BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HB 31 (Edmonds) and SB 64 (Osgood) – Landlords and Tenants

HB 557 (Stevenson) – Moveable Tiny Homes

HB 1467 (Driskell) and SB 1504 (Davis) – Affordable Housing

SB 7028 (Banking and Insurance) and HB 1263 (LaMarca) – My Safe Florida Home Program

HB 1299 (Cross) and CS/SB 1440 (Calatayud) grant counties and municipalities the authority to exclude specific accessory dwelling units from ad valorem taxation meeting certain affordable housing requirements. (Branch)

SB 386 (Osgood) requires local governments to reduce parking requirements necessary for development approval for “Live Local” developments where at least 75% of the residential units are affordable for at least 30 years and the development is located within one-half mile of a major transportation hub. (Branch)

HB 1603 (Gantt) and SB 1742 (Jones) amend the current statute regarding inclusionary housing ordinances. The bills remove the option for developers to contribute to a housing fund or explore other alternatives instead of constructing affordable housing units. (Branch)

CS/CS/SB 328 (Calatayud) and HB 1239 (Lopez, V.) amend various provisions of the Live Local Act (act), passed during the 2023 Regular Session. The bills do the following:

•Reinstate the requirement for local governments to approve qualifying developments in industrial areas (CS/CS/SB 328 only).

•Reinstate the height preemption for qualifying developments to be based on the highest currently allowed building height within one mile (instead of one-quarter mile).

•Adjust the height allowances for parcels adjacent to single-family residential uses within a single-family neighborhood.

oCS/CS/SB 328 provides that if a proposed development is “adjacent to, on two more sides, a parcel zoned for single-family residential use that is within a single-family residential development with at least 25 contiguous single-family homes, the local government may restrict the height of the proposed development to 150% of the tallest building on property within one-quarter mile of the proposed development or three stories, whichever is higher.”

•Prohibit qualifying developments within one-quarter mile of a military installation from utilizing the act’s administrative approval process and exempt certain airport-impacted areas from the act’s provisions.

•Clarify that a local government’s “currently allowed” density, height, and floor area ratio does not include any bonuses, variances, or other special exceptions provided in their regulations.

•Modify parking reduction requirements for qualifying developments located near certain transportation facilities in CS/CS/SB 328 only.

•CS/CS/SB 328 and HB 1239 propose funding the Hometown Hero Program at $100 million. (Branch)

SB 426 (Garcia, I.) – Community Associations

HB 229 (Payne) and SB 364 (Collins) – Public Service Commission Rules

HB 1279 (Gregory) and SB 1326 (DiCeglie) – Review of Agency Rules 

SB 366 (Yarborough) and HB 81 (Brackett) – Gas Safety

SB 404 (Rouson) – Urban Agriculture Pilot Projects

SB 1530 (Martin) and HB 1365 (Garrison) prohibit counties and municipalities from permitting public sleeping or camping on public property, at public buildings or on public rights-of-way within their respective jurisdictions without a lawfully issued temporary permit. The bills authorize municipalities and counties to designate certain public property for public sleeping or public camping subject to the following conditions, the sufficiency of which must be determined by the Florida Department of Children and Families: minimum sanitation levels, including access to restrooms and running water; security present and onsite at all times; access to behavioral health services; prohibition on drugs and alcohol; and the designated area may not be in a location that adversely and materially affects existing residential or commercial properties. The bills authorize a person or business to bring a civil action against any county or municipality to enjoin a violation of the prohibitions and conditions and to recover their attorney fees and costs. The bills provide an exception for a state of emergency declared by the Governor. (O’Hara)

HB 759 (Andrade) prohibits panhandling within 50 feet of the following: an entrance to or exit from a commercially zoned property; a bus stop or facility; an automatic teller machine or bank entrance; a parking lot, parking garage, parking meter or parking pay station; or a public restroom. It prohibits panhandling within 100 feet of a child care facility or Pre-K through 12 school; on a right-of-way or road defined in section 334.03; at a public transit stop or in a public transit vehicle; while the person being solicited is waiting to be admitted to a commercial establishment; by touching the person being solicited; with the use of profane or abusive language; while under the influence of alcohol or illegal controlled substance; and between the hours of 4 p.m. and 9 a.m. The bill prohibits a person from approaching an operator or other occupant of a motor vehicle for the purpose of panhandling. The bill specifies penalties for violations. Finally, the bill requires individuals engaged in solicitation on specified roads, rights-of-way or facilities to clearly identify the name of the charitable organization or named individual on whose behalf contributions are being solicited and to clearly identify the charitable purpose for which contributions are being solicited. (O’Hara)

SB 1628 (Collins) and HB 1547 (McClure) revise exemptions from the application of SB 170, relating to local ordinances and business impact estimates, passed in the 2023 Legislative Session. The bills eliminate exemptions for ordinances adopted pursuant to Section 163, Part II, except for development orders, permits and agreements. Consequently, ordinances adopting land development regulations, comprehensive plan amendments and zoning changes are no longer exempt from the ordinance suspension and business impact requirements in current law. In addition, the bills create new requirements on local government actions that affect a business involved in “identified sectors.” Identified sectors are specified as supply chain security (e.g., ports, rail and roads) and the production, distribution, or storage of food or energy. A “local government action” is defined as the adoption or amendment of an ordinance or charter provision, or the denial of any authorization. The bills require local governments to minimize or eliminate potential negative impacts that a local government action will have on an identified sector. The bills authorize a business engaged in an identified sector to request a review by the Department of Agriculture, the Public Service Commission and the Department of Transportation of any local government action that is “likely to negatively impact” an identified sector. The appropriate agency must issue an “impact review” of the local government action within 45 days of the request to the business and to the local government. The bills require a local government to suspend enforcement of the local government action until the appropriate agency issues the impact review and until the local government holds a public hearing to consider the impact review. The bills specify factors that an agency must consider in developing an impact review and provide that an impact review does not constitute agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Specified local government actions are exempt from agency impact review. These exemptions are the same as the exemptions from the local ordinance in SB 170 passed in the 2023 Session, except as amended to further restrict the land use exemptions. The bills authorize agencies to adopt rules of procedure for impact review of local government actions, including through emergency rulemaking. The bills require the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to issue a report to the Governor and Legislature by December 2025 on the implementation and effectiveness of the impact review of local government actions. Finally, the bills specify that the new requirements apply to ordinances and charter provisions adopted after October 1, 2024. (O’Hara)

HB 791 (Overdorf) and SB 1150 (Perry) revise timeframes in Sections 125.022 and 166.033, Florida Statutes, for counties and municipalities to process applications for approvals of development permits or development orders and require these governmental entities to issue certain refunds for failure to meet the timeframes. The bills require counties and municipalities to specify in writing the information that must be submitted in an application for zoning approval, rezoning approval, subdivision approval, certification, special exception, or variance.  The bills require counties and municipalities to confirm receipt of an application for development permit or order within five days. The bills require the statutory timeframes to restart if an application makes a substantive change to an application, which is defined as a change of 15 percent or more in the proposed density, intensity or square footage of a parcel.  The bills require counties and municipalities to issue refunds ranging from 10 to 100 percent of the application fee for failure to meet the statutory timeframes for determining whether an application is complete or require additional information and for taking final action on an application.  (O’Hara)

HB 339 (Roth) and SB 696 (Rodriguez) amend the statutory preemption on local government regulation of agritourism activities by prohibiting a local government from requiring a “certificate of use” for any agricultural land, facility or agritourism venue unless authorized by general law. In addition, the bills prohibit a local government from limiting any state-regulated activity associated with agritourism, including a farm stand, farmers market, brewery, winery, distillery, food processing and preparation activity, food truck or mobile food service operation associated with agritourism agricultural products. (O’Hara)

SB 102 (Jones) – Property Insurance

HB 611 (Botana) SB 1018 (Ingoglia) – Public Deposits

HB 989 (LaMarca) and SB 1098 (DiCeglie) – Department of Financial Services

HB 585 (Rommel) and SB 1132 (Martin) – Access to Financial Institution Customer Accounts 

SB 58 (Stewart) and HB 475 (Killebrew) – Sales Tax Holiday for Micromobility Vehicles and Related Personal Safety Equipment 

HB 113 (Maney) and SB 216 (Hooper) – Tax Collections and Sales

HB 171 (Daniels) – Homestead Exemptions for Totally and Permanently Disabled First Responders

SB 172 (Polsky) and HB 1161 (Arrington) – Verification of Eligibility for Homestead Exemption

SB 218 (Wright) and HB 239 (Killebrew) – Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouses of Veterans

SB 230 (Wright) – Sales Tax on Aircraft Sales and Leases

SB 264 (Rodriguez) and HB 269 (Overdorf) – Aircraft Taxes

HB 331 (Garcia) and HB 333 (Garcia) – Limitation of Property Tax Assessment

SB 378 (Garcia) – Property Tax Assessment

SB 380 (Hooper) and HB 295 (Anderson) – Disclosure of Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes

SB 652 (Garcia) and SB 654 (Garcia) – Homestead Assessments

HB 727 (Amesty) and SB 1004 (Torres) – Tax Exemption for Disabled Ex-servicemembers

SB 890 (Boyd) – Taxation

HB 879 (McFarland) and HB 1453 (Valdes) – Homestead Property Tax Assessment

SB 886 (Gruters) and HB 471 (Fine) – Valuation of Timeshare Units

HB 913 (McFarland) and SB 1710 (Yarborough) – Homestead Tax Exemptions

SB 976 (Perry) and SB 978 (Perry) – Reduction of Assessed Value

SB 1060 (Calatayud) and SB 1062 (Calatayud) – Assessment of Real Property and Residential Real Property

SB 872 (Stewart) – Tourist Development Tax

HB 1001 (Stevenson) and SB 1030 (Rodriguez) – Taxation

HB 1251 (Alvarez) and SB 1560 (Collins) – Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption

HB 1373 (Alvarez), HB 1375 (Alvarez), SB 1684 (Collins) and SB 1686 (Collins) – Property Tax Discount for Disabled Veterans

HB 1409 (Maggard) and SB 1672 (Grall) – Taxation of State Chartered Banks

SB 1468 (Hutson) and HB 1585 (Steele) – Sales and Use Tax

HB 1481 (Beltran) and SB 1678 (Gruters) – Taxes, Licenses, and Fees

HB 1511 (McClain) and HB 1513 (McClain) – Tax Exemption for Portions of Homestead Property Used as Living Quarters for Parents and Grandparents

SB 1570 (Torres) and HB 1601 (Grantt) – Working Floridians Tax Rebate Program

HB 1594 (Stewart) – Tourist Impact Tax

HB 1599 (Truenow) and SB 1748 (Brodeur) – Tourist Development Tax

HB 1649 (Plakon) – Ad Valorem Taxation

SB 1770 (Gruters) – Tax-filing Extensions

SB 1072 (Avila) and HB 1081 (Porras) revise the method by which counties distribute collected Tourist Development Taxes apportioning 50% of the revenues to be distributed monthly by the county to the governing authorities of the municipalities within the county. Distributions must be in proportion to the amount collected in the prior month within the municipality as a share of the total amount collected from all municipalities in the county. The bill further revises which expenses and projects may be covered by Tourism Development Taxes. (Chapman)

HB 55 (Tant) and CS/SB 616 (Simon) are the implementing bills for HJR 53/SJR 618 if it is voter-approved and would provide for a property tax exemption for the surviving spouse of a quadriplegic who was receiving a property tax exemption on real estate used and owned as a homestead at the time of their death. (Chapman)

CS/CS/HB 311 (Barnaby) and CS/SB 532 (Brodeur) are comprehensive bills that extensively revise Florida’s securities and transactions regulations. The bills redefine the term “investment adviser” to exclude political subdivisions from the listed entities required to register with the State. (Cruz)

CS/HB 1371 (Chamberlin) is the implementing bill for HJR 1369 if it is voter-approved and would create two new property tax exemptions. The bill was amended to include a study by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) for the potential impact of eliminating all property tax and replacing the lost revenue through the establishment of a consumption tax. The report is to be submitted to the Speaker of the House and the Senate President by July 1, 2025. (Chapman)

HJR 1369 (Chamberlin) proposes an amendment to the constitution to authorize the Legislature to create two new property tax exemptions. The first would create a $100,000 exemption from assessed value of real property for all levies, the second would create a $250,000 homestead exemption for residential property owned by someone 65 or older. The constitutional amendment must be approved by at least 60% of electors at the November 2024 general election and will take effect on January 1, 2025. (Chapman)

CS/HB 1195 (Garrison) and SB 1322 (Ingoglia) would require local government to have two-thirds vote of the membership of the governing body to increase the millage rate. CS/HB 1195 was amended to clarify that the two-thirds vote does not apply to existing millage rate increases that require a three-fourths or unanimous vote of the governing body or voter approval in a referendum under current law. (Chapman)

CS/HB 609 (Botana) and SB 1144 (DiCeglie) would repeal local governments' ability to levy a local business tax (LBT). CS/HB 609 was amended to no longer repeal the LBT. However, the amount of revenue generated from the collection of the LBT is being capped using fiscal year 23-24 as the base year. Local governments may not generate more revenue in any year moving forward above the base year of 23-24. Rates for the fees may be lowered, but not increased. (Chapman)

HB 503 (Fabricio) and SB 578 (Ingoglia) would prohibit a local government from imposing, levying or collecting certain fees relating to the utilization of a virtual office. (Chapman)