BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HM 525 (Hill) is a memorial bill urging Congress to support the State Cyber Resiliency Act and to direct the United States Department of Homeland Security to administer state and local cybersecurity grants to assist state, local and tribal governments in preventing, preparing for, protecting against and responding to cyberthreats. (Cook)

CS/HB 7 (Fine) and SB 1340 (Gruters) allow a governmental agency the option to publish legally required advertisements and notices on a publicly accessible website if certain conditions are met. The bills require a governmental agency to publish a notice at least once a year in a newspaper of general circulation that the resident or property owner may receive legally required notices or advertisements via first class mail or email by registration of his or her name, address and email address with the local governmental agency. (Cook)

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/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)

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)

HB 283 (Toledo) and CS/SB 802 (Judiciary) – Liens and Bonds

HB 733 (Smith, D.) and CS/SB 802 (Perry) revise the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA) to clarify an exception to its main provisions and to bolster the current prohibition on discriminatory deed provisions. Specifically, the bills amend Section 712.04, Florida Statutes, to include covenants or restrictions based on a zoning requirement or development permit among the types of interests extinguished by MRTA. The bills, in contrast to a recent court opinion, provide that the rights extinguished by MRTA include restrictive covenants that were recorded in connection with a zoning regulation. The bills provide for summary removal of discriminatory restrictions from the governing documents of a property owners’ association. (Cruz)

SB 250 (Berman) and HB 6019 (Casello) would repeal a provision of HB 7103 that was passed during the 2019 session regarding challenges of development orders. Current law now allows the prevailing party in a challenge to a development order to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the development order. SB 250 and HB 6019 bill would repeal this attorney fees provision. (Cruz)

HB 6063 (Jenne) and SB 1680 (Berman) repeal legislation passed in 2018 regarding customary use. Under current law, a governmental entity may not maintain an ordinance or rule that is based on customary use granting access to the public on private property of a beach above the mean high-water line unless it is based on a judicial declaration. (Cruz)

SB 748 (Flores) and HB 587 (Rashcein) provides that a local government entity located within an area of critical state concern shall split with the state any award of compensation, costs, attorney fees and prejudgment interest awarded to a property owner if the court has found liability against the state and the local government. The bills also state that a governmental entity is not liable for post-judgement interest on a judgement entered against another governmental entity. (Cruz)

CS/HB 637 (DiCeglie) and 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/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. (Cruz)

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. (Cruz)

SB 772 (Hutson) and 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. (Cruz)

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)

CS/HB 519 (Grant, J.) and SB 1766 (Lee) open the door for an explosion of potential lawsuits against cities by making one-sided changes to the Bert J. Harris Act and leaving taxpayers to pay the price. The Harris Act gives landowners a way to seek compensation when a local government takes action that impacts the use/potential use of their property. The Harris Act is detailed and fair. It allows local governments to negotiate with property owners who are filing a claim and calls on courts to consider the unique conditions of each claim.

The bills require any settlement reached on a Bert Harris claim to be automatically applied by the government entity to all "similarly situated" residential properties that are subject to the same rules or regulations. In essence, this provision would undo legislative action a government entity undertakes by requiring a settlement on one case to be applied across the board, turning Harris Act settlements into quasi class-action lawsuits. The bills do not define what a similarly situated property is, which opens the door for more litigation. The bills significantly amend the attorney fee provisions of the Harris Act, allowing only property owners to recover costs if they prevail. Additionally, the legislation would now include business losses as part of a Bert Harris claim. The Florida League of Cities opposes making one-sided changes to the Harris Act that only benefit attorneys and leaves taxpayers footing the bill.

CS/HB 519 was amended in the House Civil Justice Committee to provide an additional avenue for resolving disputes concerning comprehensive plan amendments. The amendment allows comprehensive plan amendment challenges initiated by citizens to now follow the dispute process from the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act. (Cruz)

HB 7037 (Judiciary Committee) and SB 1794 (Rader) strengthen the requirements and processes for amending the Florida constitution by petition. The legislation creates additional requirements for petition circulators and political action committees that back petitions. The bills increase the number of signatures that must be gathered from 10% to 50% before the secretary of state refers the petition to the attorney general. (Cruz)

HB 545 (Geller) and SB 1452 (Torres) create the right for citizens to propose legislation by ballot initiative. The bills define the process by which proposed legislation by ballot initiative would need to abide by, as well as the criteria that said legislation must comply with. The bills also set forth the process by which laws adopted by citizen initiative could be changed or repealed. The bills provide exceptions for types of proposed legislation if said legislation is proposed by legislative initiative. Of interest to cities: laws that change the boundaries of any municipality, county or special legislative or congressional district may not be proposed by initiative. (Cruz)

SB 1674 (Farmer) provides that the legislature may not preempt to the state a field of regulation or other subject of legislation unless it is passed by a two-thirds vote of each house. The bill also requires a supermajority vote of each house for a general law that preempts a subject of legislation to the state. (Cruz)

SB 1522 (Broxson) and HB 1209 (Fischer) expands the instances whereby voters can vote to dissolve a municipality. Under the bills, a municipality can be dissolved by a referendum by a majority vote of qualified voters. The referendum must be held if a municipality meets one or more of the following criteria: the municipality has been in a state of financial emergency for two years or more, a financial emergency board has been established in response to a financial emergency and the municipality has failed to comply with the terms included in a signed agreement with the Governor's office, the municipality has submitted its annual financial report or annual financial audit report significantly late for two or more years consecutively or a grand jury or auditor general audit report issued within the past three years identifies significant problems with the municipality.

Within 30 days after one of the above criteria are met, the governing body of the municipality or, in the event the municipal government does not act, the governing body of the county or counties that the municipality is in, shall set the date of the referendum to dissolve the municipality. The referendum shall be at the next regularly scheduled election or a special election can be called. The election shall be noticed at least once a week for two weeks before the election in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality. (Cruz)

HB 173 (Polo) – Nonenforcement of Immigration Detainers and Nonjudicial Immigration Warrants