BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

SB 154 (Diaz) amends multiple provisions related to local government financial transparency. The bill expands public notice and public hearing requirements for local option tax increases, other than property taxes and taxes adopted by referendum and new long-term tax-supported debt issuances. Each local government is required to prominently post on its website the voting records on any action taken by its governing board related to tax increases and new tax-supported debt issuances. The bill imposes requirements on county property appraisers and local governments relating to Truth in Millage (TRIM) notices, millage rate history and the amount of tax levied by each taxing authority on each parcel.

Additionally, local governments will be required to conduct a debt affordability analysis prior to approving the issuance of new long-term tax-supported debt. The bill requires the local government annual audit reports to include information regarding compliance with the requirements of this newly created section of law. Failure to comply would result in the withholding of state-shared revenues. The bill revises the local government reporting requirements for economic development incentives. It requires each municipality to report to the Office of Economic and Demographic Research whether the incentive is provided directly to an individual business or by another entity on behalf of the local government and the source of dollars obligated for the incentive (including local, state and federal). (Hughes)

SB 1702 (Hutson) and HB 1555 (Harding) revise the types of lessees whose purposes and functions are deemed to be governmental, municipal, or public purposes. (Hughes)

CS/SB 1186 (Brandes) and CS/HB 1379 (Chaney) implement SJR 1182 or HJR 1377 if approved by 60% of voters at the next general election. The bills specify that changes to elevate certain homestead and non-homestead residential property do not increase the assessed value of the property under specific circumstances. The bills require the property owners to provide certification. (Hughes)

SJR 1182 (Brandes) and HJR 1377 (Chaney) propose an amendment to the Florida Constitution to authorize the Legislature to prohibit the consideration of improvements made to residential real property to improve the property’s resistance to flood damage when determining assessed value of the property for the purposes of ad valorem taxation. (Hughes)

HB 61 (Roth) and SB 1238 (Roth) – Percentage of Elector Votes Required to Approve Constitutional Amendment or Revision

HB 7043 (Public Integrity & Ethics Committee) addresses public officer, public employee and third-party conduct regarding solicitation and negotiation of conflicting and potentially conflicting financial relationships, addresses post-service lobbying restrictions for certain state officers and revises executive branch lobbyist registration requirements. The bill prohibits public officers and employees from soliciting an employment or contractual relationship from entities from whom they are prohibited from entering into conflicting employment and contractual relationships. In addition, the bill requires public officers and employees to report or disclose particular solicitations and offers of employment or contractual relationships. The bill revises executive branch lobbying registration provisions to require electronic registration and affirmative consent of the principal to be represented by a lobbyist. (O’Hara)

HB 215 (Sabatini) prohibits a local government from using public funds to retain a lobbyist to represent the local government before the legislative or executive branch. It would permit a full-time employee of local government to register as a lobbyist and represent the local government before the legislative or executive branch. The bill would also prohibit any person, except a full-time employee, from accepting public funds for lobbying. It provides for the filing of complaints with the Florida Commission on Ethics and the filing of civil actions for injunctive relief, as well as sanctions and recovery of attorney fees by prevailing parties. (O’Hara)

HB 853 (Sirois) amends provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees relating to conflicting business and contractual relationships, voting conflicts, annual ethics training and financial disclosure requirements. For purposes of conflicting relationships and whether an officer or employee has a material interest in a business entity, the bill specifies that contractual relationships held by a business entity will be deemed to be held by the officer or employee if the entity is not publicly traded or the officer or employee is an officer, director or member who manages such entity. The bill amends voting conflict requirements to include special district and school board members and modifies participation requirements currently applicable only to appointed public officers to include elected county, municipal or other local public officers, special district or school board members. In addition to a prohibition on voting, such officer may not participate (i.e., discuss or debate) in the conflicted matter without first disclosing the nature of his or her interest. The bill expands persons required to file Form 6 (full) financial disclosure to include elected mayors and governing body members of municipalities having more than $10 million in total revenue. The Department of Financial Services is required to provide an annual report to the Commission on Ethics showing the total revenues for each municipality. A municipality’s failure to file its annual financial report with the Department creates a presumption the municipality has more than $10 million in annual revenues for purposes of the financial disclosure requirement. The bill lists the minimum course contents for public officer ethics training requirements and expands the class of officers required to complete annual ethics training to include special district and water management district board members. Persons required to complete annual ethics training must certify completion of the training on their financial disclosure forms as well as identify the name of the training provider. The failure to certify completion of ethics training or to identify the training provider is deemed a material error or omission. (O’Hara)

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

CS/SB 1924 (Diaz) establishes that if a political subdivision issues a “significant emergency order” that deprives any person of a constitutional right, fundamental liberty, statutory right or property to address a purported emergency, the political subdivision bears the burden of proving 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. The bill also provides that the governor, or Legislature by concurrent resolution, may invalidate a political subdivision's emergency action if the governor or Legislature determines that the action unnecessarily restricts a constitutional right, fundamental liberty or statutory right. Lastly, the bill provides that an emergency order issued by a political subdivision will automatically expire 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.

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/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.

CS/SB 2006 (Burgess) is substantially similar to HB 7047 but does NOT restrict local government emergency orders in the same ways as the previously discussed proposals. 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 special dedicated webpage accessible through a conspicuous link on the local government's home page. 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. (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