BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

CS/CS/HB 7041 (Public Integrity & Ethics Committee) and CS/CS/CS/SB 90 (Baxley) revise provisions of the Florida Elections Code relating to voter registration, county commission terms, ballots, voting systems, vote-by-mail ballots, canvassing boards, voter signatures and secure drop boxes. The bills pertain primarily to the actions and duties of individual voters and supervisors of elections. Portions of HB 7041 potentially relevant to municipal elections include the following: prohibits voter solicitation within 150 feet of polling places; prohibits a municipality, county or other agency from sending a vote-by-mail ballot to a voter unless requested by the voter (with an exception for local referenda elections); requires monitoring of vote-by-mail drop boxes; requires election records be retained for 22 months; requires publication of canvassing board members on an official website; and prohibits private funding of official election activities. (O’Hara)

SB 1756 (Jones) and HB 1365 (Willhite) provide that no person may qualify for state, district, county or municipal office during an investigation by the Commission on Ethics in which the Commission has determined there is probable cause to believe the person has violated the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees or committed any other breach of the public trust within the jurisdiction of the Commission. In addition, the bills specify that no person who owes a fine for failure to file a campaign finance report during a previous campaign may qualify as a candidate until the fine is paid. The bills prohibit candidate qualifying checks from containing information unrelated to the candidate’s current campaign. (O’Hara)

HB 1595 (Williamson) and SB 1892 (Diaz) –  Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund

CS/CS/SB 2006 (Burgess) and CS/HB 7047 (Leek) provide that it is the intent of the Legislature to minimize the negative effects of extended emergencies and that all aspects of emergency preparedness, response and recovery be transparent to the public to the greatest extent possible. As such, the bill clarifies that the Emergency Management Act applies to public health emergencies and requires related planning and preparation for such emergencies. The bill amends current statutes concerning transparency related to emergency orders, delegated emergency powers and emergency spending.

CS/CS/SB 2006 specifies that when a local government deprives a person of a constitutional right, a fundamental liberty or property to address an emergency, the local government bears the burden of proving that the exercise of government power is narrowly tailored, serves a compelling government interest and accomplishes the intended goal through the least intrusive means. The bill also provides that an emergency order issued by a political subdivision automatically expires 10 days after its issuance unless extended by a majority vote of the political subdivision's governing body. In the event the governing body of the political subdivision is unable to convene before the expiration of the emergency order due to the impacts of a hurricane or other weather-related natural disaster, the 10-day period is tolled until the governing body is able to convene. However, an emergency order issued under this section may not be in effect for more than 30 days unless the governing body approves an extension of the order. The bill authorizes local governments to meet virtually for the limited purpose of ratifying the extension of an emergency order and also suspends the in-person quorum requirements of any law, local ordinance or charter provision in the case of such emergencies. Additionally, the bill addresses curfews imposed by local governments by allowing individuals to commute to and from work despite the emergency curfew.

CS/CS/SB 2006 clarifies that the failure of a local government to properly notify the local government clerk or recorder of record within three days of the issuance of an emergency order will render the order null and void. Additionally, local governments are required to post any emergency orders on a specially dedicated webpage accessible through a conspicuous link on the local government's homepage. The dedicated webpage must identify the emergency orders, declarations or other orders currently in effect. Furthermore, the local government must provide the Division of Emergency Management with the link to the webpage.

The bill provides that whenever a state agency or political subdivision accepts assistance in aid of or for the purpose of emergency prevention, recovery, mitigation, preparedness and management other than emergency response, the agency or political subdivision must submit to the Legislature, in advance, a detailed spending plan for the money. When the advanced 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. This requirement does not apply to the receipt of funds received from any agency, department or other affiliated entity of the federal government as part of an expedited worksheet in anticipation of emergency response expenditures. 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 House companion, CS/HB 7047, includes many of the same provisions as the Senate bill relating to spending plans, posting of emergency orders on the local government webpage and emergency expenditure reporting requirements but differs slightly in its approach to local government emergency orders. CS/HB 7047 imposes the same “strict scrutiny” standard on local government emergency orders that “restrict individual liberties” as does the Senate bill. CS/HB 7047 specifically defines the term “significant emergency order” as an order or ordinance issued or enacted by a political subdivision in response to an emergency pursuant to the Emergency Management Act or Chapter 381, Florida Statutes (relating to public health emergencies) that applies to all residents within the political subdivision and limits the rights or liberties of individuals and businesses. Similar to the Senate bill, a significant emergency order issued by a local government must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public health or safety purpose and be limited in duration, applicability and scope to reduce any infringement on individual liberty to the greatest extent possible. The bill provides that a significant emergency order automatically expires seven days after issuance and may be extended by a majority vote of the governing body of the local government as necessary, in seven-day increments but only for a maximum total duration of 42 days. If a significant emergency order expires, the local government cannot issue a “substantially similar” order. Additionally, CS/HB 7047 authorizes the governor to invalidate an emergency order issued by a local government. Unlike its Senate companion, the House bill does not include authorization for automatic approval of virtual meetings; nor does it make a distinction between weather-related emergencies and other health-related emergencies.

CS/CS/SB 2006 passed the Senate (27-9) and is now awaiting action by the House. CS/HB 7047 is on Second Reading in the House. (Dudley)

HB 349 (Woodson) and SB 1374 (Farmer) – Small Business Website Development Grant Program 

SB 704 (Gruters) and HB 757 (Trabulsy) – Film, Television and Digital Media Rebate Program

HB 983 (Eskamani) – Agreement for Best Practices in Economic Development

HB 6011 (Beltran) repeals provisions relating to state funding for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, renovating or improving facilities primarily used for sporting events. The bill repeals the Sports Development program in current law that provides an avenue for sports facilities to apply for a distribution from the state to fund the construction or improvements to a professional sports franchise facility. Since the program was enacted in 2014, no application has been approved by the Legislature. The bill also makes conforming changes to other statutes related to sports development program distributions and reporting requirements. (Taggart)

SB 778 (Hooper) and HB 675 (Plasencia) authorize the Florida Tourism Industry Marketing Corporation “Visit Florida” to carry forward unexpended state appropriations into succeeding fiscal years. The bills also remove the previous set sunset date of October 1, 2023, for Visit Florida. (Taggart)

HB 285 (Chambliss) and SB 892 (Rodriguez) extend the date in which local governments are allowed to administer local incentive programs within the boundaries of an enterprise zone from December 31, 2020, to December 31, 2025. The bills also extend the date for contiguous multiphase projects from December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2030. (Taggart)

HB 585 (DiCeglie) and SB 378 (Bradley) – Payment for Construction Services

SB 998 (Brodeur) and HB 823 (Mariano) – Contractor Advising 

HB 1577 (McClain) and SB 488 (Perry) – Building Construction Standards

HB 6067 (Eskamani) – Repeal of Developer Incentive Requirements

CS/CS/CS/HB 53 (DiCeglie) and CS/CS/CS/SB 1076 (Brodeur) require local governments to utilize competitive bidding processes when contracting city, town or county public works projects. The bills define a public works project to be any activity that exceeds $300,000 in value and is paid for with state-appropriated funds. The requirements do not apply to any project 100% funded by local funds. The bills also block a local government from training employees in designated programs with a restricted curriculum or from a single source and local ordinances that require programs such as apprenticeships. CS/CS/CS/HB 53 was amended to remove the preemption on training requirements. Both bills were amended to increase the monetary threshold to $1 million. (Taggart)

CS/CS/HB 401 (Fetterhoff) and CS/CS/CS/SB 1146 (Brodeur) allow for substantially affected people to submit a petition to the Florida Building Commission for a nonbinding advisory opinion if a local government adopts a regulation or policy without following the process established in the Florida Building Code. The bills define a “substantially affected person” and the process for submitting the petition. The bills define the process for how the Commission must consider petitions, the length of time before the Commission must issue its nonbinding advisory opinion and where the opinion must be published. The bills allow for the Commission to make changes to the Florida Building Code to correct errors but only with a 75% vote of the Commission. A local government may not require a contract between a builder and an owner for the issuance of a building permit or as a requirement for the submission of a building permit application. CS/CS/CS/SB 1146 allows fee owners to use private providers for onsite sewage treatment and disposal system inspection services. CS/CS/CS/SB 1146 was substantially amended to allow private providers to perform in-person or virtual inspections and submit the completed inspection electronically. If an applicant chooses to use a private provider, the local government must reduce the permit fee by the amount of the cost savings to the local government for not having to perform the inspection. The bill was also amended to prohibit local governments from using preliminary maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for any law, ordinance, rule or other measure that has the effect of imposing land use changes. CS/CS/CS/SB 1146 was further amended to prohibit local governments from restricting the ability of a property owner to obtain a permit to demolish and replace any single-family dwelling located in certain flood hazard areas. The amendment also added the building design preemption language from CS/SB 284; however, the amendment includes an exemption for cities with design review or architectural review boards. (Taggart)

HB 1017 (Rayner) and SB 1648 (Powell) authorize local governments the ability to waive the fees associated with enforcing the Florida Building Code for development, construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing. (Taggart)

CS/CS/HB 667 (Mooney) and CS/CS/CS/SB 1382 (Perry) require counties and local enforcement agencies that issue building permits to allow requests for inspections to be submitted electronically. The bills also authorize these agencies to perform inspections virtually at their discretion. (Taggart)

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, CRAs 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. (Taggart)

CS/CS/HB 1059 (Robinson) and CS/CS/SB 1788 (Boyd) require local government to post certain building permit information on their websites, including the status of each application. The bills also require the local government to reduce the permit fee by a specified amount every 10 days if they failed to issue a building permit for a single-family residential dwelling within the timeframe already established by current law. The bills prohibit the local government from requiring an applicant to provide a copy of their contract with or between a contractor as a condition of the application for a building permit. CS/CS/HB 1059 passed the House (113-0) and is awaiting action by the Senate. (Taggart)

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)

CS/HB 859 (Grant) and CS/CS/SB 912 (Albritton) add development permits and development agreements authorized by state law, including those authorized under the Florida Local Government Agreement Act or issued by local government or other governmental agency, to the list of permits and authorizations that are tolled and extended during a state of emergency for a natural emergency. The bills would apply to any declaration of a state of emergency issued by the governor for a natural emergency dating back to March 1, 2020. Both bills are effective upon becoming law. CS/CS/SB 912 passed the Senate (40-0) and is awaiting action by the House. (Cruz)

SB 208 (Brandes) and HB 775 (Omphroy) allows the owner of a business or a contracted third party to install, maintain and operate a renewable energy source device on or about the structure in which the business operates or on any property the business leases. The bill provides the business owner or third party may sell the electricity that is generated from the device to another business immediately adjacent to or within the same parcel as the business and such sales shall not be considered or regulated as retail sales of electricity. The bill provides that if the energy-producing business or its customers require additional related services from a utility, such as backup generation capacity or transmission services, the utility may recover the full cost of providing those services. The bill authorizes a utility to enter a contract with a business to install, maintain or operate any type of renewable energy source device on or about the structure from which the business operates and to sell the electricity to an adjacent business and the bill provides that such electricity sales shall not be considered or regulated as retail sales of electricity. The bill specifies that if the Public Service Commission determines that the level of reduction in electricity purchases by customers using renewable energy source devices is significant enough to adversely impact the rates that other customers pay in the rate territory, the Commission may approve a utility’s requests to recover its costs of providing the electricity needed by all customers, including customers using a renewable energy source device. The bill provides for methodology of such cost recovery, a process for customers to challenge the cost recovery and authorized rulemaking by the Commission. The bill may have a negative fiscal impact on municipal revenues, including potential impacts to municipal electric franchise revenues and municipal public service utility taxes. (O’Hara)

HB 1409 (Byrd) and SB 1884 (Rodrigues) expand the scope of when an individual or organization may file suit against a municipality for violating the state preemption on firearms and ammunition to include any local policies that are written or unwritten. Current law awards the prevailing plaintiff attorney fees. The bills would consider the plaintiff the prevailing party even if the local government voluntarily changes their ordinance or policy, written or unwritten. (Taggart)