BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

Florida League of Cities

  • Local Government Reporting (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 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 07, 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 07, 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)

  • Local Government Public Construction Works (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 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)

  • Growth Management (Oppose – Unfunded Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 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. (Cruz)

  • Communication Services Tax (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 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 07, 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)

  • Transportation Network Companies (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 2020

    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 07, 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)

  • Towing and Immobilizing Vehicles and Vessels (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 2020

    CS/HB 133 (McClain) and CS/SB 1332 (Hooper) require local governments to establish maximum rates for the towing and immobilization of vessels and prohibits a county or municipality from enacting a rule or ordinance that imposes a fee or charge on authorized wrecker operators. The bills provide that an authorized wrecker operator may impose and collect an administrative fee and is required to remit the fee to the county or municipality only after it has been collected. The bills prohibit local governments from adopting or enforcing ordinances or rules that impose fees on the registered owner or lien holder of a vehicle or vessel removed and impounded by an authorized wrecker operator. The bills provide that a wrecker operator who recovers, removes or stores a vehicle or vessel must have a lien on the vehicle or vessel that includes the value of the reasonable administrative fee or charge imposed by a county or municipality. The bills exempt certain counties with towing or immobilization licensing, regulatory or enforcement programs as of January 1, 2020, from the prohibition on imposing a fee or charge on an authorized wrecker operator or on a towing business. The bill prohibits a municipality or county from enacting an ordinance or rule requiring an authorized wrecker operator or towing business to accept credit cards as a form of payment. (Cook)

  • Deregulation of Professions and Occupations (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 2020

    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)

  • Environmental Resource Management (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 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 07, 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 07, 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)

  • Preemption of Conditions of Employment (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 2020

    HB 305 (Rommel) and SB 1126 (Gruters) prohibit a political subdivision, including a municipality, from establishing, mandating or otherwise requiring an employer to offer conditions of employment not otherwise required by state or federal law. An “employer” is defined as any person who is engaged in any activity, enterprise or business in this state and employs at least one employee. The bills expressly preempt the regulation of minimum wage and other conditions of employment to the state. The bills do not limit the authority of a political subdivision to regulate minimum wage or to require conditions of employment for employees of the political subdivision, employees of a contractor or subcontractor who provides goods or services to the political subdivision and employees of an employer receiving a direct tax abatement or subsidy from the political subdivision as a condition of the direct tax abatement or subsidy. Any ordinance, regulation or policy of a political subdivision that is preempted by the bills and which existed before or on the effective date of this act is void. (Hughes)

  • Firefighters' Bill of Rights (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 2020

    HB 215 (Casello) and CS/SB 620 (Hooper) revise the current process that must be followed for the interrogation of firefighters. The bills revise the definition of “interrogation” to include questioning related to informal inquiries. The bills require all witnesses to be interviewed prior to beginning the interrogation of the firefighter when possible. The bills also require that the firefighter be provided the complaint, all witness statements and all other existing evidence before the interrogation. A firefighter being interrogated may not be threatened with transfer, dismissal or disciplinary action. The bills also set a timeline for certain information to be provided to the firefighter and prohibit any retaliatory action against the firefighter for exercising his or her rights. The complaint and other investigative information are confidential and exempt from public records pursuant to the current law, and the “informal inquiry” does not include discussions such as safety sessions, normal operations fire debriefings and routine work-related discussions. (Hughes)

  • Public Records (Watch SB 162/Oppose HB 195 – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 2020

    SB 162 (Perry) and HB 195 (Rodrigues) are two bills relating to public record requests. SB 162 provides that if an agency files an action for declaratory judgement that certain records are confidential or exempt, and the court determines that the records are neither, the court must assess the reasonable costs of enforcement, including attorney fees, against the responsible agency for the benefit of the named respondent.

    HB 195 prohibits a city, after receiving a public record request, from filing an action for declaratory judgement against the individual or entity making the request. This bill would prevent cities from seeking clarification from the courts as to whether a record is public or not. (Cook)

  • Pet Stores (Oppose – Preemption)

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 2020

    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)

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

    by Mary Edenfield | Feb 07, 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 07, 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)