BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

Florida League of Cities

  • Local Licensing (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    HB 115 (Fabricio) provides that an individual with a valid active local license may work in any local government jurisdiction without having to obtain additional local licensing, take additional examinations or pay additional local licensing fees. The bill explicitly states that this multi-jurisdictional approval does not impede a local government's ability to collect business taxes from businesses operating within the local government's boundaries. Local governments' disciplinary jurisdiction for licenses within their jurisdictions is also retained. The bill details the process for a local government to execute its disciplinary jurisdiction. (Cruz)

  • Law Enforcement Equipment (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Impact Fees (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    CS/CS/HB 337 (DiCeglie) and CS/CS/SB 750 (Gruters) are comprehensive impact fee bills. Of concern to cities, the bills would cap impact fee increases to no more than 3% annually. The bills would allow a local government to collect an impact fee only if it has a planned or funded capital improvement within the applicable impact fee assessment district at the time the fee is collected. Lastly, the bills require the submittal of an affidavit by local governments that collect impact fees attesting that all impact fees were collected and expended by the local government in compliance with the bills. CS/HB 337 was amended in committee to provide the cap on impact fees may not be more than 25% of the current rate and for the increase to be phased in. CS/SB 750 was amended in committee to make it identical to CS/HB 337. (Cruz)

  • Home-based Businesses (CS/HB 403 Oppose – Preemption; CS/SB 266 Neutral)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    CS/HB 403 (Giallombardo) and 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/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. The amended bill would also allow local regulation of a home-based business for things such as parking, hours of operation, signage, exterior structures and the use of hazardous materials. (Cruz)

  • Farming Operations/Agritourism (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    CS/CS/CS/SB 88 (Brodeur) and 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. SB 88 passed (37-1) and is awaiting action by the House. (O’Hara)

  • Express Preemption of Fuel Retailers and Related Transportation Infrastructure (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Elections (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Cottage Food Operations (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    CS/HB 663 (Salzman) and 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. (Taggart)

  • Broadband Internet Infrastructure (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    CS/HB 1239 (Tomkow) and CS/SB 1592 (Burgess) require municipal electric utilities to provide broadband providers access to and use of municipal electric utility poles. The bills provide for the adoption of rates, terms and conditions for the access to the poles consistent with federal requirements for pole attachments or as the parties agree. The bills prevent municipal electric utilities from requiring a broadband provider to comply with pole attachment specifications except as provided in the bill and provide guidelines for audits and inspections by utilities. CS/SB 1592 exempts from sales and use tax the purchase or lease of certain used providers of communications services or internet access services. (Hughes)

  • Attorney General Designation of Matters of Great Governmental Concern (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Wastewater Discharges (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Vacation Rentals (CS/CS/SB 522 Watch – CS/HB 219 Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Sovereign Immunity (Oppose)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Sales and Use Tax (Support)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    CS/CS/SB 50 (Gruters) and CS/CS/HB 15 (Clemons) require 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 bills also delete a provision that exempts an out-of-state dealer that makes retail sales into Florida from collecting and remitting any local option surtax. The bills temporarily divert 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 bills were amended to reduce the business rent tax from 5.5% to 2% once the Trust Fund reaches its pre-pandemic balance. CS/CS/HB 15 was substituted for CS/CS/SB 50. CS/CS/SB 50 passed the House (93-24) and is awaiting action by the Senate. (Hughes)

  • Relief from Burdens on Real Property Rights (Oppose)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Governmental Actions Affecting Private Property Rights (Oppose) 

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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. (Cruz)

  • COVID-19 Civil Liability Protection (Support)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Building Design (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Attorney General Designation of Matters of Great Governmental Concern (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 09, 2021

    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)

  • Special District Accountability (Watch) 

    by Mary Edenfield | Apr 02, 2021

    CS/HB 1103 (Maggard) and SB 1624 (Albritton) require certain independent special districts that levy a non-ad valorem special assessment to contract with an independent entity to conduct performance audits. These bills also require the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to conduct performance audits of certain classifications of independent special districts and report the performance audits by a specified date. (Cruz)