BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HB 287 (Shoaf) and SB 920 (Bradley) amends current law which provides that a property owner who enters an agreement with a state agency for outdoor recreation purposes, where the agreement recognizes the agency is responsible for personal injury, loss or damage resulting from the agency’s use of the property under the terms of the agreement subject to the limitations of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, owes no duty of care to keep the area safe for entry or use by others or to give warning of any hazardous conditions. The bill expands the definition of “state agency” to include any public entity created by law and revises the “outdoor recreation” purposes included within its scope to include traversing property for the purpose of ingress and egress to or from public lands that are used for outdoor recreation purposes. (O’Hara)

HB 6049 (Eskamani) repeals provisions of current law prohibiting local governments from recognizing or granting certain legal rights to the natural environment or granting such rights relating to the natural environment to a person or political subdivision. (O’Hara)

HB 901 (Bartleman) and SB 1252 (Berman) require the Office of Economic and Demographic Research to include within its annual assessment of Florida’s water resources an analysis of future expenditures by local, regional and state governments necessary to improve resilience to flooding. The analysis must identify gaps between projected and estimated revenues, expenditures and needs. (O’Hara)

SB 1190 (Farmer) is a Senate Joint Resolution expressing the Legislature’s support for investment in resilient infrastructure solutions, projects and policy proposals to support long-term climate resilience.  (O’Hara)

SB 1236 (Rodriguez, A.) and HB 617 (Melo) prohibit state agencies from adopting or enforcing state and regional programs to regulate greenhouse gas emissions without specific legislative authorization. (O’Hara)

SB 88 (Brodeur) revises 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 bill provides limitations on liability from nuisance, trespass or tort actions that may be filed relating to farming or agritourism activities. It specifies 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 bill further provides 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 bill limits compensatory damages in a private nuisance action to the reduction in fair market value of the affected property. It prohibits the recovery of punitive damages for nuisance actions under specified conditions. The bill requires payment of attorney fees and costs by plaintiffs who fail to prevail in a nuisance action. (O’Hara)

HB 333 (Aloupis) and SB 722 (Rodriguez) prohibit the drilling of wells or use of structures for the production of gas or petroleum products within the Everglades Protection Area. (O’Hara)

SB 136 (Brandes) creates the Energy 2040 Task Force within the Florida Public Service Commission to project the state’s electric energy needs over the next 20 years and determine how to best meet those needs while increasing competition and consumer choice. It directs the Task Force to recommend appropriate electric policies and statutory changes, including consideration of the effects of allowing nonutility retail sales of renewable energy; the use of microgrids; emerging electric technologies and concepts; the impacts of state and local government taxes on government revenues and the electric supply; and the environmental impact of electricity production, generation and transmission. The bill specifies Task Force members, authorizes the Task Force to establish any necessary advisory committees and directs the Task Force to submit its recommendations to the governor and Legislature by January 2023. (O’Hara)

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)

HB 779 (Altman) removes a provision in current law that requires income from conservation lands to be used in a specified way to retain its exemption from ad valorem taxes. In addition, the bill authorizes conservation easement agreements to allow recreational activities. (O’Hara)

SB 1054 (Broxson) addresses the regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The bill requires rulemaking by the Department of Environmental Protection to adopt cleanup standards for PFAS and abates cleanup enforcement actions pending adoption of DEP rules. The bill provides liability protection to owners and operators of PFAS-impacted sites if they are cooperating with DEP on site assessment and upon signing a “voluntary cleanup agreement” with DEP. It directs DEP to establish a PFAS assessment and cleanup program and requires DEP to provide an annual report to the governor and Legislature. (O’Hara)

SB 652 (Taddeo) imposes an excise tax upon bottled water operators at a rate of 12.5 cents per gallon of water extracted from waters of the state. It directs proceeds of the tax to be deposited into the Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Management Revolving Loan Trust Fund and directs that proceeds must be used to provide grants and loans to local governments, with priority given to projects that connect septic systems to central wastewater facilities. (O’Hara)

SB 1240 (Hutson) provides a specified annual appropriation (the lesser of $100 million or the total amount requested to fully fund the annual project list) from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to the Department of Environmental Protection to fund beach and inlet projects. (O’Hara)

HB 57 (Andrade) and SB 1194 (Hooper) – Transportation

SB 178 (Cruz) – Public School Transportation

SB 422 (Rouson) and HB 389 (Mariano) – Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority

SB 684 (Brandes) and HB 707 (Chaney) – Department of Transportation

HB 729 (Gregory) – Transportation Projects

HB 785 (Busatta Cabrera)  and SB 708 (Brandes) – Peer-to-peer Car Sharing

SB 862 (Gruters) and HB 695 (Duran) – Digital License Plate Pilot Program

SB 924 (Hooper) – Multi-use Corridors of Regional Economic Significance Program

SB 978 (Hooper) and HB 677 (Rommel) – Motor Vehicle Dealers

SB 1134 (Harrell) – Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

SB 278 (Baxley) provides criminal penalties for a person who commits a moving violation that causes serious bodily injury to or causes the death of a vulnerable road user. Of interest to cities, current law defines “vulnerable road user” to include a person engaged in work on a highway such as a utility service worker. (Branch)

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)

HB 365 (Caruso) and SB 566 (Perry) require peer-to-peer (P2P) car-sharing service sites to impose a $2 per day surcharge upon lease or rental motor vehicle through the P2P car-sharing program, which is similar to the requirements of a traditional car rental company. (Branch)

SB 140 (Brandes) and HB 819 (Learned) create additional fees and a licensing tax for electric and hybrid vehicles. The proceeds from these additional fees and taxes are deposited equally into the State Transportation Trust Fund and the newly created Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Grant Program. (Branch)

SB 138 (Brandes)  and HB 817 (Toledo) create the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Grant Program to provide financial assistance to municipalities and other entities for the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The bills authorize the Department of Transportation to develop and publish criteria for the grant application. The bills also authorize the Department of Transportation to establish by rule the maximum weight and speed of a personal delivery device. (Branch)

HB 7 (McClure) and 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. (Cruz)