BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

SB 1382 (Albritton) is a comprehensive bill that prohibits local governments from recognizing or granting certain legal rights to the natural environment (e.g., granting legal standing to waterbodies) or granting enforcement of such rights to persons or political subdivision. The bill also authorizes basin management action plans to include a cooperative agricultural regional water quality management element or a cooperative urban, suburban, commercial or institutional regional water quality improvement element. The agricultural element shall be adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection and may include cost-effective and financially feasible cooperative agricultural nutrient reduction projects intended to reduce nutrient impacts from agricultural operations. Participants in the plan must have already implemented interim measures, best management practices or other measures adopted by DEP. The cooperative urban, et al. element shall be developed by DEP and may include cost- effective, financially practical regional nutrient reduction projects that may be implemented to reduce nutrient impacts from urban, suburban, commercial or institutional operations. The bill directd DEP to work with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to improve the accuracy of data in BMAPs and shall work with producers to identify technologies for implementation. The bill establishes a nutrient reduction cost-share program within DEP that authorizes the agency to fund projects that may reduce nutrient pollution, including projects identified in the new plan elements authorized by the bills. The bill specifies funding priority for certain projects and require projects to have a 50% match of local funds. (O’Hara)

HB 1199 (Ingoglia) and CS/SB 1382 (Albritton) prohibit local governments from recognizing or granting certain legal rights to the natural environment (e.g., granting legal standing to waterbodies) or granting enforcement of such rights to persons or political subdivision. (O’Hara)

HB 1237 (Avila), SB 1698 (Diaz) and SB 1700 (Diaz) preempt any local government ordinance or regulation that prohibits or regulates pet stores. The bills specify requirements for sourcing, sale or transfer of animals from a pet store as well as impose inspections and other conditions on the pet store. SB 1698 creates the Florida Pet Protection Act requiring the Florida Department of Professional Regulation to adopt procedures and oversee the licensures and inspections of pet stores. SB 1700 requires a fee of $25 to acquire or maintain a pet store license. (Cook)

CS/SB 162 (Perry) and HB 195 (Rodrigues) are two bills relating to public record requests. The bills

prohibit a city, after receiving a public record request, from filing an action for declaratory judgement against the individual or entity making the request. These bills would prevent cities from seeking clarification from the courts as to whether a record is exempt or exempt and confidential. (Cook)

SB 768 (Perry) is linked to SB 766 (Perry). SB 768 establishes a statewide local government lobbyist registration fee. It provides the fee may not exceed $40 for each principal represented for one county and governmental entities therein or exceed $5 for each principal represented for each additional county and governmental entities therein. The bill prohibits a local government from charging a fee for the registration of lobbyists or principals, or for the enforcement of lobbyist regulation except as may be reasonable and necessary to cover the cost of such enforcement. Enforcement fees may be charged only if enforcement action is initiated and are limited to the direct and actual cost of the enforcement action. (O’Hara)

CS/SB 1372 (Brandes) makes technical, election administration changes recommended by the Florida State Supervisors of Elections Association for the 2020 general election cycle. In addition, the bill expressly preempts a local government from enacting or imposing any limitation on contributions to a political committee or electioneering communications organization, or limitations on any expenditures for an electioneering organization or an independent expenditure. (O’Hara)

SB 766 (Perry) and HB 611 (Sabatini) impose mandatory lobbyist registration requirements on all governmental entities as defined in the bill, including all municipalities and counties. The bills also amend statutory meeting notice requirements for cities and counties.

The bills require the Florida Commission on Ethics to create the Local Government Lobbyist Registration System, and beginning October 2020, any local government lobbyist registration ordinance or requirement is preempted by the state system. The bills define lobbying, provide exceptions and specify activities that do not constitute lobbying.

A person may not lobby a government entity (which includes any municipality or county) until the person has electronically registered as a lobbyist with the commission. The bills appear to prohibit separate registration fees for each municipality in a county, as they authorize separate registration submissions for each county and prohibits additional fees for governmental entities within each county. The bills specify information to be included in the lobbyist registration. Registration is renewable annually and must include authorization from each principal identified. HB 611 directs the Commission on Ethics to set the annual lobbying registration fee by rule but provides the fee shall not exceed $20 for each principal represented within a county and governmental entities therein and that it may not exceed $5 for each additional principal represented. Registration fee limits and penalty amounts are addressed in a separate Senate bill, SB 768 (Perry).
 

The bills require the commission to publish lobbyist registration information on the internet. It requires a governmental entity to make reasonable efforts to ascertain whether a person who lobbies that entity is registered with the commission. Upon discovery of a violation of requirements of these provisions, the bill authorizes a person or governmental entity to file a complaint with the commission. If probable cause is found, a person may be subject to reprimand, censure, assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $500 per violation or suspension from lobbying for a specified period. HB 611 authorizes governmental entities to impose additional civil penalties not to exceed $500 per violation or a suspension from lobbying the entity for up to two years.

The bills prohibit a governmental entity from requiring classes, certifications or additional requirements as a requisite for lobbyist registration. They authorize a governmental entity to require lobbyist compensation reporting and disclosure of lobbyist contacts with government officials and authorizes restrictions on the exchange of money or things of value between lobbyists and government officials.
 

By January 2021, a governmental entity shall notify the commission of any local requirement that imposes additional or more stringent obligations with respect to lobbyist compensation reporting or other lobbying activities and provide this information and any associated forms to the commission. By January 2022, each governmental entity shall conform its lobbyist regulation system, if any, to the commission’s system to eliminate duplicative requirements. The bill authorizes the commission to adopt rules to implement its provisions.

Lastly, the bills amend statutory meeting notice requirements for municipalities and counties. Except in the case of emergency meetings, the governing body of a municipality or governing board of a county must provide notice of any meeting of the body or board at least seven days in advance by posting a notice on body or board’s website. The meeting notice must include a statement of the general subject matter to be considered by the body or board. (O’Hara)

CS/SB 1352 (Brandes) and CS/HB 1039 (Rommel) establish a regulatory framework for digital advertising on transportation network company vehicles and for luxury ground transportation network company vehicles, preempting such regulation to the state. The bills would also preempt local governments who are currently collecting revenue from the regulation of digital advertising on vehicles. (Branch)

CS/HB 971 (Grant, M.) and CS/SB 1148 (Brandes) create regulations governing the operation of e-bikes and provide that an e-bike or an operator of an e-bike must be afforded all the rights and privileges of a bicycle. The bills authorize an e-bike to operate where bicycles are allowed, including, but not limited to, streets, highways, roadways, shoulders and bicycle lanes. However, local governments are authorized to regulate the operation of e-bikes on the prescribed areas. Additionally, following notice and a public hearing, a municipality or county may restrict or prohibit the operation of an e-bike on the path if the entity finds that such a restriction is necessary in the interest of public safety or to comply with other laws or legal obligations. CS/SB 1148 was amended in committee to remove the preemption language. The FLC now supports CS/SB 1148. (Branch)

HB 6083 (Rodriguez, Anthony) preempts cities, counties and the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles from installing, maintaining, or utilizing red light cameras effective July 1, 2023. (Branch)

CS/CS/SB 998 (Hutson) and CS/CS/HB 1339 (Yarborough) makes varied and comprehensive changes to Florida law impacting affordable housing. Of concern to municipalities, the bills permit a mobile home park damaged or destroyed by wind, water or other natural force to be rebuilt on the same site with the same density as was approved, permitted or built before being damaged or destroyed. (Branch)

CS/CS/SB 474 (Albritton) deals with the deregulation of certain professions and occupations. The bill preempts the regulation of mobile food dispensing vehicles (food trucks) to the state and prohibits local governments from prohibiting the operation of food trucks. Additionally, the bill also deletes the authority of the Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties to recommend a list of candidates for consideration to the Florida Building Commission. (Branch)

CS/SB 246 (Hooper) and CS/HB 101 (Andrade) would allow municipalities the ability to retain only up to 5% across an entire construction project. Currently, municipalities can withhold up to 10% of retainage for the first half of a construction project and up to 5% on the last half. Retainage serves as a safeguard against possible overpayment to the general contractor when the estimated percentage of project completion, used for periodic payments, exceeds the actual percentage completed. Additionally, retainage helps to ensure that the project is 100% complete prior to funds being released to the contractor. (Branch)

CS/HB 3 (Grant, M.) and CS/SB 1336 (Perry) expressly preempt the licensing of occupations to the state. The bill defines occupation to include a paid job, work, trade, employment or profession and defines 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. The bills are effective July 1, 2020. CS/SB 1336, was amended in committee to grandfather all existing local regulations on professions. (Cruz)

CS/CS/HB 637 (DiCeglie) and CS/CS/SB 1066 (Gruters) are comprehensive bills regarding impact fees. The bills require a financial report for each impact fee trust fund annually. Local governments would be prohibited from collecting impact fees earlier than the date the building permit is issued. The bills allow impact fee credits to be transferred from one development to another within the same impact fee jurisdiction for the same type of facility. Each municipality is required to establish an impact fee review committee composed of two members from the local government, two members of the business community, two local contractors and one at large member. CS/CS/HB 637 was amended in committee to define the term infrastructure and in doing so, limit the use of impact fee revenue to capital expenditures specifically listed in the definition. This would include any fixed capital expenditure or fixed capital outlay associated with the construction, reconstruction or improvement of public facilities that have a life expectancy of five or more years; any related land acquisition, land improvement, design, engineering and permitting costs; and all other professional and related costs required to bring the public facilities into service. Previously under CS/SB 1066, an impact fee was not necessarily required to be used in the area that was impacted by development. However, CS/SB 1066 was amended in committee to further restrict the transferability of impact fees to allow, for purposes of impact fee credit transfers, that a benefit be recognized within any zone or district located within five miles of the zone or district where the credit was generated. (Cruz)

CS/HB 537 (Donalds) and SB 778 (Perry) define a "home-based business" and preempt local governments from licensing and regulating home-based businesses. Local governments would be prohibited from enacting or enforcing any ordinance, regulation or policy regarding home-based businesses. However, such home-based businesses could not substantially increase traffic, noise, waste or recycling.  CS/HB 537 was amended to specify that a home-based business may not be regulated or licensed in a manner that is different from other businesses within a local government's jurisdiction. The bill now allows a party to challenge any local government action that violates the preemption. The prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs. (Cruz)

SB 772 (Hutson) and CS/CS/CS/HB 647 (Drake) preempt local government regulations to allow any recreational vehicle park that is damaged or destroyed as a result of wind, water or other natural disaster to be rebuilt on the same site using the same density standards that were approved or permitted before the park was damaged or destroyed. CS/CS/CS/HB 647 adds an exemption from supervision and regulation by the Department of Health for certain surf pools. (Cruz)

CS/SB 1128 (Diaz) and CS/CS/HB 1011 (Fischer) change current law relating to vacation rentals, also known as short-term rentals (STRs). The bills were amended to:

•clarify the definition of an advertising platform and narrow it by removing print

advertisements from its scope.

•allow a “grandfathered” city to amend its short-term rental regulations if the amendment makes the regulation less restrictive.

•require the department to maintain vacation rental property license information in

an accessible electronic format.

•require advertising platforms to verify a property’s license number prior to publishing its advertisement on its platform and every quarter thereafter.

•require advertising platforms to quarterly provide the department with the physical

address of the vacation rental properties that advertise on their platforms.

•impose a duty on advertising platforms to collect and remit taxes in relation to the

rental of a vacation rental property through its platform.

•establish requirements that advertising platforms adopt an anti-discrimination

policy and inform their users of the public lodging discrimination prohibition found in current law.

•clarify that the provision of the bill shall not supersede any current or future community association governing document.

Additionally, CS/CS/HB 1011 now requires sexual predators to notify the sheriff's office of a temporary residence within 24 hours of arrival. Language carving out the Florida Keys from certain elements of the preemption was also added to the bill. (Cook)

SB 168 (Cruz) and HB 139 (Jenne) – Drinking Water in Public Schools

SB 318 (Stewart) – Sale of Sunscreen

SB 338 (Rodriguez) – Energy Efficiency in State Agencies

HB 237 (Roth) – Agricultural Products

SB 386 (Bradley) and HB 1333 (Stone) – Water Management District Boundaries Levy County

HB 401 (Jacobs) and SB 680 (Hutson) – Shark Fins

SB 702 (Albritton) HB 609 (Perez) – Petroleum Cleanup

HB 921 (Brannan) and SB 1514 (Albritton) – Department of Agriculture & Consumer Service

HB 935 (Webb) and SB 1290 (Berman) – Solar Energy Systems in Schools

SB 1042 (Albritton) and HB 1061 (Massullo) – Nature Coast Aquatic Preserve 

HB 1047 (Avila) and SB 1618 (Diaz) – Construction Materials Mining Activities 

HB 1067 (Hattersley) and SB 1360 (Rodriguez) – Fla. Endangered & Threatened Species Act

SB 1474 (Taddeo) and SB 1842 (Powell) – Required Flood Disclosures for Real Property Sales

SB 1772 (Montford) – Environmental Value of Agricultural Lands

HB 6081 (Eskamani) – Conservation Easements

SB 1706 (Montford) specifies that if a governmental entity discovers or confirms that pollution exists in an area that could impact a private or multifamily water system or could impact a public water system not subject to the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, and such pollution could result in a violation of state water quality standards, any potentially affected person may request the Department of Environmental Protection to test the water source for contamination relating to the pollution. (O’Hara)