof from regulating the private and public use of artificial intelligence systems. (Wagoner)

SB 656 (DiCeglie) and HB 149 (Alvarez) – Continuing Contracts

HB 1307 (Redondo) and SB 1552 (Gruters) – Housing Developments

SB 1200 (Rodriguez) and HB 1507 (Chambliss) – Enforcement of the Florida Building Code

HB 1297 (Mooney) and SB 1456 (Rodriguez) – Affordable Housing in Areas of Critical State Concern

HB 579 (Griffitts) allows private providers the ability to handle plans review and inspection tasks. Of concerns to cities, the bill does the following:

•Defines "Private Provider Firm" as a business organization offering building code services to the public through licensed agents, including architects and engineers.

•Requires private provider firms to qualify as business organizations if using licensed architects and engineers.

•Allows building owners or their contractors to hire private providers for building code inspection services with a written contract.

•Permits fee owners to use private providers for plans review or building inspections, with the possibility of requiring both if plans review is chosen.

•Requires equal access to permitting and inspection documents for private providers, owners and contractors.

•Prohibits the local building official from conducting their own plans review or inspections if a private provider is hired.

•Specifies a timeframe of 12 business days for local building officials to issue permits or provide written notices regarding plan deficiencies.

•If the local building official does not provide specific written notice to the permit applicant within the prescribed 12-day period, the permit application is deemed approved as a matter of law, and the permit must be issued by the local building official on the next business day.

•Establishes a complaint process through the Department of Commerce for fee owners or contractors if local jurisdictions fail to reduce fees as required. (Branch)

CS/CS/CS/HB 267 (Esposito) and CS/CS/SB 684 (DiCeglie) are comprehensive building permit bills. Of concern to cities, the bills do the following:

Expedited Approval of Residential Permits for Large Scale Developments

Only in CS/CS/SB 684:

•Require municipalities with a population of 30,000 or more to create a program to expedite the process of issuing building permits for residential subdivisions by August 15, 2024.

•Create a two-step application process that would include the adoption of a preliminary plat and a final plat in order to expedite the issuance of building permits.

•Allow cities to work with the appropriate local government agencies to issue an address and a temporary parcel identification number for lot lines and lot sizes based on the metes and bounds of the plat contained in the application.

•Requires applicants to have a performance bond for up to 120%.

•Require applicants to indemnify local governments that issue the permit.

•Specifies that upon an applicant's request, a local government must issue no less than 50% of the permits for dwellings to be built.

Shorten Timeframes for Building Permits (applies to all municipalities)

•CS/CS/CS/HB 267 was amended to remove the requirement for the local jurisdiction to reduce the permit fee by 75% if an owner retains a private provider. CS/CS/SB 684 maintains this provision. 

Only in CS/CS/CS/HB 267:

•Requires a local government to: 

•Determine if a building permit application is complete within five business days of receiving the application, previously set at 10 days. 

•Determine if a building permit application is sufficient within 10 business days of receiving a completed application, previously set at 45 days. 

•Approve, approve with conditions, or deny a complete and sufficient permit application within the following timeframes: 

•30 business days for applicants using local government review, previously set at 120 days; 

•15 business days for applicants using a private provider, previously set at 120 days; and 

•10 business days for applicants for a permit under an already-approved master plan permit, previously set at 120 days. 

•60 business days for applicants for a multifamily project; previously set at 120 days.

•Review a completed application for sufficiency within 10 business days.

•Provide an opportunity for a virtual meeting, instead of just an in-person meeting, before a second request for additional information may be made. 

•Reduce the number 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.

•Prohibits the local government from requiring a waiver of the timeframes as a condition to review the application for a building permit.

Alternative Plans Review and Inspection by a licensed professional engineer or architect:

•Specifies a timeframe of 10 business days for local building officials to issue permits or provide written notices regarding plan deficiencies.

•If the local building official does not provide specific written notice to the permit applicant within the prescribed 10-day period, the permit application is deemed approved as a matter of law, and the permit must be issued by the local building official on the next business day.

Only in CS/CS/SB 684:

•Requires a local government to: 

•A local government must approve, approve with conditions, or deny a building permit application after receipt of a completed and sufficient application within the following timeframes, unless the applicant waives such timeframes in writing:

•30 business days residential permits under 7,500 square feet

•60 business days residential associated permits over 7,500 square feet

•60 business days signs or nonresidential less than 25,000 square feet

•120 business days for multifamily residential not exceeding 50 units; site-plan approvals and subdivision plats not requiring public hearing or public notice; and lot grading and site alteration

•15 business days for using a master building permit consistent with s. 553.794 to obtain a site-specific building permit

•10 business days for a single-family residential dwelling who participates in a Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery program

•Provides framework for responding to insufficient application within 10 business days. The curing process will provide 10 days for applicant to respond and final 10 days for local government approve or deny the permit.

Alternative Plans Review and Inspection by a licensed professional engineer or architect:

•Specifies a timeframe of 12 business days for local building officials to issue permits or provide written notices regarding plan deficiencies.

•If the local building official does not provide specific written notice to the permit applicant within the prescribed 12-day period, the permit application is deemed approved as a matter of law, and the permit must be issued by the local building official on the next business day.

•Prohibits a local government from auditing the performance of building code inspections by a private provider until the local government has created a manual for standard operating audit procedures. (Branch)

CS/SB 742 (Grall) and CS/HB 705 (Shoaf) revise and expand the definition of "public works project" to include an activity that is paid using any local or state-appropriated funds. Under current law, this is defined as any state funds. Of concern to cities, the bills prohibit municipalities that contract for a public works project from requiring a contractor to do the following:

•Pay employees a predetermined amount of wages or prescribe any wage rate

•Provide employees a specified type, amount or rate of employee benefits

•Control, limit or expand staffing

•Recruit, train or hire employees from a designated, restricted or single source. (Branch)

CS/CS/HB 665 (McClain) and CS/CS/CS/SB 812 (Ingoglia) are comprehensive bills dealing with the expedited approval of residential building permits. Of concern to municipalities, the bills do the following:

•Create a two-step application process that would include the adoption of a preliminary plat and a final plat in order to expedite the issuance of building permits.

•Applies to municipalities who have 25 acres more of contiguous land zoned for residential or agricultural purposes.

•Allow cities to work with the appropriate local government agencies to issue an address and a temporary parcel identification number for lot lines and lot sizes based on the metes and bounds of the plat contained in the application.

•Requires municipalities to establish a registry of three qualified contractors to assist with plans review and processing.

•Require applicants to have a performance bond for up to 130%.

•Require applicants to indemnify local governments that issue the permit.

•Specify that upon an applicant's request, a local government must issue no less than 50% of the permits for dwellings to be built. (Chapman)

CS/SB 280 (DiCeglie) and CS/CS/HB 1537 (Griffitts) are comprehensive bills dealing with short-term rentals. Here is a brief description of how the bills are different:

CS/CS/HB 1537:

•Pay a fee of no more than $150 per unit for processing an individual registration application and a $50 per unit yearly renewal. A local government may impose a $300 fine for failure to register.  

•State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental based on the number of sleeping accommodations for persons staying in the short-term rental. 

•Requires the responsible party to respond to a complaint or emergency by 9 a.m. the next calendar day.

•After five violations occur over a period of time, suspensions are set at 15 days, 30 days and 60 days, respectively. 

CS/SB 280:

•Pay a “reasonable fee” per unit for processing an individual registration application and renewal. A local government may impose a $500 fine for failure to register. 

•State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental is no more than two people per room plus two, or at a minimum of 50 sq ft. per person. 

•Display their individual registration number in a conspicuous location in the vacation rental. 

•After five violations occur over a period of time, suspensions are set at 30 days, 60 days and 90 days, respectively. 

Below are how the bills remain identical:

Impact on Local Governments

The bills maintain the current preemption on local governments from adopting zoning ordinances specific to short-term rentals as well as regulating the duration of stays and the frequency in which the properties are rented. 

Local Registration Programs 

The bills create a statewide process for the local registration of vacation rentals. Under the program, a local government has 15 days after receiving an application for registration to accept the application or issue a written notice specifying all deficiencies. Both parties may agree to extend the timeline. If a municipality does not accept or deny an application within that 15-day window, that application is deemed approved. 

As a condition of registration, the local registration program may only require the owner or operator of a vacation rental to:

•Charge a reasonable fee for inspections to ensure compliance with the Florida Building and Fire Prevention Codes. 

•Renew their registration no more than once per year per unit, unless the property has a change in ownership.

•Submit identifying information about the owner or the property manager and the short-term rental being registered.

•Obtain a license as a transient public lodging establishment by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR).

•Obtain all required tax registration, receipts or certificates issued by the Department of Revenue, a county or a municipal government. 

•Maintain all registration information on a continuing basis so it is current.

•Designate and maintain a property designee who can respond to complaints and other immediate problems related to the property, including being available by phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

•Pay in full all municipal or county code liens against the property being registered. 

June 1, 2011, Grandfather Provision

The bills maintain the grandfathering of ordinances that were adopted prior to June 1, 2011. Additionally, the bills clarify that cities may amend grandfathered ordinances to be less restrictive without voiding those ordinances. 

Impact on Advertising Platforms and DBPR

Advertising platforms will now be required to:

•Collect and remit all required taxes.

•Require each person listing a property as a vacation rental to include in the advertisement the state license number and, if applicable, the local registration number. They will also be required to attest that the license and registration numbers are valid.

•By January 1, 2026, the advertising platform will be required to check and verify the license number of all listings with DBPR prior to posting the advertisement. Additionally, license numbers must be checked at the end of each calendar quarter with the department.

•Remove from public view an advertisement from their website within 15 business days after notification by DBPR in writing that a vacation rental fails to display a valid license number.

•Adopt an anti-discrimination policy.

Revocation/Denial of License

A local government may revoke or refuse to renew a vacation rental registration:

•An owner’s vacation rental registration has been suspended three times.

•There is an unsatisfied municipal or county code lien, so long as the local government allows the owner at least 60 days before the termination to satisfy the lien.

•The premises and its owner are the subject of a final order or judgment directing the termination of the premises’ use as a vacation rental. (Wagoner)

CS/CS/SB 472 (Brodeur) and CS/CS/HB 569 (McFarland) 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. Both bills would increase the caps to $400,000 per person and $600,000 per incident. CS/CS/HB 569 initially required caps to be adjusted annually on July 1 to reflect changes in the regional Consumer Price Index, but this was removed from CS/CS/HB 569 in committee. CS/CS/SB 472 was amended to require this adjustment to reflect the CPI to occur on July 1, 2029, and to occur every five years thereafter so long as the adjustment does not exceed 3%. The bills prohibit an insurance policy from conditioning the payout of a claim on the passage of a claims bill. Both bills allow a subdivision of the state to settle a claim above the statutory limits without the need for a claims bill. The bills narrow the statute of limitation on negligence claims against government entities from four years to two years. CS/CS/SB 472 was amended to mirror the provision in CS/CS/HB 569 that lowers the required pre-suit notice from three years to 18 months. Both bills also abolish the common law doctrine of “home venue privilege” in relation to negligence suits against the state. CS/CS/SB 472 was amended to apply the limitations of liability in effect on the date of the accident to apply to that claim. (Cruz)

CS/CS/CS/HB 267 (Esposito) and CS/CS/SB 684 (DiCeglie) are comprehensive building permit bills. Of concern to cities, the bills do the following:

Expedited Approval of Residential Permits for Large Scale Developments

Only in CS/CS/SB 684:

•Require municipalities with a population of 30,000 or more to create a program to expedite the process of issuing building permits for residential subdivisions by August 15, 2024.

•Create a two-step application process that would include the adoption of a preliminary plat and a final plat in order to expedite the issuance of building permits.

•Allow cities to work with the appropriate local government agencies to issue an address and a temporary parcel identification number for lot lines and lot sizes based on the metes and bounds of the plat contained in the application.

•Requires applicants to have a performance bond for up to 120%.

•Require applicants to indemnify local governments that issue the permit.

•Specifies that upon an applicant's request, a local government must issue no less than 50% of the permits for dwellings to be built.

Shorten Timeframes for Building Permits (applies to all municipalities)

•CS/CS/CS/HB 267 was amended to remove the requirement for the local jurisdiction to reduce the permit fee by 75% if an owner retains a private provider. CS/CS/SB 684 maintains this provision. 

Only in CS/CS/CS/HB 267:

•Requires a local government to: 

•Determine if a building permit application is complete within five business days of receiving the application, previously set at 10 days. 

•Determine if a building permit application is sufficient within 10 business days of receiving a completed application, previously set at 45 days. 

•Approve, approve with conditions, or deny a complete and sufficient permit application within the following timeframes: 

•30 business days for applicants using local government review, previously set at 120 days; 

•15 business days for applicants using a private provider, previously set at 120 days; and 

•10 business days for applicants for a permit under an already-approved master plan permit, previously set at 120 days. 

•60 business days for applicants for a multifamily project; previously set at 120 days.

•Review a completed application for sufficiency within 10 business days.

•Provide an opportunity for a virtual meeting, instead of just an in-person meeting, before a second request for additional information may be made. 

•Reduce the number 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.

•Prohibits the local government from requiring a waiver of the timeframes as a condition to review the application for a building permit.

Alternative Plans Review and Inspection by a licensed professional engineer or architect:

•Specifies a timeframe of 10 business days for local building officials to issue permits or provide written notices regarding plan deficiencies.

•If the local building official does not provide specific written notice to the permit applicant within the prescribed 10-day period, the permit application is deemed approved as a matter of law, and the permit must be issued by the local building official on the next business day.

Only in CS/CS/SB 684:

•Requires a local government to: 

•A local government must approve, approve with conditions, or deny a building permit application after receipt of a completed and sufficient application within the following timeframes, unless the applicant waives such timeframes in writing:

•30 business days residential permits under 7,500 square feet

•60 business days residential associated permits over 7,500 square feet

•60 business days signs or nonresidential less than 25,000 square feet

•120 business days for multifamily residential not exceeding 50 units; site-plan approvals and subdivision plats not requiring public hearing or public notice; and lot grading and site alteration

•15 business days for using a master building permit consistent with s. 553.794 to obtain a site-specific building permit

•10 business days for a single-family residential dwelling who participates in a Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery program

•Provides framework for responding to insufficient application within 10 business days. The curing process will provide 10 days for applicant to respond and final 10 days for local government approve or deny the permit.

Alternative Plans Review and Inspection by a licensed professional engineer or architect:

•Specifies a timeframe of 12 business days for local building officials to issue permits or provide written notices regarding plan deficiencies.

•If the local building official does not provide specific written notice to the permit applicant within the prescribed 12-day period, the permit application is deemed approved as a matter of law, and the permit must be issued by the local building official on the next business day.

•Prohibits a local government from auditing the performance of building code inspections by a private provider until the local government has created a manual for standard operating audit procedures. (Branch)

CS/CS/HB 1277 (Busatta Cabrera) and SB 1510 (Brodeur) impose restrictions on the use of municipal water, wastewater, gas or electric utility revenues to fund general government services and impose restrictions on the imposition of water and wastewater extraterritorial surcharges. CS/CS/HB 1277 requires interlocal agreements for extraterritorial utility service (gas, electric, water and wastewater) to be written and provides that such agreements may not become effective until the provider municipality holds a joint public meeting with the governing body of the recipient jurisdiction. In addition, the bill requires a joint annual customer meeting between the providing municipality and the recipient jurisdictions’ governing bodies for the purpose of obtaining public input on utility matters. CS/CS/HB 1277 imposes a 10% cap of gross utility revenues on any utility enterprise fund transfers to the general fund. Beginning November 2024, municipal utilities providing extraterritorial services are required to submit an annual report to the Public Service Commission with information about the scope and nature of the services. Beginning January 2025, the Public Service Commission is required to aggregate the information submitted by municipal utilities and provide an annual report to the Legislature. SB 1510 specifies that the portion of utility revenues transferred to the general fund may not exceed the transfer rates specified in the bill. The specified transfer rates are based on the average midpoints of the rates of return on equity approved by the Public Service Commission for investor-owned utilities. The bill requires further reductions in the allowable transfer rate based on the percentage of the utility’s retail customers located outside the municipality’s boundaries. The bill further specifies that these reductions do not apply if the utility service is governed by a utility authority board that, through the election of voting members from outside the municipal boundaries, provides for proportionate representation of customers located outside the municipal boundaries. With respect to extraterritorial surcharges, CS/CS/HB 1277 and SB 1510 eliminate the first 25% extraterritorial surcharge that may be imposed without a public hearing. The bills eliminate the second 25% surcharge that may be imposed after a public hearing. In addition, the bills provide that rates, fees and charges that may be imposed on extraterritorial customers shall not exceed 25% (reduced from the 50% allowed under current law) of the total amount the municipality charges customers served within the municipality for corresponding service. The effective date of the bills is July 2025. (O’Hara)

CS/CS/HB 1195 (Garrison) and CS/SB 1322 (Ingoglia) would require local government to have two-thirds vote of the membership of the governing body to increase the millage rate. CS/HB 1195 was amended to clarify that the two-thirds vote does not apply to existing millage rate increases that require a three-fourths or unanimous vote of the governing body or voter approval in a referendum under current law. (Chapman)

CS/CS/SB 1628 (Collins) and CS/HB 1547 (McClure) revise exemptions from the application of SB 170, relating to local ordinances and business impact estimates, passed in the 2023 Legislative Session. CS/CS/SB 1628 eliminates the exemption from the requirement to file a business impact estimate for ordinances relating to a comprehensive plan amendment or land development regulation initiated by a municipality or county. CS/HB 1547 is broader and would eliminate the exemption for comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations from both the business impact estimate requirement and the suspension of enforcement requirement. (O’Hara)

CS/CS/HB 609 (Botana) and SB 1144 (DiCeglie) would repeal local governments' ability to levy a local business tax (LBT). CS/HB 609 was amended to no longer repeal the LBT. However, the amount of revenue generated from the collection of the LBT is being capped using fiscal year 23/24 as the base year. Local governments may not generate more revenue in any year moving forward above the base year of 23/24. Rates for the fees may be lowered, but not increased. CS/CS/HB 609 was amended to not apply to fiscally constrained counties or a municipality located in a fiscally constrained county. (Chapman)

SB 1184 (Ingoglia) and CS/CS/HB 1221 (McClain) are comprehensive bills relating to land use and development regulations. The bills amend various regulations relating to comprehensive plans. The bill would restrict optional elements of a comprehensive plan from containing a policy restricting density and intensity. The bills amend definitions of intensity, density, urban service area and urban sprawl to promote the construction of additional single-family, two-family and fee simple townhomes. The bills require local governments to adopt minimum lot sizes with single-family, two-family and fee simple townhouse zoning districts to accommodate the maximum density authorized in the comprehensive plan. The bills require local governments to adopt infill redevelopment regulations to administratively approve the development of infill single-family, two-family and fee simple townhouses. HB 1221 also contains a provision that would require the automatic rezoning of agricultural land for single family housing in certain circumstances. This provision is not found in SB 1184. CS/CS/HB 1221 has been significantly amended in committee. Relevant to municipal operation, the amendments inserted a provision that preempts local regulation relating to the building of new self-storage facilities and removed provisions related to the rezoning of agricultural enclaves. The bill was amended further to permit a final order or decision by a municipally established historic preservation board or commission to be appealed to the board of county commissioners. (Cruz)