BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

CS/HB 1555 (Giallombardo) and CS/SB 1662 (Collins) make several changes to the State Cybersecurity Act (Act). The bills revise the reporting timelines and requirements for the “Cybersecurity Operations Center,” adding additional requirements for the state chief information officer and the chief information security officer. The Cybersecurity Operations Center is required to notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after an incident. The bills require the Cybercrime Operations Center to notify the Cybercrime Office of the Department of Law Enforcement of any incidents, provide regular reports and provide aid to investigate the incident. The bills require the Cybersecurity Operations Center to provide a consolidated incident report to the Governor, the Attorney General and the Executive Director of the Department of Law Enforcement by the 30th day after the end of each quarter. 

Local Government Incident Notification:

The bills require local governments to immediately notify the Cybercrime Office in the Department of Law Enforcement and the local sheriff who is responsible for receiving notification of a cybercrime incident in a local jurisdiction. Further, the bills require immediate notification to the state chief information security officer. Once a notification has been made to appropriate parties, the status and continued reporting updates are required to the local sheriff until there is no further risk to the public or other critical state systems. (Wagoner)

CS/HB 473 (Giallombardo) and CS/SB 658 (DiCeglie) exempt cities, counties and political subdivisions of the state, from liability in connection with a cybersecurity incident if the local entity has substantially complied with the current training and cybersecurity standards requirements under Section 282.3185, Florida Statutes. (Wagoner)

SB 972 (Gruters) creates the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council within the Department of Management Services. The purpose of the Council is to study and monitor the development of artificial intelligence systems in state government and prepare a report due to the Legislature by July 1, 2025. The bill preempts a county or city or any political subdivision thereof from regulating the private and public use of artificial intelligence systems. (Wagoner)

SB 656 (DiCeglie) and HB 149 (Alvarez) – Continuing Contracts

HB 1307 (Redondo) and SB 1552 (Gruters) – Housing Developments

SB 1200 (Rodriguez) and HB 1507 (Chambliss) – Enforcement of the Florida Building Code

HB 1297 (Mooney) and SB 1456 (Rodriguez) – Affordable Housing in Areas of Critical State Concern

HB 579 (Griffitts) allows private providers the ability to handle plans review and inspection tasks. Of concerns to cities, the bill does the following:

•Defines "Private Provider Firm" as a business organization offering building code services to the public through licensed agents, including architects and engineers.

•Requires private provider firms to qualify as business organizations if using licensed architects and engineers.

•Allows building owners or their contractors to hire private providers for building code inspection services with a written contract.

•Permits fee owners to use private providers for plans review or building inspections, with the possibility of requiring both if plans review is chosen.

•Requires equal access to permitting and inspection documents for private providers, owners and contractors.

•Prohibits the local building official from conducting their own plans review or inspections if a private provider is hired.

•Specifies a timeframe of 12 business days for local building officials to issue permits or provide written notices regarding plan deficiencies.

•If the local building official does not provide specific written notice to the permit applicant within the prescribed 12-day period, the permit application is deemed approved as a matter of law, and the permit must be issued by the local building official on the next business day.

•Establishes a complaint process through the Department of Commerce for fee owners or contractors if local jurisdictions fail to reduce fees as required. (Branch)

CS/CS/HB 267 (Esposito) and CS/SB 684 (DiCeglie) are comprehensive building permit bills. Of concern to cities, the bills do the following:

Expedited Approval of Residential Permits for Large Scale Developments

Only in CS/SB 684:

•Require municipalities with a population of 30,000 or more to create a program to expedite the process of issuing building permits for residential subdivisions by August 15, 2024.

•Create a two-step application process that would include the adoption of a preliminary plat and a final plat in order to expedite the issuance of building permits.

•Allow cities to work with the appropriate local government agencies to issue an address and a temporary parcel identification number for lot lines and lot sizes based on the metes and bounds of the plat contained in the application.

•Requires applicants to have a performance bond for up to 120%.

•Require applicants to indemnify local governments that issue the permit.

•Specifies that upon an applicant's request, a local government must issue no less than 50% of the permits for dwellings to be built.

Shorten Timeframes for Building Permits (applies to all municipalities)

•CS/CS/HB 267 was amended to remove the requirement for the local jurisdiction to reduce the permit fee by 75% if an owner retains a private provider. SB 684 maintains this provision. 

Only in CS/CS/HB 267:

•Requires a local government to: 

•Determine if a building permit application is complete within five business days of receiving the application, previously set at 10 days. 

•Determine if a building permit application is sufficient within 10 business days of receiving a completed application, previously set at 45 days. 

•Approve, approve with conditions, or deny a complete and sufficient permit application within the following timeframes: 

•30 business days for applicants using local government review, previously set at 120 days; 

•15 business days for applicants using a private provider, previously set at 120 days; and 

•10 business days for applicants for a permit under an already-approved master plan permit, previously set at 120 days. 

•60 business days for applicants for a multifamily project; previously set at 120 days.

•Review a completed application for sufficiency within 10 business days.

•Provide an opportunity for a virtual meeting, instead of just an in-person meeting, before a second request for additional information may be made. 

•Reduce the number of times a municipality can ask an applicant for additional information.

•Allow an application to be “deemed” approved if municipalities fail to meet any of the timeframes. 

Only in CS/SB 684:

•Requires a local government to: 

•A local government must approve, approve with conditions, or deny a building permit application after receipt of a completed and sufficient application within the following timeframes, unless the applicant waives such timeframes in writing:

•30 business days residential permits under 7,500 square feet

•60 business days residential associated permits over 7,500 square feet

•60 business days signs or nonresidential less than 25,000 square feet

•120 business days for multifamily residential not exceeding 50 units; site-plan approvals and subdivision plats not requiring public hearing or public notice; and lot grading and site alteration

•15 business days for using a master building permit consistent with s. 553.794 to obtain a site-specific building permit

•10 business days for a single-family residential dwelling who participates in a Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery program

•Provides framework for responding to insufficient application within 10 business days. The curing process will provide 10 days for applicant to respond and final 10 days for local government approve or deny the permit. (Branch)

CS/SB 742 (Grall) and CS/HB 705 (Shoaf) revise and expand the definition of "public works project" to include an activity that is paid using any local or state-appropriated funds. Under current law, this is defined as any state funds. Of concern to cities, the bills prohibit municipalities that contract for a public works project from requiring a contractor to do the following:

•Pay employees a predetermined amount of wages or prescribe any wage rate

•Provide employees a specified type, amount or rate of employee benefits

•Control, limit or expand staffing

•Recruit, train or hire employees from a designated, restricted or single source. (Branch)

CS/HB 665 (McClain) and CS/CS/SB 812 (Ingoglia) are comprehensive bills dealing with the expedited approval of residential building permits. Of concern to municipalities, the bills do the following:

•In CS/CS/SB 812 only: Require counties with a population of 75,000 or more and municipalities with a population of 30,000 or more to create a program to expedite the process of issuing building permits for residential subdivisions by October 1, 2024. 

•Create a two-step application process that would include the adoption of a preliminary plat and a final plat in order to expedite the issuance of building permits.

•Allow cities to work with the appropriate local government agencies to issue an address and a temporary parcel identification number for lot lines and lot sizes based on the metes and bounds of the plat contained in the application.

•Require applicants to have a performance bond for up to 130%.

•Require applicants to indemnify local governments that issue the permit.

•Specify that upon an applicant's request, a local government must issue no less than 50% of the permits for dwellings to be built. 

•CS/CS/SB 812 was amended to include an exemption for municipalities who have 25 acres or less of land zoned for residential or agricultural purposes.

•CS/HB 665 was amended to remove the exception of the creation of the program from municipalities of 30,000 population or more. The bill now requires all municipalities with 25 acres of contiguous land or more zoned residential or agricultural to create the program. (Chapman)

CS/SB 280 (DiCeglie) and CS/HB 1537 (Griffitts) are comprehensive bills dealing with short-term rentals. Here is a brief description of how the bills are different:

CS/HB 1537:

•Pay a fee of no more than $150 per unit for processing an individual registration application and a $50 per unit yearly renewal. A local government may impose a $300 fine for failure to register.  

•State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental based on the number of sleeping accommodations for persons staying in the short-term rental. 

•Requires the responsible party to respond to a complaint or emergency by 9 a.m. the next calendar day.

•After five violations occur over a period of time, suspensions are set at 15 days, 30 days and 60 days, respectively. 

CS/SB 280:

•Pay a “reasonable fee” per unit for processing an individual registration application and renewal. A local government may impose a $500 fine for failure to register. 

•State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental is no more than two people per room plus two, or at a minimum of 50 sq ft. per person. 

•Display their individual registration number in a conspicuous location in the vacation rental. 

•After five violations occur over a period of time, suspensions are set at 30 days, 60 days and 90 days, respectively. 

Below are how the bills remain identical:

Impact on Local Governments

The bills maintain the current preemption on local governments from adopting zoning ordinances specific to short-term rentals as well as regulating the duration of stays and the frequency in which the properties are rented. 

Local Registration Programs 

The bills create a statewide process for the local registration of vacation rentals. Under the program, a local government has 15 days after receiving an application for registration to accept the application or issue a written notice specifying all deficiencies. Both parties may agree to extend the timeline. If a municipality does not accept or deny an application within that 15-day window, that application is deemed approved. 

As a condition of registration, the local registration program may only require the owner or operator of a vacation rental to:

•Charge a reasonable fee for inspections to ensure compliance with the Florida Building and Fire Prevention Codes. 

•Renew their registration no more than once per year per unit, unless the property has a change in ownership.

•Submit identifying information about the owner or the property manager and the short-term rental being registered.

•Obtain a license as a transient public lodging establishment by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR).

•Obtain all required tax registration, receipts or certificates issued by the Department of Revenue, a county or a municipal government. 

•Maintain all registration information on a continuing basis so it is current.

•Designate and maintain a property designee who can respond to complaints and other immediate problems related to the property, including being available by phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

•Pay in full all municipal or county code liens against the property being registered. 

June 1, 2011, Grandfather Provision

The bills maintain the grandfathering of ordinances that were adopted prior to June 1, 2011. Additionally, the bills clarify that cities may amend grandfathered ordinances to be less restrictive without voiding those ordinances. 

Impact on Advertising Platforms and DBPR

Advertising platforms will now be required to:

•Collect and remit all required taxes.

•Require each person listing a property as a vacation rental to include in the advertisement the state license number and, if applicable, the local registration number. They will also be required to attest that the license and registration numbers are valid.

•By January 1, 2026, the advertising platform will be required to check and verify the license number of all listings with DBPR prior to posting the advertisement. Additionally, license numbers must be checked at the end of each calendar quarter with the department.

•Remove from public view an advertisement from their website within 15 business days after notification by DBPR in writing that a vacation rental fails to display a valid license number.

•Adopt an anti-discrimination policy.

Revocation/Denial of License

A local government may revoke or refuse to renew a vacation rental registration:

•An owner’s vacation rental registration has been suspended three times.

•There is an unsatisfied municipal or county code lien, so long as the local government allows the owner at least 60 days before the termination to satisfy the lien.

•The premises and its owner are the subject of a final order or judgment directing the termination of the premises’ use as a vacation rental. (Wagoner)

CS/SB 472 (Brodeur) and CS/CS/HB 569 (McFarland) increase the statutory limits on liability for tort claims against the state and its agencies and subdivisions (which include cities). The current statutory limits for claims are $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. Both bills would increase the caps to $400,000 per person and $600,000 per incident. CS/HB 569 initially required caps to be adjusted annually on July 1 to reflect changes in the regional Consumer Price Index, but this was removed from CS/CS/HB 569 in committee, while CS/SB 472 was amended to require this adjustment to occur on July 1, 2029, and to occur every five years thereafter. The bills prohibit an insurance policy from conditioning the payout of a claim on the passage of a claims bill. Both bills allow a subdivision of the state to settle a claim above the statutory limits without the need for a claims bill. The bills narrow the statute of limitation on negligence claims against government entities from four years to two years. CS/SB 472 was amended to mirror the provision in CS/CS/HB 569 that lowers the required pre-suit notice from three years to 18 months. Both bills also abolish the common law doctrine of “home venue privilege” in relation to negligence suits against the state. The Senate bill allows the limitations of liability in effect on the date a final judgment is entered to apply to the claim. Therefore, allowing claims that occurred prior to implementation of these new limits to avail themselves to the increase in caps. On the other hand, the House bill was amended to apply the increased caps to apply to accidents that occur after the effective date of the bill, October 1, 2024. (Cruz)

CS/CS/HB 267 (Esposito) and CS/SB 684 (DiCeglie) are comprehensive building permit bills. Of concern to cities, the bills do the following:

Expedited Approval of Residential Permits for Large Scale Developments

Only in CS/SB 684:

•Require municipalities with a population of 30,000 or more to create a program to expedite the process of issuing building permits for residential subdivisions by August 15, 2024.

•Create a two-step application process that would include the adoption of a preliminary plat and a final plat in order to expedite the issuance of building permits.

•Allow cities to work with the appropriate local government agencies to issue an address and a temporary parcel identification number for lot lines and lot sizes based on the metes and bounds of the plat contained in the application.

•Requires applicants to have a performance bond for up to 120%.

•Require applicants to indemnify local governments that issue the permit.

•Specifies that upon an applicant's request, a local government must issue no less than 50% of the permits for dwellings to be built.

Shorten Timeframes for Building Permits (applies to all municipalities)

•CS/CS/HB 267 was amended to remove the requirement for the local jurisdiction to reduce the permit fee by 75% if an owner retains a private provider. SB 684 maintains this provision. 

Only in CS/CS/HB 267:

•Requires a local government to: 

oDetermine if a building permit application is complete within five business days of receiving the application, previously set at 10 days. 

oDetermine if a building permit application is sufficient within 10 business days of receiving a completed application, previously set at 45 days. 

oApprove, approve with conditions, or deny a complete and sufficient permit application within the following timeframes: 

30 business days for applicants using local government review, previously set at 120 days; 

15 business days for applicants using a private provider, previously set at 120 days; and 

10 business days for applicants for a permit under an already-approved master plan permit, previously set at 120 days. 

60 business days for applicants for a multifamily project; previously set at 120 days.

oReview a completed application for sufficiency within 10 business days.

oProvide an opportunity for a virtual meeting, instead of just an in-person meeting, before a second request for additional information may be made. 

•Reduce the number of times a municipality can ask an applicant for additional information.

•Allow an application to be “deemed” approved if municipalities fail to meet any of the timeframes. 

Only in CS/SB 684:

•Requires a local government to: 

oA local government must approve, approve with conditions, or deny a building permit application after receipt of a completed and sufficient application within the following timeframes, unless the applicant waives such timeframes in writing:

30 business days residential permits under 7,500 square feet

60 business days residential associated permits over 7,500 square feet

60 business days signs or nonresidential less than 25,000 square feet

120 business days for multifamily residential not exceeding 50 units; site-plan approvals and subdivision plats not requiring public hearing or public notice; and lot grading and site alteration

15 business days for using a master building permit consistent with s. 553.794 to obtain a site-specific building permit

10 business days for a single-family residential dwelling who participates in a Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery program

oProvides framework for responding to insufficient application within 10 business days. The curing process will provide 10 days for applicant to respond and final 10 days for local government approve or deny the permit. (Branch)

CS/CS/HB 1277 (Busatta Cabrera) and SB 1510 (Brodeur) impose restrictions on the use of municipal water, wastewater, gas or electric utility revenues to fund general government services and impose restrictions on the imposition of water and wastewater extraterritorial surcharges. CS/CS/HB 1277 requires interlocal agreements for extraterritorial utility service (gas, electric, water and wastewater) to be written and provides that such agreements may not become effective until the provider municipality holds a joint public meeting with the governing body of the recipient jurisdiction. In addition, the bill requires a joint annual customer meeting between the providing municipality and the recipient jurisdictions’ governing bodies for the purpose of obtaining public input on utility matters. CS/CS/HB 1277 imposes a 10% cap of gross utility revenues on any utility enterprise fund transfers to the general fund. Beginning November 2024, municipal utilities providing extraterritorial services are required to submit an annual report to the Public Service Commission with information about the scope and nature of the services. Beginning January 2025, the Public Service Commission is required to aggregate the information submitted by municipal utilities and provide an annual report to the Legislature. SB 1510 specifies that the portion of utility revenues transferred to the general fund may not exceed the transfer rates specified in the bill. The specified transfer rates are based on the average midpoints of the rates of return on equity approved by the Public Service Commission for investor-owned utilities. The bill requires further reductions in the allowable transfer rate based on the percentage of the utility’s retail customers located outside the municipality’s boundaries. The bill further specifies that these reductions do not apply if the utility service is governed by a utility authority board that, through the election of voting members from outside the municipal boundaries, provides for proportionate representation of customers located outside the municipal boundaries. With respect to extraterritorial surcharges, CS/CS/HB 1277 and SB 1510 eliminate the first 25% extraterritorial surcharge that may be imposed without a public hearing. The bills eliminate the second 25% surcharge that may be imposed after a public hearing. In addition, the bills provide that rates, fees and charges that may be imposed on extraterritorial customers shall not exceed 25% (reduced from the 50% allowed under current law) of the total amount the municipality charges customers served within the municipality for corresponding service. The effective date of the bills is July 2025. (O’Hara)

CS/CS/HB 1195 (Garrison) and CS/SB 1322 (Ingoglia) would require local government to have two-thirds vote of the membership of the governing body to increase the millage rate. CS/HB 1195 was amended to clarify that the two-thirds vote does not apply to existing millage rate increases that require a three-fourths or unanimous vote of the governing body or voter approval in a referendum under current law. (Chapman)

CS/SB 1628 (Collins) and CS/HB 1547 (McClure) revise exemptions from the application of SB 170, relating to local ordinances and business impact estimates, passed in the 2023 Legislative Session. The bills eliminate exemptions for ordinances adopted pursuant to Section 163, Part II, except for development orders, permits and agreements. Consequently, ordinances adopting land development regulations, comprehensive plan amendments and zoning changes are no longer exempt from the ordinance suspension and business impact requirements in current law. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 609 (Botana) and SB 1144 (DiCeglie) would repeal local governments' ability to levy a local business tax (LBT). CS/HB 609 was amended to no longer repeal the LBT. However, the amount of revenue generated from the collection of the LBT is being capped using fiscal year 23/24 as the base year. Local governments may not generate more revenue in any year moving forward above the base year of 23/24. Rates for the fees may be lowered, but not increased. (Chapman)

SB 1184 (Ingoglia) and CS/CS/HB 1221 (McClain) are comprehensive bills relating to land use and development regulations. The bills amend various regulations relating to comprehensive plans. The bill would restrict optional elements of a comprehensive plan from containing a policy restricting density and intensity. The bills amend definitions of intensity, density, urban service area and urban sprawl to promote the construction of additional single-family, two-family and fee simple townhomes. The bills require local governments to adopt minimum lot sizes with single-family, two-family and fee simple townhouse zoning districts to accommodate the maximum density authorized in the comprehensive plan. The bills require local governments to adopt infill redevelopment regulations to administratively approve the development of infill single-family, two-family and fee simple townhouses. HB 1221 also contains a provision that would require the automatic rezoning of agricultural land for single family housing in certain circumstances. This provision is not found in SB 1184. CS/CS/HB 1221 has been significantly amended in committee. Relevant to municipal operation, the amendments inserted a provision that preempts local regulation relating to the building of new self-storage facilities and removed provisions related to the rezoning of agricultural enclaves. The bill was amended further to permit a final order or decision by a municipally established historic preservation board or commission to be appealed to the board of county commissioners. (Cruz)

CS/HB 7019 (Buchanan) is the implementing bill for HJR 7017 if it is voter-approved and would require an annual adjustment to the value of certain homestead exemptions. The bill would require that the Legislature appropriate funds to offset reductions in ad valorem tax revenue experienced by fiscally constrained counties due to the annual positive inflation adjustment. (Chapman)

HJR 7015 (Buchanan) proposes an amendment to the constitution to authorize the Legislature to increase the maximum amount of the exemption on homestead property from a maximum amount of $25,000 to a maximum amount of $50,000, for homestead property with an assessed value greater than $50,000. The constitutional amendment must be approved by at least 60% of electors at the November 2024 general election and will take effect on January 1, 2025. (Chapman)

CS/HJR 7017 (Buchanan) proposes an amendment to the constitution to authorize the Legislature to require an annual adjustment to the value of certain homestead exemptions. The constitutional amendment must be approved by at least 60% of electors at the November 2024 general election and will take effect on January 1, 2025. CS/HB HJR 7017 was amended to clarify that the annual inflation adjustment to the $25,000 exemption on assessed value for all levies, other than school district levies, and any future similar exemptions added to the constitution must be adjusted only when the inflation growth is positive. (Chapman)

CS/HB 479 (Robinson, W.) and SB 688 (Martin) revise and provide additional guidance concerning the use of mobility plans and the collection of mobility fees. The bills provide definitions for “mobility fee” and “mobility plan” to be used within the Community Planning Act. The bills prohibit local governments from charging for transportation impacts if they are not the local government that is issuing a building permit, require that local governments collect for extra jurisdictional impacts if they are issuing building permits and prohibit local governments from assessing multiple charges for the same transportation impact. Concerning impact fees, the bills provide that local governments adopting and collecting impact fees by ordinance or resolution must use localized data available within the previous 12 months of adoption for the local government’s calculation of impact fees. (Cruz)