BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

CS/CS/HB 839 (Fabricio) prohibits a local government from banning (or taking action that results in a de facto ban) gas stations or related transportation infrastructure necessary to provide fuel to gas stations. In addition, the bill prohibits a local government from requiring gas stations to install particular types of fueling infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations. The bill clarifies that it does not preempt a local government from adopting and implementing requirements relating to the siting, development or redevelopment of gas stations or related transportation infrastructure as long as the requirements do not amount to a de facto prohibition within zoning or land use classifications where such infrastructure is consistent with other allowable uses. (O'Hara)

SB 656 (Brandes) makes various changes to elections procedures including voter registration, voter identification and polling locations. In addition, the bill expressly preempts a local government from imposing any limitation on contributions to a political committee or electioneering communications organization or limitation on any expenditures for an electioneering organization or an independent expenditure. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 1053 (Overdorf) and CS/SB 102 (Burgess) will have the effect of limiting or prohibiting various civil actions and class action matters by local governments including recent class actions involving opioids, PFAS and predatory lending. CS/HB 1053 authorizes the attorney general to unilaterally declare any conduct or harm that adversely affects the interests of citizens of at least five counties in the state a “matter of great governmental concern.” It requires local governments to notify the attorney general of the commencement of “any civil action” and authorizes the attorney general to determine the local government civil action involves a matter of great governmental concern. CS/HB 1053 authorizes the attorney general, within one year of publishing notice of a determination that a matter is of great governmental concern, to file a civil action on behalf of the citizens of the state on the matter. The attorney general’s determination operates to stay any civil action of a local government on the same matter. The bill requires any funds recovered by the attorney general be deposited into the General Revenue Fund and requires a state court to dismiss as moot a local government civil action that is based on the same matter as the attorney general’s action and resolved by settlement or judgment of that action. CS/SB 102 authorizes the Legislature by concurrent resolution to declare any circumstance that has caused economic or similar harm to governmental entities in 15 or more counties to be a matter of great governmental concern. Upon such a declaration, the attorney general would have sole authority to file a civil action on behalf of the affected governmental entities. The bills authorize the attorney general to intervene in any pending civil proceeding in federal or state court (including pending appeals) and dismiss, consolidate, settle or take any action he or she believes to be in the public interest. A declaration by the attorney general that a matter is of great governmental concern will operate to abate or stay any pending civil action unless and until the attorney general takes an action in the proceeding. The bills require governmental entities that are parties to any action that has been declared a matter of great governmental interest to notify the attorney general of the existence of the action and provide that any settlement or resolution of a proceeding by a governmental entity after the attorney general’s declaration and without the attorney general’s consent is void. The declaration of a matter of great governmental concern is not “final agency action” subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The bills provide a process by which governmental entities may apply to a court to recover attorney fees and costs incurred prior to the attorney general’s declaration, but they fail to identify a source of funding, responsible party or conditions for obtaining such recovery. (O’Hara)

CS/CS/SB 522 (Diaz) and CS/HB 219 (Fischer) change current law relating to vacation rentals, also known as short-term rentals (STRs). The bills would:

•Clarify the definition of an advertising platform to capture online marketplaces.

•Preempt to the state the regulation of advertising platforms.

•Allow a “grandfathered” city to amend its short-term rental regulations if the amendment makes the regulation less restrictive.

•Require the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to maintain vacation rental property license information in an accessible electronic format.

•Require advertising platforms to verify a property’s license number prior to publishing its advertisement on its platform and every quarter thereafter.

•Require advertising platforms to quarterly provide the department with the physical

address of the vacation rental properties that advertise on their platforms.

•Impose a duty on advertising platforms to collect and remit taxes in relation to the

rental of a vacation rental property through its platform.

•Establish requirements that advertising platforms adopt an anti-discrimination

policy and inform their users of the public lodging discrimination prohibition found in current law.

•Clarify that the provision of the bill shall not supersede any current or future community association-governing document. 

•Require sexual predators to notify local law enforcement if they will be staying for 24 hours or more in a short-term rental.

Preemption provisions included in CS/HB 219 only:

•Preempt to the state the regulation of STRs, including licensure and inspections.

•Undo any local registration, inspection or licensing requirements specific to STRs adopted since 2014.

•Require that any ordinances (noise, parking, trash, etc.), must be applied uniformly to all residential properties, regardless of how the property is being used.

CS/CS/SB 522 was significantly amended to remove the majority of the preemptions in the bill that still remain in the House version of the bill. SB 522 also specifies that advertising platforms must comply with any applicable merchant business tax receipts on short-term rentals. (Taggart)

HB 1129 (Fernandez-Barquin) and SB 1678 (Diaz) increase the statutory limits on liability for tort claims against government entities. Current law sets the statutory limits at $200,000 per claim and $300,000 per incident. The bills seek to increase these limits to $500,000 per claim and $1 million per incident. The legislation would tie these limits to a consumer price index so they would automatically increase with inflation every year. The bills set limitations of liability to take effect on the date a final judgment is entered and therefore could apply retroactively to pending claims. (Cruz)

CS/CS/SB 50 (Gruters) requires retailers with no physical presence in Florida to collect Florida's sales tax on sales of taxable items delivered to purchasers in Florida if the retailer makes a substantial number of sales into Florida or provides for the taxation of sales facilitated through a marketplace provider. The bill also deletes a provision that exempts an out-of-state dealer that makes retail sales into Florida from collecting and remitting any local option surtax. The bill temporarily diverts the increased collections in sales tax, due to this bill, to the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund until it is replenished to pre-pandemic levels. The bill reduces the business rent tax from 5.5% to 2% once the Trust Fund reaches its pre-pandemic balance. CS/CS/SB 50 passed the House (93-24) and the Senate (27-12) and was signed by the governor on April 19, 2021. Effective July 1, 2021, except as otherwise provided. Chapter No. 2021-002. (Hughes)

HB 1101 (Persons-Mulicka) and SB 1380 (Rodrigues) amend the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act to facilitate private property owner to bring a lawsuit against a government entity. Under current law, with a few exceptions, a property owner must file an application with a government entity before being able to initiate a Bert Harris Act lawsuit. These bills authorize the filing of a Bert Harris Act lawsuit based upon the adoption of an ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule or policy. (Cruz)

CS/SB 64 (Albritton) requires certain domestic wastewater utilities to submit a plan to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) by November 2021 for eliminating nonbeneficial surface water discharges (e.g., treated effluent, reclaimed water or reuse water) by January 2032. It requires DEP to approve such plans if a plan meets the following conditions: The plan will result in eliminating the surface water discharge, the plan will result in meeting statutory requirements relating to ocean outfalls, or the plan does not provide for the complete elimination of the surface water discharge but affirmatively demonstrates that specified conditions are present. The conditions are: The discharge is associated with an indirect potable reuse project, the discharge is a wet weather discharge in accordance with a permit, the discharge is into a stormwater system for subsequent withdrawal for irrigation purposes, the utility has a reuse system that achieves 90% reuse of reclaimed water, or the discharge provides direct ecological or public water supply benefits. A utility that fails to timely submit an approved plan may not discharge to surface waters after January 2028. Violations of the bill’s requirements are subject to administrative and civil penalties. The bill requires DEP to submit an annual report to the governor and Legislature detailing implementation status. The bill exempts the following domestic wastewater facilities from its requirements: facilities located in a fiscally constrained county, facilities located in a municipality that is entirely within a rural area of opportunity and facilities located in a municipality having less than $10,000 in total annual revenue. The bill authorizes DEP to establish a potable reuse technical advisory committee, provide that potable reuse projects are eligible for alternative water supply funding and provide that potable reuse projects are eligible for expedited permitting and priority state funding. In addition, the bill requires local governments to offer a 25% density or intensity bonus to developers if 75% of a development will have graywater systems installed or a 30% bonus if 100% of a development will have graywater systems installed. The bonus is in addition to any other bonus that may be in effect on July 1, 2021. (O'Hara)

CS/CS/CS/HB 337 (DiCeglie) and CS/CS/CS/SB 750 (Gruters) are comprehensive impact fee bills. The bills restrict what are allowable expenditures of impact fees revenue and cap by how much impact fees can be raised on a yearly basis. Impact fees are collected by local governments to fund local infrastructure to meet the demands of population growth. The bills also ease the restrictions on expenditure of impact fees revenue to allow for the purchase of fire department vehicles, emergency medical service vehicles, sheriff’s office vehicles, police department vehicles and the equipment necessary to outfit the vehicles for their official use. As amended, the bills will require, within 12 months before the adoption of an impact fee increase, a local government to: conduct a demonstrated-need study justifying the increase and expressly demonstrating the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the limitations, hold at least two publicly noticed workshops dedicated to the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the limitations and approve the impact fee ordinance by at least a two-thirds vote of the governing body. CS/CS/CS/HB 337 passed the House and Senate and is awaiting action by the governor. The bill is effective upon becoming law. (Cruz)

CS/HB 403 (Giallombardo) and CS/CS/SB 266 (Perry) preempt the regulation of home-based businesses. The bills provide that local governments may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation or policy or take any action to license or otherwise regulate a home-based business in a manner that is different from other businesses in a local government’s jurisdiction. The bills authorize business owners to challenge local government actions and authorize the prevailing party to recover specified attorney fees and costs. Local governments may regulate a home-based business for issues related to noise, vibration, heat, smoke, dust, glare, fumes, odors as long as these regulations are not more stringent than those applied to a home where no business takes place. CS/HB 403 passed the House (77-41), where compromise language was stripped from the bill, then passed the Senate (19-18). The bill will take effect July 1, 2021, if signed by the governor. (Cruz)

CS/CS/SB 2006 (Burgess) is a comprehensive bill that amends the State Emergency Management Act to address the threat posed by pandemics or other public health emergencies and imposes restrictions on the scope, duration and impact of local government emergency orders.

The bill defines a local government “significant emergency order” as an order or ordinance issued or enacted by a political subdivision (city or county) in response to an emergency that limits the rights or liberties of individuals or businesses within the political subdivision. The bill specifically excludes hurricane or other weather-related orders from the definition of significant emergency order, which leaves all other types of emergencies or disasters subject to the restrictions and parameters of the bill.

The bill requires that any significant emergency order issued by a local government must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public health or safety purpose; must be limited in duration, applicability, and scope to reduce any infringement on individual liberty to the greatest extent possible. Under the provisions of the bill, a significant emergency order automatically expires seven days after issuance and may be extended, as necessary, in seven-day increments but only for a total duration of 42 days. If a significant emergency order expires, the local government cannot issue a “substantially similar” order. If the governor determines that a significant emergency order unnecessarily restricts an individual's rights or liberties, the governor can invalidate the order adopted by the local government. Additionally, the bill provides that an order issued by a local government that imposes a curfew restricting travel or movement must allow persons to travel to their places of employment and to return to their residences after their work has concluded. CS/CS/SB 2006 also requires all emergency orders issued by local governments to be posted to a dedicated website accessible through a conspicuous link on the local government’s webpage. 

  

Any state agency or political subdivision that accepts assistance in aid of for emergency prevention, management, mitigation, preparedness, response or recovery must submit to the Legislature, in advance, a detailed spending plan for the money. When this pre-submission of the agency’s plan is not possible, a state agency or political subdivision must nonetheless submit the plan no later than 30 days after the initiation of any expenditures and for each additional 30 days of the emergency as long as funds continue to be disbursed. For emergency response activities, including emergency response that includes emergency protective measures or debris removal, the bill requires that the agency or political subdivision must submit to the Legislature a report of all expenditures in aggregate categories incurred in the emergency response no later than 30 days after the expenditure is incurred. The entity must also submit a copy of any project worksheet submitted to Federal Emergency Management Agency within seven days of when the document is submitted to FEMA. The bill also prohibits governmental entities and private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination and imposes fines of up to $5,000 per incident for any violation. CS/CS/SB 2006 passed the Senate (27-9) and the House (76-40). The bill was approved by the governor. (Dudley)

CS/HB 7 (McClure) and CS/SB 72 (Brandes) provide heightened legal protections against liability as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic to certain business entities, educational institutions, governmental entities and religious institutions. The legislation defines governmental entity to include municipalities. The legislation requires the plaintiff to make a detailed account to their claim and submit an affidavit signed by a physician collaborating the belief that the plaintiff’s COVID-19-related damages, injury or death occurred as a result as stated. If the plaintiff fails to do either, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice. The court must also determine whether the business or government entity made a good faith effort to substantially comply with the authoritative or controlling government health standards or guidance at the time the cause of action occurred. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove that the business or government entity did not make a good faith effort. If the business or government entity is found to have made a good faith effort, they are immune from civil liability. If the court finds that a good faith effort was not made, the plaintiff may proceed with the action. The plaintiff must prove gross negligence (a higher standard than negligence). The bills increase the standard of evidence needed on a COVID-19-related claim. If the plaintiff fails to prove these heightened requirements, the business or government entity is not liable for any act or omission relating to a COVID-19-related claim. The civil action for a COVID-19-related action must be commenced within one year of the alleged incident. The bills will apply retroactively but will not apply to civil suits commenced before the effective date of the act. CS/SB 72 passed the House and Senate and was approved by the governor. The bill is effective upon becoming law (March 29, 2021). Chapter No. 2021-001.  (Cruz)

CS/CS/HB 55 (Overdorf) and CS/SB 284 (Perry) preempt local governments from adopting zoning and development regulations that require specific building design elements for single- and two-family dwellings unless certain conditions are met. The bills define the term “building design elements” to mean exterior color, type or style of exterior cladding; style or material of roof structures or porches; exterior nonstructural architectural ornamentation; location or architectural styling of windows or doors; and number, type and layout of rooms. The bills were amended to exempt historic districts, Community Redevelopment Agencies and planned unit developments created before July 1, 2021. CS/CS/HB 55 was further amended to exempt planned unit developments or master planned communities in perpetuity, as well as local governments with design review boards or architectural review boards established before July 1, 2021. CS/CS/HB 55 passed the House (89-24). This language was amended onto CS/CS/CS/SB 1146 (Brodeur). (Taggart)

CS/HB 1053 (Overdorf) and CS/SB 102 (Burgess) will have the effect of limiting or prohibiting various civil actions and class action matters by local governments including recent class actions involving opioids, PFAS and predatory lending. CS/HB 1053 authorizes the attorney general to unilaterally declare any conduct or harm that adversely affects the interests of citizens of at least five counties in the state a “matter of great governmental concern.” It requires local governments to notify the attorney general of the commencement of “any civil action” and authorizes the attorney general to determine the local government civil action involves a matter of great governmental concern. CS/HB 1053 authorizes the attorney general, within one year of publishing notice of a determination that a matter is of great governmental concern, to file a civil action on behalf of the citizens of the state on the matter. The attorney general’s determination operates to stay any civil action of a local government on the same matter. The bill requires any funds recovered by the attorney general be deposited into the General Revenue Fund and requires a state court to dismiss as moot a local government civil action that is based on the same matter as the attorney general’s action and resolved by settlement or judgment of that action. CS/SB 102 authorizes the Legislature by concurrent resolution to declare any circumstance that has caused economic or similar harm to governmental entities in 15 or more counties to be a matter of great governmental concern. Upon such a declaration, the attorney general would have sole authority to file a civil action on behalf of the affected governmental entities. The bills authorize the attorney general to intervene in any pending civil proceeding in federal or state court (including pending appeals) and dismiss, consolidate, settle or take any action he or she believes to be in the public interest. A declaration by the attorney general that a matter is of great governmental concern will operate to abate or stay any pending civil action unless and until the attorney general takes an action in the proceeding. The bills require governmental entities that are parties to any action that has been declared a matter of great governmental interest to notify the attorney general of the existence of the action and provide that any settlement or resolution of a proceeding by a governmental entity after the attorney general’s declaration and without the attorney general’s consent is void. The declaration of a matter of great governmental concern is not “final agency action” subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The bills provide a process by which governmental entities may apply to a court to recover attorney fees and costs incurred prior to the attorney general’s declaration, but they fail to identify a source of funding, responsible party or conditions for obtaining such recovery. (O’Hara)

SB 152 (Diaz) and HB 65 (Sabatini) – Regulatory Reform

HB 77 (Overdorf) and SB 1082 (Albritton) – Diesel Exhaust Fluid

HB 103 (Thompson) and SB 1204 (Thurston) – Elections

HB 143 (Fabrico) and SB 962 (Diaz) – Construction Materials Mining Activities

SB 336 (Rouson) and HB 1535 (Clemons) – Large-scale Agricultural Pollution Reduction Pilot Program

SB 358 (Berman) – Water Safety

HB 217 (Hunschofsky) and SB 588 (Book) – Conservation Area Designations

SB 82 (Baxley) – Sponsorship of Identification Disclaimers

SB 658 (Taddeo) – Violations of the Florida Elections Code

HB 943 (Shoaf) and SB 1278 (Ausley) – Apalachicola Bay Area of Critical State Concern

HB 1051 (Fernandez-Barquin) and SB 964 (Diaz) – Environmental Compliance Costs

HB 1145 (McClain) – Regulatory Restriction Reduction

SB 94 (Brodeur) – Water Storage North of Lake Okeechobee

SB 834 (Cruz) and HB 1257 (Hunschofsky) -- Drinking Water in Public Schools

SB 1626 (Albritton) – Administrative Procedures

HB 1311 (Payne) – Public Meetings/Public Service Commission

SB 1668 (Rodriguez, A.) – Seagrass Mitigation Banks

SB 1652 (Pizzo) and HB 1337 (Geller) – Anchoring Limitation Areas

SB 1752 (Rodriguez, A.) – Independent Special District Utilities

HB 1487 (McCurdy) – School Resiliency Pilot Programs

HB 869 (Valdes) and SB 1528 (Cruz) – Vote by Mail Ballots

SB 188 (Berman) and HB 551 (Hardy) – Solar Energy Systems Located on Property of an Educational Facility

HB 457 (Arrington) and SB 830 (Polsky) – Political Party Affiliations of Qualifying Candidates

SB 774 (Gainer) and HB 635 (Maney) – Super Voting Sites

SB 7062 (Environment and Natural Resources Committee) – Central Florida Water Initiative

SB 546 (Farmer) and HB 1575 (Jenne) create the Stop Fracking Act. The bills define extreme well stimulation to include the various forms of fracking used to increase the production at an oil or gas well and prohibit well stimulation in the state. (O’Hara)

CS/SB 64 (Albritton) and CS/HB 263 (Maggard) require certain domestic wastewater utilities to submit a plan to the Department of Environmental Protection by November 2021 for eliminating nonbeneficial surface water discharges (e.g., treated effluent, reclaimed water or reuse water) by January 2032. The bills require DEP to approve such plans if a plan meets the following conditions: The plan will result in eliminating the surface water discharge, the plan will result in meeting statutory requirements relating to ocean outfalls, or the plan does not provide for the complete elimination of the surface water discharge but affirmatively demonstrates that specified conditions are present. The conditions are: The discharge is associated with an indirect potable reuse project, the discharge is a wet weather discharge in accordance with a permit, the discharge is into a stormwater system for subsequent withdrawal for irrigation purposes, the utility has a reuse system that achieves 90% reuse of reclaimed water, or the discharge provides direct ecological or public water supply benefits. A utility that fails to timely submit an approved plan may not discharge to surface waters after January 2028. Violations of the bills’ requirements are subject to administrative and civil penalties. The bills require utilities to update plans on an annual basis and demonstrate whether statutory conditions and exemptions remain applicable. The bills require DEP to submit an annual report to the governor and Legislature detailing implementation status. The bills exempt the following domestic wastewater facilities from its requirements: facilities located in a fiscally constrained county, facilities located in a municipality that is entirely within a rural area of opportunity and facilities located in a municipality having less than $10,000 in total annual revenue. The bills authorize DEP to establish a potable reuse technical advisory committee, provide that potable reuse projects are eligible for alternative water supply funding and provide that potable reuse projects are eligible for expedited permitting and priority state funding. CS/SB 64 requires local governments to offer a 25% density or intensity bonus to developers if 75% of a development will have graywater systems installed or a 30% bonus if 100% of a development will have graywater systems installed. The bonus is in addition to any other bonus that may be in effect on July 1, 2021. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 331 (McClure) and CS/CS/SB 694 (Rodrigues) require a local government that displaces an existing solid waste provider, in addition to meeting the procedural and three-year notice requirements in current law, to pay the provider an amount equal to the company’s preceding 18 months of gross receipts for the service in the displaced area. CS/CS/SB 694 clarifies that municipal solid waste providers are not responsible for collecting storm-generated yard trash resulting from a federally declared disaster.  CS/CS/SB 694 also requires the Department of Environmental Protection to review and update its 2010 report on retail bags by analyzing the need for new or different regulation of auxiliary containers, wrappings or disposable plastic bags used by consumers. (O’Hara)

SB 1860 (Jones) and HB 1435 (Smith, C.) direct the Office of Energy within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to establish an application process for electric utilities, natural gas utilities and water/wastewater utilities to complete before it may receive utility customer assistance funds to provide assistance to residential customers for nonpayment of utility bills. The bills provide eligibility criteria for utilities to receive customer assistance funds and specifies criteria for a utility’s COVID-19 relief repayment plan. The bills require participating utilities to provide a report of all related accounting by December 2021. The bills specify that in addition to utility customer assistance funds provided in the bills, utilities must use funds allocated from the federal coronavirus relief funds of Public Law 116-136 to provide direct subsidy payments on behalf of residential customers whose accounts are more than 60 days past due. The bills direct the Legislature to appropriate $100 million to the Office of Energy for customer assistance funds. (O’Hara)

SB 1396 (Gruters) and HB 1167 (Snyder) expand the current law preemption of local government regulations pertaining to “dangerous” trees on residential property. The bills expand the definition of “residential property” to include manufactured or modular homes, mobile home parks, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, condominium units or cooperative units. (O’Hara)