BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

Florida League of Cities

  • Cannabis Offenses (Watch)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 242 (Braynon) and HB 25 (Jones) reduce criminal penalties for possession of 20 grams or less of cannabis and products containing less than 600 milligrams of THC and specify that first-time juvenile violators are eligible for civil citation or other prearrest diversion programs. (Cook)

  • Fireworks (Watch)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    CS/CS/CS/SB 140 (Hutson) and CS/CS/HB 65 (Rodriguez, A.M.) create an exemption allowing for the use of fireworks on four days: New Year’s Day (January 1), Independence Day (July 4) and New Year’s Eve (December 31). The bills were amended with language clarifying that any local government regulations relating to the use of fireworks are still in effect. (Cook)

  • Use of Wireless Communications Devices While Driving “Hands-Free” (Watch)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    HB 249 (Slosberg) prohibits a person from operating a motor vehicle while holding or touching a wireless communication device. This bill does provide several exceptions such as first responders performing in their official capacity or drivers accessing safety-related information including emergency, traffic or weather alerts. (Branch)

  • Drones (Support) 

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 520 (Gruters) and HB 1433 (Yarborough) allow police and fire departments to use drones to manage crowd control and traffic as well as gather evidence at a crime or traffic crash scene. The bills also permit a state agency or political subdivision to operate drones for assessing damage after a natural disaster. (Branch)

  • Preemption of Firearms and Ammunition (Support)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 134 (Taddeo) and HB 6009 (Daley) repeal the current statutory preemption prohibiting cities from regulating firearms and ammunition. (Cook)

  • Red Light Cameras (Oppose – Preemption) 

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 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)

  • 911 Public Safety Telecommunicators (Watch – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    HB 995 (Davis) and SB 1014 (Rouson) require certain 911 public safety telecommunicators to receive telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation training and the Department of Health to establish a procedure to monitor adherence to this training. (Cook)

  • Growth Management (Oppose – Unfunded Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 410 (Perry) and 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. (Cruz)

  • Tax on Aviation Fuel (Oppose – Unfunded Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 1192 (Gruters) and HB 6061 (Roach) repeal the excise tax imposed on aviation fuel, aviation gasoline and kerosene sold or brought into the state. Under current law, the monies from this tax are deposited into the State Transportation Trust Fund to fund various program areas. Repealing the excise tax on aviation fuel will reduce the money going to the STTF. This reduction in revenues will negatively affect the ability of cities to adequately maintain and improve critical infrastructure needed to meet the ever-changing transportation demands. Additionally, repealing the aviation fuel tax will impact the Aviation Grant Program. This grant money, which local governments can apply for, is used to fund projects relating to airport planning, capital improvement, land acquisition and economic development. (Branch)

  • Traffic and Pedestrian Safety (Oppose – Unfunded Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 1000 (Perry) and HB 1371 (Fine) require that crosswalks located at any place other than an intersection of a public street, highway or road be controlled by pedestrian and traffic signals that meet requirements of the Florida Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (Branch)

  • Commercial Service Airports (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 1258 (Diaz) and CS/HB 915 (Avila) revise several provisions to enhance transparency and accountability for commercial service airports, including large-hub commercial service airports. The bills require that at least once every five years the auditor general conduct operational and financial audits of the state’s large-hub commercial service airports. The bills also require the members of the governing bodies of large-hub commercial service airports to submit the more detailed financial disclosure (Form 6) to the Commission on Ethics. The bills mandate the governing body of each commercial service airport to establish and maintain a website containing specified information including meeting notices, agendas, approved budgets and certain documents submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration. (Branch)

  • Building Design (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 954 (Perry) and 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 allow local governments to adopt and enforce regulations that require “building design elements” for single- and two-family dwellings if they are listed on the Historical Preservation Registry 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 | Jan 17, 2020

    CS/SB 504 (Perry) and 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 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. (Branch)

  • Utility Construction Contracting Services (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 1710 (Torres) prohibits investor-owned utilities and municipal electric utilities or an affiliate of such utility from engaging in construction contracting as defined in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and prohibits such utility or affiliate from providing bookkeeping, billing, financial, legal or insurance products or services that are related to construction contracting, including warranty products or construction liens. The bill prohibits such utilities or affiliates from engaging in construction contracting services in a manner that subsidizes the activities of the utility to the extent of changing rates or service charges. Affiliates or contractors are prohibited from using any utility asset, the cost of which is recoverable in the utility’s regulated rates, to engage in construction contracting services unless the utility is compensated for use of the asset. (O’Hara)

  • Municipal Electric Utilities (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    HB 653 (Caruso) prohibits municipal electric utilities from using revenues generated from the electric utility to finance general government functions and provides that electric utility revenues must be used exclusively for electric utility functions or improving infrastructure of the electric utility. (O’Hara)

  • Clean Energy (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    HB 1419 (Good) authorizes a local government, college or university to install and operate renewable energy systems on any property owned by the entity to offset the entity’s electricity requirements. Electricity generated by such devices is deemed customer-owned generation without regard to ownership of the device by a contracted third-party. The bill authorizes a contracted third-party to sell the electricity generated by a renewable energy generating system to a local government, college or university and provide that such sales shall not be deemed retail sales of electricity. The bill authorizes a local government, college or university with multiple meters to aggregate its electricity consumption by totaling the consumption on all meters and offset such aggregated consumption requirements with customer-owned renewable energy generation under the electric utility’s net metering program. The bill requires electric utilities to offer all public customers a method to aggregate meters consistent with its net metering program and its standard interconnection agreement for customer-owned renewable energy generation. The bill requires each public utility to file with the Public Service Commission a program that offers a renewable energy tariff for all nonresidential customers to purchase renewable energy from the utility to meet up to 100% of the customer’s electricity requirements. The bill requires municipal electric utilities to offer a renewable energy tariff for all nonresidential customers as well. If a utility does not have sufficient renewable energy available to meet a customer’s requirements within a specified time period, the bill authorizes the customer to contract with a third party to purchase renewable energy from generating systems interconnected with the utility’s grid or transmission lines. (O’Hara)

  • Renewable Energy (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 446 (Brandes) allows the owner of a business or contracted third party to install, maintain and operate a renewable energy source device on or about the structure in which the business operates or on any property the business leases. The bill provides the business owner or third party may sell the electricity that is generated from the device to another business immediately adjacent to or within the same parcel as the business, and such sales shall not be considered or regulated as retail sales of electricity. The bill provides that if the energy-producing business or its customers require additional related services from a utility, such as backup generation capacity or transmission services, the utility may recover the full cost of providing those services. The bill authorizes a utility to enter a contract with a business to install, maintain or operate any type of renewable energy source device on or about the structure from which the business operates and to sell the electricity to an adjacent business, and provides that such electricity sales shall not be considered or regulated as retail sales of electricity. The bill specifies that if the Public Service Commission determines that the level of reduction in electricity purchases by customers using renewable energy source devices is significant enough to adversely impact the rates that other customers pay in the rate territory, the commission may approve a utility’s requests to recover its costs of providing the electricity needed by all customers, including customers using a renewable energy source device. The bill provides for methodology of such cost recovery, a process for customers to challenge the cost recovery and authorized rulemaking by the commission. The bill may have a negative fiscal impact on municipal revenues, including potential impacts to municipal electric franchise revenues and municipal public service utility taxes. (O’Hara)

  • Recycled/Reclaimed Water (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    HB 715 (Maggard) and SB 1656 (Albritton) prohibit domestic wastewater utilities from disposing of effluent, reclaimed water or reuse water by surface water discharge beginning January 2026. The bills exempt the following discharges from this prohibition: indirect potable reuse projects; permitted wet weather discharges; discharges into stormwater management systems that are subsequently withdrawn for irrigation; projects where reclaimed water is recovered from an aquifer recharge system and subsequently discharged for potable reuse; wetlands creation, restoration and enhancement projects; surface water minimum flows and levels recovery and prevention projects; and domestic water utilities in fiscally constrained counties or municipalities in rural areas of opportunity. The bills recognize potable reuse as an alternative water supply and provide that potable reuse projects are eligible for alternative water supply funding and that such projects may not be excluded from regional water supply plans. The bills direct the Department of Environmental Protection to develop rules relating to the beneficial reuse of water for public water supply purposes that are protective of the environment and public health, building on the guiding principles and goals set forth in the Potable Reuse Commission’s 2019 report on advancing potable reuse in Florida. The bills specify the rules should require the treatment of reclaimed water to drinking water standards. The bills include provisions to ensure that projects do not cause harm to the state’s aquifer and surface waters by requiring such projects do not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards and that when such water is released into surface or groundwater, consideration of emerging constituents may be required. The bills direct DEP to adopt rules for implementation of potable water reuse projects and specify minimum requirements for the rules, authorize DEP to revise existing drinking water and reclaimed water rules, and authorize DEP to convene technical advisory committees to coordinate the rule review and rulemaking required in the bills. The bills direct DEP and the water management districts to execute a memorandum of agreement providing optional processes for coordinated review of any permits associated with indirect potable reuse projects. The bills authorize potential incentives for public-private partnerships for water recycling projects including expedited permitting and tax credits. (O’Hara)

  • Discharge of Domestic Wastewater (Oppose – Mandate)

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 2020

    SB 454 (Rodriguez) prohibits the construction of new deep injection wells for domestic wastewater discharge or the expansion of existing wells. It limits the discharge capacity of domestic wastewater deep well injection and required current ocean outfall and deep well injection permitholders to install a functioning reuse system by specified dates. The bill prohibits the discharge of domestic wastewater through ocean outfalls and deep injection wells after specified dates and requires current deep injection well permitholders to submit a plan with specified requirements and annual progress reports to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (O’Hara)

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

    by Mary Edenfield | Jan 17, 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)