BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HB 1585 (Barnaby) creates the Florida Integrity Office and the position of Florida integrity officer within the Office of the Auditor General. The bill authorizes the integrity officer to investigate complaints alleging waste, fraud, abuse, misconduct or gross mismanagement in connection with the expenditure of public funds within state and local government. The bill directs the auditor general and the integrity officer to conduct random audits and inspections of appropriations projects appropriated in the prior year. The bill authorizes the auditor general and the Florida integrity officer to investigate or audit the financial activities of any local government. The bill defines “fraud,” “waste,” “abuse” and “misconduct” and provides procedures for the inspector general to report on activities by public officials or agencies to the Florida integrity officer. The bill imposes personal liability for repayment of funds upon persons or officials responsible for determinations of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement or misconduct in government. The bill authorizes the chief financial officer to commence investigations based on complaints or referral from any source. The bill specifies conditions for awards to employees under the Florida Whistleblower Act. The bill requires each public agency contract for services entered or amended after July 2020 to authorize the public agency to inspect specified records of the contractor. The bills prohibit the use of tax incentives to be paid to a state contractor or subcontractor for services provided or expenditures incurred pursuant to a state contract. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 573 (Beltran) and CS/SB 758 (Diaz) create a new statute establishing standards and mandatory five hours of training for the fiduciary duty of care for appointed local public officers and executive officers of local government entities. In addition, the bills impose restrictions on legal representation by government attorneys. The fiduciary duty and training requirements apply to appointed officials of various local boards and committees, including code enforcement boards, planning and zoning boards, land use boards, community redevelopment agency boards and pension boards. CS/SB 758 was amended to remove pension and retirement boards from the bill. CS/HB 573 was amended to remove certain municipal boards from the bill, such as code enforcement, planning and zoning, CRA and pension boards. The bills provide that each appointed public official and executive officer has a fiduciary duty of care to the governmental entity served and has a duty to act in accordance with laws and terms governing the office or employment, act with the care and competence normally exercised by private business professionals, act only within the scope of authority and refrain from conduct likely to damage the economic interests of the governmental entity. Further, such persons must become reasonably informed in connection with any decision-making function and keep reasonably informed concerning the performance of a governmental entity’s officers, agents and employees. The bills impose training requirements on appointed public officers and executive officers that require completion of at least five hours of board governance training per term served. The bills specify the minimum content of such training programs, including board governance best practices and fiduciary duty of care and liabilities imposed by the new law. The bills provide that all legal counsel employed by a governmental entity must represent the legal interest and position of the governing body of the governmental entity and not the interest of any individual or employee of the governmental entity. (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)

HB 7041 (Public Integrity & Ethics Committee) and 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.  Unlike HB 7041, CS/CS/SB 90 prohibits the use of drop boxes altogether. (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

The main parts of CS/SB 1924 (Diaz) were amended onto CS/CS/SB 2006 (Burgess). As amended, CS/CS/SB 2006 establishes that in order for a political subdivision to issue an emergency order that deprives any person of a constitutional right, fundamental liberty or statutory right, the political subdivision must prove that the emergency order passes what is known as the strict scrutiny test. This means the local government must prove that the exercise of police power is narrowly tailored, serves a compelling governmental interest and accomplishes the intended goal through the use of the least intrusive means. CS/SB 2006 also provides that the governor, or the Legislature by concurrent resolution, may invalidate a political subdivision's emergency order if the governor or Legislature determines that the action unnecessarily restricts a constitutional right, fundamental liberty or statutory right. 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. Upon expiration of the significant emergency order, a local government is prohibited from issuing a “substantially similar” order to respond to the same emergency. 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. 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 government 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 House companion bill, CS/CS/HB 945 (Rommel), deals with local government emergency orders. The bill defines the term “significant emergency order” as an order or ordinance issued by a political subdivision in response to an emergency pursuant to the Emergency Management Act or certain public health emergencies that limit the rights or liberties of individuals or businesses within the political subdivision. CS/CS/HB 945 requires a significant emergency order issued by a political subdivision to be narrowly tailored and limited in scope and applicability for a duration of no longer than seven days unless the order is extended. The bill provides that a significant emergency order automatically expires seven days after issuance unless it is extended by a majority vote of the governing body in seven-day increments for a total duration of 42 days. The vote to extend the emergency order may be conducted virtually, and the order must include specific information including the circumstances necessitating the remote voting and a finding of necessity to convene and vote virtually. Upon expiration of the significant emergency order, a local government is prohibited from issuing a “substantially” similar order to respond to the same emergency.

A similar bill, HB 7047 (Leek), includes language that limits certain local government emergency orders that “restrict individual liberties” and tracks language from CS/CS/HB 945 by defining 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 Act or Chapter 381, Florida Statutes (relating to public health emergencies) that applies to all residents within the political subdivision and limits the right of a resident to exercise religious freedom, including the right to attend a religious service; speak freely or assemble; work, be rewarded for industry or enter into a contract; travel; acquire, possess or protect real or personal property; not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure; or purchase, keep or bear a lawful firearm or ammunition. A significant emergency order issued by a local government must be narrowly tailored and limited in duration, applicability and scope to reduce any infringement on individual liberty to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the order must contain specific reasons in support of the existence of such a purpose. The bill provides that 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. HB 7047 also requires a state agency or political subdivision that accepts assistance in aid for the purpose of 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. (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/HB 53 (DiCeglie) and 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. (Taggart)

CS/HB 401 (Fetterhoff) and 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/SB 1146 allows fee owners to use private providers for onsite sewage treatment and disposal system inspection services. (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/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. (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 non-beneficial surface water discharges (e.g., treated effluent, reclaimed water or reuse water) within a five-year time frame. 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. In addition, CS/SB 64 (but not CS/HB 263) requires DEP to also approve a plan if a utility demonstrates that it is technically, economically or environmentally infeasible to implement the requirements within five years; that implementing the requirements would create severe undue economic hardship on the community served and that the plan implements the requirements to the extent feasible. Plans approved by DEP must be fully implemented by January 2028 except for plans that implement a potable reuse project, in which case such projects must be implemented by January 2030. 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 density or intensity bonuses to developers to fully offset the developers’ capital costs of purchasing and installing residential graywater technologies in proposed or existing developments containing at least 25 residential dwellings; CS/HB 263 requires local governments to offer a 15% density or intensity bonus instead of a full offset. CS/SB 64 passed the Senate (39-0) and is awaiting action by the House. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 331 (McClure) and 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’ gross receipts for the service in the displaced area. CS/SB 694 would also require the Department of Environmental Protection to review and update its 2010 report on retail bags analyzing the need for new or different regulation of auxiliary containers, wrappings or disposable plastic bags used by consumers. (O’Hara)