BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

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. (Taggart)

HB 1239 (Tomkow) and SB 1592 (Burgess) exempt from sales and use tax certain equipment purchased, leased or sold by providers of communications services or internet access services. 

The bills require municipal electric utilities to provide broadband providers access to and use of municipal electric utility poles. The municipal electric utility must adopt rates, terms and conditions for such access that are consistent with the provisions of 47 U.S. Code s. 224 and any Federal Communications Commission regulations and decisions. The rates, terms and conditions must be nondiscriminatory, just and reasonable and may not favor a pole owner or an affiliate of the pole owner. The municipal electric utility must maintain and make available to a broadband provider all records, including specified information, necessary to calculate the rate it charges to the provider. The bill requires the municipal electric utility to rearrange, expand, replace or otherwise reengineer any utility pole upon the request of a broadband provider, and the utility may require a reimbursement only of actual cost. The municipal electric utility must complete pole replacements and any work needed to accommodate the broadband provider’s attachment within 90 days after receiving a complete attachment request. A municipal electric utility or broadband provider may submit a written request to negotiate any agreement or amendment to an existing agreement addressing attachments by the broadband provider to conform any agreements. (Hughes)

HB 1053 (Overdorf), SB 1874 (Burgess) and 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. The bills authorize the attorney general to unilaterally declare circumstances involving economic loss or harm to governmental entities in five or more counties as 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)

HB 585 (DiCeglie) and SB 378 (Bradley) – Payment for Construction Services

SB 998 (Brodeur) and HB 823 (Mariano) – Contractor Advising

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)

HB 401 (Fetterhoff) and SB 1146 (Brodeur) allow for substantially affected people to submit a petition to the 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 who a substantially affected person is and the process for submitting the petition. The bills define the process for how the commission must consider petitions and the length of time before the commission must issue its non-binding 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. (Branch)

HB 667 (Mooney) requires counties and local enforcement agencies that issue building permits to allow requests for inspections to be submitted electronically. The bill also authorizes these agencies to perform inspections virtually at their discretion. (Branch)

CS/HB 55 (Overdorf) and 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. (Branch)

SB 64 (Albritton) and 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, the bills require 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. The bills require 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. (O’Hara)

SB 506 (Garcia) and HB 195 (Persons-Mulicka) require that the website maintained by the Department of Management Services include specified information, such as name and total compensation, of all executives, managerial personnel and board members of any organization or other public or private entity that receives funding from the state of $50,000 or more in the aggregate. This information must be provided to DMS by December 31 of each calendar year beginning in 2021. Any organization or entity that fails to comply with this requirement may not receive any additional funding from the state until they are compliant. (Hughes)

HB 859 (Grant) and SB 912 (Albritton) add development permits and development agreements authorized by state law, including those authorized under the Florida Local Government Agreement Act or issued by local government or other governmental agency, to the list of permits and authorizations that are tolled and extended during a state of emergency for a natural emergency. The bills would apply to any declaration of a state of emergency issued by the governor for a natural emergency dating back to March 1, 2020. Both bills are effective upon becoming law. (Branch)

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)

SB 208 (Brandes) and HB 775 (Omphroy) allows the owner of a business or a contracted third party to install, maintain and operate a renewable energy source device on or about the structure in which the business operates or on any property the business leases. The bill provides the business owner or third party may sell the electricity that is generated from the device to another business immediately adjacent to or within the same parcel as the business and such sales shall not be considered or regulated as retail sales of electricity. The bill provides that if the energy-producing business or its customers require additional related services from a utility, such as backup generation capacity or transmission services, the utility may recover the full cost of providing those services. The bill authorizes a utility to enter a contract with a business to install, maintain or operate any type of renewable energy source device on or about the structure from which the business operates and to sell the electricity to an adjacent business and the bill provides that such electricity sales shall not be considered or regulated as retail sales of electricity. The bill specifies that if the Public Service Commission determines that the level of reduction in electricity purchases by customers using renewable energy source devices is significant enough to adversely impact the rates that other customers pay in the rate territory, the Commission may approve a utility’s requests to recover its costs of providing the electricity needed by all customers, including customers using a renewable energy source device. The bill provides for methodology of such cost recovery, a process for customers to challenge the cost recovery and authorized rulemaking by the Commission. The bill may have a negative fiscal impact on municipal revenues, including potential impacts to municipal electric franchise revenues and municipal public service utility taxes. (O’Hara)

SB 646 (Taddeo) and HB 813 (Chambliss) require counties and municipalities to rename their respective portions of Dixie Highway, Old Dixie Highway, North Dixie Highway or South Dixie Highway as “Harriet Tubman Highway.” (Branch)

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 452 (Bracy) and HB 569 (Chambliss) require law enforcement agencies to require officers to wear body cameras and use vehicle dash cameras while on duty. The bills do not provide a funding source for law enforcement agencies to comply with the bill. (Taggart)

SB 496 (Perry) and HB 59 (McClain) are comprehensive growth management bills. The legislation requires local governments to create and include a private property rights element in their comprehensive plans by July 1, 2023. The bill requires the consent of certain property owners is not required for development agreement changes under certain circumstances. Under certain circumstances the legislation authorizes developers to exchange approved land uses, subject to demonstrating that the exchange will not increase impacts to public facilities. The bills require the Department of Transportation to afford a right of first refusal to previous property owners under specified circumstances. (Cruz)

HB 401 (Fetterhoff) and 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 who a substantially affected person is and the process for submitting the petition. The bills define the process for how the Commission must consider petitions and the length of time before the Commission must issue its non-binding 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. (Branch)

HB 331 (McClure) and SB 694 (Rodrigues) require a local government that displaces an existing solid waste provider to, in addition to the procedural and three-year notice requirements in current law, pay the provider an amount equal to the company’s preceding 18 months’ gross receipts for the service in the displaced area. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 55 (Overdorf) and 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. (Branch)