BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

Florida League of Cities

  • Public Swimming Pools (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    HB 1405 (Greico) requires public swimming pools to have a telephone available for all public swimming pool users in case of an emergency. (Cook)

  • Public Safety Communication Systems (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    SB 1472 (Book) authorizes the governor to mandate certain improvements to a local government’s public safety communications system if the Department of Management Services finds that the system is inadequate. A system can be found “inadequate” if the system is unable to support the public safety needs of a community based on the age of the system, the number of towers available within the community or the ability of the system as a whole to withstand high volumes of radio and cellular traffic during a specific timeframe. The bill requires local governments to reimburse the state for improvements made to inadequate community communication systems. (Cook)

  • Building Design (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    SB 954 (Perry) and CS/CS/HB 459 (Overdorf) 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.

    The bills provide a limited exemption from the preemption by allowing allow local governments to adopt and enforce regulations that require “building design elements” for single- and two-family dwellings only if they are listed on the Historical Preservation Registry, housed within a Community Redevelopment Agency or if regulations are adopted in order to implement the National Flood Insurance Program.

    The bills also allow a substantially affected person to petition the Florida Building Commission to review a local government regulation to determine if the regulation is actually an unauthorized amendment to the Building Code. (Branch)

  • Local Government Public Construction Works (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    CS/SB 504 (Perry) and CS/HB 279 (Smith, D.) require the local government and other specified entities, in deciding whether it is in the public’s best interest for the local government to perform a public building construction project using its own services, to consider the estimated costs of the project using generally accepted cost-accounting principles. This requirement includes all costs associated with performing and completing the work, including employee compensation and benefits and other determining factors.

    The bills also require a local government that performs a public building construction project using its own services to disclose after completion, the actual costs of the project after completion to the auditor general. CS/SB 504 was amended in committee to remove language prohibiting a local government from performing the project using its own services, employees and equipment if the project requires an increase in the number of government employees or an increase in such capital expenditures. CS/SB 279 was amended in committee to raise the threshold above which a local government must competitively bid a project from $300,000 to $400,000 when seeking to construct or improve a public building or structure as well as raising the same threshold for electrical work from $75,000 to $100,000. (Branch)

  • Local Government Reporting (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    SB 1512 (Diaz) and HB 7069 (State Affairs) repeal an existing reporting requirement that municipalities report certain budget and economic data to the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and replace it with a new reporting requirement. The bills require municipalities and counties to electronically submit to the Department of Financial Services all necessary information needed to facilitate the department preparing a local government report and interactive website that can be used to compare and rank local governments. Some of the information that may need to be submitted includes government spending per capita, government debt per capita, crime rates, school grades, median income and unemployment. The department will adopt, by rule, the method and format of the required reporting. Given the difference in the scope and breadth of the services provided by cities, ranking and comparing municipalities will generate data that may have no value and in fact could cause confusion among residents. (Hughes)

  • Local Government Fiscal Transparency (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    HB 1149 (DiCeglie) and SB 1702 (Diaz) amend multiple provisions related to local government financial transparency. The bills expand 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 bills impose 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 bills require 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 bills revise the local government reporting requirements for economic development incentives. They require 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)

  • Supermajority Vote Required to Impose, Authorize or Raise Local Taxes or Fees (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    HJR 477 (Rommel) proposes an amendment to the Florida Constitution requiring that any local tax or fee that is imposed, authorized or raised by a local jurisdiction, including municipalities, be approved by two-thirds of the membership of the jurisdiction. “Fee” is defined as any charge or payment required by ordinance or regulation. The proposed amendment requires any local tax or fee imposed or raised under this section to be contained in a separate resolution or ordinance. This proposed amendment would require 60 percent approval of the electorate for passage. (Hughes)

  • Growth Management (Oppose – Unfunded Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    CS/SB 410 (Perry) and CS/HB 203 (McClain) would require local governments to adopt by July 1, 2023, a new mandatory element in their comprehensive plans that addresses the protection of private property rights. CS/SB 410 was amended to require the Department of Economic Opportunity to give funding preference for technical assistance to certain counties and municipalities. CS/HB 203 now provides that a municipality may not annex an area within another municipal jurisdiction without consent from the other municipality. The amended bill also provides that a Development Regional Impact may be amended by the development order process, allowing a change in land use if the change does not increase impact to public facilities.  (Cruz)

  • Communication Services Tax (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    HB 701 (Fischer) and SB 1174 (Hutson) reform the communications services tax (CST) to clarify that certain streaming services are subject to the tax and create uniform rates. The bills reduce the local CST rate to 5% or less by January 1, 2021, and 4% or less by January 1, 2022. The bills also reduce the state CST rate from 4.92% to 4.9% and the noncharter county CST rate to 2% by January 1, 2022. The bills repeal the local option sales surtax conversion that is levied on communications services. The Revenue Estimating Conference has partially determined the fiscal impact of this bill. It is estimated to negatively impact local government revenues by $190 million each year. (Hughes)

  • Monuments and Memorials (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    HB 31 (Hill) preempts the ability of local governments to remove, alter, rename or otherwise disturb a memorial or monument on public property placed in memory of a veteran or war. This preemption includes the removal of Civil War memorials made to honor or commemorate the war, soldiers or government officials that aided the war effort. The legislation specifies that a remembrance erected, named or dedicated on or after March 22, 1822, on public property may be relocated, removed, altered, renamed, rededicated or otherwise disturbed only if necessary to accommodate construction, repair or improvements to the remembrance or to the surrounding property on which the remembrance is located. Additionally, the bill requires that a remembrance on public property that is sold or repurposed must be relocated to a location of equal prominence as the original location. (Cruz)

  • Red Light Cameras (Oppose – Preemption) 

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    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)

  • Environmental Resource Management (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    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 bills direct 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 bills establish 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 bills specify funding priority for certain projects and require projects to have a 50% match of local funds. (O’Hara)

  • Clean Energy Programs (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    HB 225 (Zika) and SB 824 (Hooper) amend current law relating to “Property Assessed Clean Energy” (PACE) programs and requirements. The bill provides definitions for PACE administrator, PACE contractor, PACE loan, PACE loan contract, qualifying commercial real property and qualifying residential property. It provides that a local government may enter an agreement with a PACE administrator to administer the program and specifies that local government or PACE administrator may enter into a PACE loan contract only with the record owner of the property. It eliminates current language in law stating that a recorded PACE loan contract provides constructive notice that the assessment to be levied constitutes a lien of equal dignity to county taxes and assessments. The bill includes new provisions regarding a PACE loan’s lien position. It provides that a PACE loan is: subordinate to all liens on the property recorded before the PACE lien notice is recorded; subordinate to a first mortgage on the property recorded after the PACE notice is recorded; and superior to any lien recorded after the PACE notice is recorded. The bill imposes substantial new requirements on local governments financing for qualifying residential property (maturity date of PACE loan, limits on loan amount, total combined debt may not exceed 75 percent of assessed value). The bill specifies required contents for PACE loan contracts for residential real property and prohibits such contracts from resulting in negative amortization, charging any interest upon interest or fees or containing any provision requiring forced arbitration or restricting class action. The bill prohibits a residential PACE contract from being entered until it has been verified the property owner has the ability to repay the loan: owner’s monthly debt to income ratio does not exceed 43 percent and must have sufficient residual income to meet basic living expenses. The bill specifies methodology and sources for verification of property owner’s income, debt and expenses. The bill requires the local government or PACE administrator, prior to execution of a contract, to confirm the key terms of the PACE agreement and scope of energy improvement work with the property owner in a live, recorded telephone conversation. The bill requires specific disclosures be made to the owner during the telephone call. The bill requires that prior to entering a PACE loan on residential property, the household be screened for eligibility for low-or no-cost programs that may be provided by government or utility service providers. The bill prohibits a local government from permitting a property owner from entering a contract unless the owner is given a right to cancel the contract within a specified timeframe. It requires the use of a specified financing estimate and disclosure form and that such form be provided to an owner at least three business days before a contract is signed. The bill delineates prohibited practices by PACE administrators or PACE contractors. The bill prohibits a local government or PACE administrator from entering into a PACE contract unless written notice has been provided to, and written consent obtained from, each of the holders of any mortgage on the qualifying residential or commercial property. It provides that a PACE loan shall not be made unless the holder of any mortgage on the qualifying property provides signed confirmation that entering into the loan contract does not constitute an event of default or give rise to any remedies under the terms of the mortgage loan. The bill provides for preservation of claims and defenses for successors in interest to property owners and provides for attorney fees and costs for aggrieved residential property owners. (O’Hara)

  • Environmental Protection Act (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    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)

  • Local Government Lobbyist Registration Fees (Oppose – Preemption and Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    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)

  • Elections (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    CS/SB 1372 (Brandes) makes technical, election administration changes recommended by the Florida State Supervisors of Elections Association for the 2020 general election cycle. The bill was amended to expressly preempt 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)

  • Local Government Accountability (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    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)

  • Transportation Network Companies (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    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)

  • Electric Bicycles (Oppose CS/HB971 – Preemption, Support CS/SB 1148)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    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)

  • Deregulation of Professions (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 14, 2020

    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)