BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HB 187 (McCurdy) and SB 878 (Thurston) prohibit law enforcement agencies from purchasing certain surplus military equipment. The bills also prohibit law enforcement agencies from using tear gas and kinetic impact munitions on an assembly or protest unless the gathering has been declared unlawful. (Taggart)

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 fee revenues 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 (94-23) and is awaiting action by the Senate. (Cruz)

CS/HB 403 (Giallombardo) and CS/CS/SB 266 (Perry) passed in their respective committees. 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. CS/CS/SB 266 was amended to provide that a home-based business may not create noise, vibration, heat, smoke, dust, glare, fumes, odors or electrical or electronic interference detectable by neighbors or from the street. The amended bill would also allow local regulation of a home-based business for items such as parking, signage, exterior structures and the use of hazardous materials. The business may operate from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and no business transaction may be visible from the street. CS/HB 403 passed the House (78-38) and is awaiting action by the Senate. (Cruz)

CS/CS/CS/SB 88 (Brodeur) and CS/CS/HB 1601 (Williamson) revise the Right to Farm Act to incorporate agritourism activities within the scope of the Act. The Right to Farm Act specifies that no farm operation that has been in operation for one year or more and that was not a nuisance at the time of its establishment shall be a public or private nuisance if the farm operation conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices. In addition, the bills provide limitations on liability from nuisance, trespass or tort actions that may be filed relating to farming or agritourism activities. They specify that a farm may not be held liable for operations alleged to cause harm outside of the farm unless the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the claim arises out of conduct that does not comply with state and federal environmental laws, regulations or best management practices. The bills further provide that a nuisance action may not be filed unless the property affected by the activity is located within one-half mile of the activity. The bills limit compensatory damages in a private nuisance action to the reduction in fair market value of the affected property. They prohibit the recovery of punitive damages for nuisance actions under specified conditions. The bills require payment of attorney fees and costs by plaintiffs who fail to prevail in a nuisance action. CS/CS/CS/SB 88 passed in the House and Senate and is awaiting action by the governor. (O’Hara)

CS/CS/SB 856 (Hutson) and CS/CS/HB 839 (Fabricio) expressly preempt the regulation of fuel retailers and related transportation infrastructure to the state. The amended bills specify that local governments may not take actions that result in jurisdiction-wide bans on gas stations or transportation infrastructure necessary to provide fuel to gas stations. The amended bills also prohibit local governments from requiring gas stations to install specific fueling infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations. CS/CS/HB 839 preserves the authority of local governments to take actions or apply regulations relating to the siting, development or redevelopment of gas stations and related infrastructure if such actions do not result in a de facto prohibition within zoning or land use classifications where such infrastructure is consistent with other allowable uses. CS/CS/SB 856 preserves the authority of local governments to take actions or apply regulations relating to the siting, development or redevelopment of gas stations and related infrastructure if such actions do not result in a de facto, jurisdictionwide prohibition of such gas stations or infrastructure. (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 663 (Salzman) and CS/SB 1294 (Brodeur) deal with the regulation of “cottage food” operations which encompasses any person or entity that produces or packages certain foods at their residence intended to be sold. The bills increase the current sales cap on cottage food operations from $50,000 to $250,000. The bills also preempt the regulation of cottage food operations to the state and prohibit local governments from prohibiting or regulating cottage food operations. CS/HB 663 passed the House (91-24) and is awaiting action by the Senate. CS/SB 1294 was amended to clarify that cottage food operations must comply with all local ordinances regulating traffic, parking, noise, signage, and hours of retail operation. (Taggart)

CS/CS/HB 1239 (Tomkow) and CS/CS/SB 1592 (Burgess) require municipal electric utilities, through July 1, 2024, to offer broadband providers a discounted rate of one dollar per attachment per year for any new pole necessary to make broadband service available to an unserved or underserved consumer within the utility’s service territory.

The bills provide terms for these discounted attachments. The bills also provide safety and reliability standards for pole attachments and specify each party’s responsibility for costs associated with replacement poles. CS/CS/HB 1239 also creates a program within the Florida Office of Broadband to award grants, subject to appropriation, to applicants who seek to install or deploy infrastructure that expands broadband service to unserved areas.

 (Hughes)

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/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/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)

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/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 fee revenues 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 (94-23) and is awaiting action by the Senate. (Cruz)

CS/HB 403 (Giallombardo) and CS/CS/SB 266 (Perry) passed in their respective committees. 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. CS/CS/SB 266 was amended to provide that a home-based business may not create noise, vibration, heat, smoke, dust, glare, fumes, odors or electrical or electronic interference detectable by neighbors or from the street. The amended bill would also allow local regulation of a home-based business for items such as parking, signage, exterior structures and the use of hazardous materials. The business may operate from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and no business transaction may be visible from the street. CS/HB 403 passed the House (78-38) and is awaiting action by the Senate. (Cruz)

CS/CS/HB 421 (Tuck) and CS/SB 1876 (Albritton) amend the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act by shortening the review period governments have in responding to claims from 150 to 90 days. The bills create the presumption that certain Bert Harris settlement offers are in the public interest. The bills create a process by which a property owner can notify a government entity that they believe a new law or regulation imposes a limitation on their property. The government entity would have 45 days to respond in writing describing what limitations are imposed on the property by the new law or regulation. At this point, the Bert Harris claim would be ripe for filing without the property owner being denied an application for development if filed within one year after receiving the response from the government entity. The bills give the property owner the option to forgo a jury trial and instead have a bench trial. Lastly, the legislation amends the attorney fee provisions of the Bert Harris Act by making them more favorable to the property owner. The bills were amended to add the subject of HB 1101 and SB 1380, creating one vehicle for all Bert Harris Legislation. CS/CS/HB 421 passed the House (90-29) and is awaiting action by the Senate. (Cruz)

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)

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)

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, 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)