BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

Florida League of Cities

  • Tree Pruning, Trimming or Removal on Residential Property (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    SB 1396 (Gruters) and HB 1167 (Snyder) expand the current law preemption of local government regulations pertaining to “dangerous” trees on residential property. The bills expand the definition of “residential property” to include manufactured or modular homes, mobile home parks, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, condominium units or cooperative units. (O’Hara)

  • Traffic Infraction Detectors (Oppose – Preemption) 

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    HB 6009 (Sabatini) preempts cities, counties and the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles from installing, maintaining or utilizing red light cameras effective July 1, 2024. (Branch)

  • State Preemption of Seaport Regulations (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    HB 267 (Roach) and SB 426 (Boyd) prohibit local governments from restricting or regulating commerce; the size and types of vessels; the source or type of cargo; or the number, origin or nationality of passengers in state seaports. (Branch)

  • State Preemption of Energy Infrastructure Regulations (Oppose – Preemption and Unfunded Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    SB 856 (Hutson) and HB 839 (Fabrico) expressly preempt the regulation of the construction of energy infrastructure to the state. “Energy infrastructure” means infrastructure used to support the production, import, storage and distribution of natural gas, petroleum, electricity, biomass, renewable fuels, hydrogen, solar, wind or geothermal energy. The bills prohibit a local government from implementing or enforcing any policy, resolution or ordinance that has the effect of prohibiting, restricting or requiring the construction of new or the expansion, upgrade or repair of existing energy infrastructure. The bills also prohibit local governments from imposing requirements that are more stringent than state law. (O’Hara)

  • Solar Electrical Generating Facilities (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    SB 1008 (Hutson) and HB 761 (Overdorf) provide that solar facilities (including solar farms and related buildings, transmission lines and substations) are a permitted (as-of-right) use in local government comprehensive agricultural land use categories and certain agricultural zoning districts within unincorporated areas. The bills require solar facilities to comply with minimal criteria such as setbacks and buffering applicable to similar uses within the agricultural district. The bills authorize counties to adopt ordinances specifying buffer and landscaping requirements for solar facilities if the requirements do not exceed requirements for other permitted uses within an agricultural district. The bills also include solar facilities with capacities of less than 150 megawatts within the current definition of “electrical power plant” in the Power Plant Siting Act and allow such solar facilities the option of whether to use the Act’s certification process for siting the facilities. (O’Hara)

  • Renewable Energy (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    SB 1960 (Bean) provides a process for siting solar facilities and restricts local governments’ authority to prohibit or impose requirements on such facilities. It defines “solar facilities” to mean a production facility that converts solar energy to electricity that is consumed primarily off-site via a transmission system. The term includes modules, mounting systems, collection systems and associated components as well as accessory buildings, grid interconnection equipment and energy storage equipment. The bill provides that solar facilities shall be a permitted use by right in all agricultural land use categories of the applicable local government comprehensive plan and all agricultural zoning districts within unincorporated areas. It provides that solar facilities must comply with the same setback, landscaping, buffering, fencing or berm requirements applicable to other uses that do not produce food or fiber in that comprehensive plan category or zoning district. The bill specifies that agricultural land leased for a solar facility shall maintain its agricultural tax exemptions. For solar facilities greater than 75 megawatts in capacity, the bill allows an applicant the option to apply for certification under the state’s Power Plant Siting Act. (O’Hara)

  • Public Works Projects (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    CS/HB 53 (DiCeglie) and SB 1076 (Brodeur) require local governments to utilize competitive bidding processes when contracting city, town or county public works projects. 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 things like apprenticeship programs. (Branch)

  • Public Safety Emergency Communications Systems (Oppose – Preemption) 

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    HB 587 (Snyder) and SB 1902 (Rodrigues) revise requirements for minimum radio signal strength for fire department communications; require the state fire marshal to adopt minimum radio coverage design criteria for public safety emergency communications systems and minimum standards for interior radio coverage and signal strength in buildings; require a local jurisdiction's public safety emergency communications system be certified as meeting or exceeding certain criteria before new and existing buildings are required to install or to be assessed for two-way radio communications enhancement systems; require local jurisdictions to produce radio coverage heatmaps and prohibit local jurisdictions from withholding certificates of occupancy under certain circumstances. (Taggart)

  • Public Records (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    CS/SB 400 (Rodrigues) and HB 913 (McClure) prohibit a city, after receiving a public record request, from filing an action for declaratory judgement against the individual or entity making the request. The bills would prevent cities from seeking clarification from the courts as to whether a record is exempt or exempt and confidential. (Taggart)

  • Prohibition of Public Funds for Lobbying (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    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)

  • Prohibited Governmental Transactions with Technology Companies and for Chinese Products (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    HB 439 (Fine) and SB 810 (Gruters) prohibit an agency or local governmental entity from purchasing or entering into a contract for any good made in or that contains at least 25% or more parts that were produced in China. The bills also prohibit a local governmental entity from purchasing any good or service made, sold or provided by Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple or Alphabet, Inc. (Taggart)

  • Preemption of Local Occupational Licensing (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    SB 268 (Perry) and HB 735 (Harding) expressly preempt the licensing of occupations to the state. The bills define occupation to include a paid job, work, trade, employment or profession and define licensing to include any training, education, test, certification, registration, procedure or license that are required for a person to perform an occupation. The bills provide limited exceptions for specified local licenses and any local government licensing of occupations that was expressly authorized by general law. The bills will prohibit a local government from requiring a person to obtain a license for a job scope that does not substantially correspond to the job scope of certain contractor categories set forth in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In addition, the bills will authorize local governments to issue journeyman licenses in specified trades. (Cruz)

  • Local Licensing (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 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 | Mar 05, 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 | Mar 05, 2021

    HB 337 (DiCeglie) and 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 improvements 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. (Cruz)

  • Home-Based Businesses (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    HB 403 (Giallombardo) and SB 266 (Perry) 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 bill authorizes business owners to challenge local government actions and authorizes the prevailing party to recover specified attorney fees and costs. (Cruz)

  • Farming Operations/Agritourism (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    CS/CS/CS/SB 88 (Brodeur) and 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. (O’Hara)

  • Emergency Management Powers of Political Subdivisions (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    HB 945 (Rommel) creates and defines the term "significant emergency orders" to mean any order or ordinance issued by a local government that places limits on residents of certain rights. The bill creates an automatic expiration date of 30 days on significant emergency orders. However, a local government may extend the order once for 60 days by a referendum approved by a majority of the electors within the political subdivision. (Branch)

  • Elections (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 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)

  • County and Municipal Code Enforcement (CS/SB 60 – Watch, HB 883 Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Mar 05, 2021

    CS/SB 60 (Bradley) and HB 883 (Overdorf) would prohibit code enforcement officers from investigating and enforcing a potential code violation if the complaint is received anonymously. The bill requires any person who reports a violation of a code or ordinance to provide their name and address to the local government before any enforcement proceedings occur. CS/SB 60 was amended to still allow for enforcement of anonymous complaints if they pose an imminent threat to public health, safety or welfare or imminent destruction of habitat or sensitive resources. (Taggart)