BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HJR 7015 (Buchanan) proposes an amendment to the constitution to authorize the Legislature to increase the maximum amount of the exemption on homestead property from a maximum amount of $25,000 to a maximum amount of $50,000, for homestead property with an assessed value greater than $50,000. 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 7019 (Buchanan) is the implementing bill for HJR 7017 if it is voter-approved and would require an annual adjustment to the value of certain homestead exemptions. The bill would require that the Legislature appropriate funds to offset reductions in ad valorem tax revenue experienced by fiscally constrained counties due to the annual positive inflation adjustment. (Chapman)

HB 1105 (Caruso) and SB 1376 (Wright) are the implementing bills for HJR 1103 (Caruso) and SJR 1374 (Wright) if it is voter-approved and would allow newly established homestead property to be assessed at less than just value if the property was previously assessed as non-homestead property and has not changed ownership and authorizing residency requirements for homestead exemptions. (Chapman)

HJR 1103 (Caruso) and SJR 1374 (Wright) propose an amendment to the constitution to authorize the Legislature to allow newly established homestead property to be assessed at less than just value if the property was previously assessed as non-homestead property and has not changed ownership and authorizing residency requirements for homestead exemptions. 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 635 (McFarland) and CS/SB 820 (Grall) amend S 170.201 FS and provide an exemption for public and private preschools from specified special assessments levied by a municipality.  (Chapman)

CS/HJR 7017 (Buchanan) proposes an amendment to the constitution to authorize the Legislature to require an annual adjustment to the value of certain homestead exemptions. 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. CS/HB HJR 7017 was amended to clarify that the annual inflation adjustment to the $25,000 exemption on assessed value for all levies, other than school district levies, and any future similar exemptions added to the constitution must be adjusted only when the inflation growth is positive. (Chapman)

SB 220 (Wright) and HB 689 (Smith) expand the current ad valorem tax exemption for not-for-profit homes for the aged. The bills will allow a home for the aged owned by a separate entity that is owned by a not-for-profit corporation to also receive the exemption. (Chapman)

HJR 53 (Tant) and SJR 618 (Simon) propose an amendment to the constitution to authorize the Legislature to 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. 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)

HB 57 (Salzman) and SB 438 (Ingoglia) – Term Limits for County Commissioners

SB 780 (Yarborough) and HB 963 (Daniels) – Early Voting Sites

HB 281 (Arrington) and SB 724 (Davis) – Candidate Qualifying

HB 1035 (Bracy Davis) and SB 1522 (Thompson) – Elections

SB 326 (Ingoglia) – Term Limits

SB 1752 (Ingoglia) and HB 1669 (Roth) – Elections

SB 1602 (Gruters) – Elections

CS/SB 734 (Ingoglia) and CS/HB 735 (Andrade) impose restrictions on the renewal or extension of contracts for the chief executive officer of a municipality and the municipal general counsel; lobbyist registration requirements for lobbying counties, municipalities or special districts; and revise physical quorum requirements for public meetings. The bills prohibit a person from lobbying a county, municipality, or special district unless he or she is registered as a lobbyist with such entity. “Lobby” is defined as seeking, on behalf of another person or group, to influence a decision of the governing entity in an area of policy or procurement or in an attempt to obtain the goodwill of an official or employee of such entity. “Lobbyist” has the same meaning as in Section 112.3215(1). A municipality, county, or special district may use the state’s executive or legislative branch lobbyist registration forms, or it may develop its own lobbyist registration form that requires disclosure of the name and address of the lobbyist, the name and address of the principal, and the existence of any direct or indirect business association or financial relationship the lobbyist has with any officer or employee of the county, municipality, or special district. The municipality, county or special district must make available to the public copies of lobbyist registrations and, if the entity maintains a website, it must make the information available on its website. The local lobbyist registration must be filed electronically with the Florida Commission on Ethics. The bill authorizes a municipality, county or special district to impose a lobbyist registration fee not to exceed $40 for each principal represented. The bill authorizes the Florida Commission on Ethics or the county or municipality’s local ethics commission to investigate violations of the registration requirements. It specifies that it does not preempt or supersede any ordinance or charter provision establishing a lobbyist registration program before July 2024, but provides that the state law prevails over a conflicting local requirement. An ordinance may include additional or more stringent disclosure requirements. The bills prohibit public officers, public employees, a local government attorney, or candidate for nomination or election from soliciting or accepting anything of value from a foreign country of concern. The bills prohibit the governing body of a municipality from renewing or extending the employment contract of a chief executive officer of the municipality during the eight months immediately preceding a general election for the mayor or for members of the governing body unless the renewal or extension is approved by a unanimous vote. In addition, the bills prohibit the governing body of a municipality from renewing or extending the employment contract of a municipal general counsel during the eight months immediately preceding a general election for mayor or for members of the governing body unless the renewal or extension is approved by a unanimous vote. (O’Hara)

SB 782 (Yarborough) amends Section 102.012, Florida Statutes, to require election boards to include at least one member from each of the two largest political parties in the state. (O’Hara)

SB 7014 (Ethics and Elections Committee) and HB 1597 (Brackett) create timeframes for the completion of investigations of alleged ethics violations conducted by the Florida Commission on Ethics (Commission). The bills create a harmless error standard for the Commission’s failure to meet the deadlines, tolls the timeframes until any related criminal cases are resolved and that specifies the new timeframes will apply to existing and new cases. In addition, the bills provide that terms of Commission members are limited to two terms total, rather than two successive terms. It adds candidates for public office to the categories of persons authorized to recover costs and attorney fees for defending against a maliciously filed ethics complaint. The bills also require a vote of six Commission members to reject or deviate from a recommendation of Commission counsel to the Commission and removes the Commission’s ability to conduct a formal hearing to determine disputed material facts. The bills authorize an alleged violator to request a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings or to select an informal hearing with the Commission. Finally, the bills conform the maximum penalty (changing the penalty from $10,000 to $20,000) for a violation of the constitutional prohibition against lobbying by a public officer to the penalties authorized for violations of other ethics laws. (O’Hara)

SB 190 (Garcia) and HB 671 (Borrero) require a law enforcement officer to transport ballot boxes or ballot transfer containers from a supervisor of elections to a precinct and require that all ballot boxes and ballot transfer containers be supervised by a law enforcement officer at all times. The bills require all ballot boxes, ballots, ballot stubs, memoranda and papers relating to the tabulation of votes and proclamation of results under Section 102.071, Florida Statutes, to be transported by a law enforcement officer. (O’Hara)

HB 919 (Rizo) and CS/SB 850 (DiCeglie) require political advertisements, electioneering communications or other miscellaneous advertisements to include a specified disclaimer if the advertisement or communication was created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence and the generated content appears to depict a real person performing an action that did not actually occur. The bills subject a person who fails to include the disclaimer in an advertisement or communication to civil penalties. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 1555 (Giallombardo) and CS/SB 1662 (Collins) make several changes to the State Cybersecurity Act (Act). The bills revise the reporting timelines and requirements for the “Cybersecurity Operations Center,” adding additional requirements for the state chief information officer and the chief information security officer. The Cybersecurity Operations Center is required to notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after an incident. The bills require the Cybercrime Operations Center to notify the Cybercrime Office of the Department of Law Enforcement of any incidents, provide regular reports and provide aid to investigate the incident. The bills require the Cybersecurity Operations Center to provide a consolidated incident report to the Governor, the Attorney General and the Executive Director of the Department of Law Enforcement by the 30th day after the end of each quarter. 

Local Government Incident Notification:

The bills require local governments to immediately notify the Cybercrime Office in the Department of Law Enforcement and the local sheriff who is responsible for receiving notification of a cybercrime incident in a local jurisdiction. Further, the bills require immediate notification to the state chief information security officer. Once a notification has been made to appropriate parties, the status and continued reporting updates are required to the local sheriff until there is no further risk to the public or other critical state systems. (Wagoner)

CS/HB 473 (Giallombardo) and SB 658 (DiCeglie) exempt cities and counties from liability in connection with a cybersecurity incident if the local entity has substantially complied with the current training and cybersecurity standards requirements under Section 282.3185, Florida Statutes. CS/HB 473 provides that political subdivisions of the state are also exempt from liability. (Wagoner)

SB 972 (Gruters) creates the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council within the Department of Management Services. The purpose of the Council is to study and monitor the development of artificial intelligence systems in state government and prepare a report due to the Legislature by July 1, 2025. The bill preempts a county or city or any political subdivision thereof from regulating the private and public use of artificial intelligence systems. (Wagoner)

SB 656 (DiCeglie) and HB 149 (Alvarez) – Continuing Contracts

HB 1307 (Redondo) and SB 1552 (Gruters) – Housing Developments

SB 1200 (Rodriguez) and HB 1507 (Chambliss) – Enforcement of the Florida Building Code

HB 1297 (Mooney) and SB 1465 (Rodriguez) – Affordable Housing in Areas of Critical State Concern

HB 579 (Griffitts) allows private providers the ability to handle plans review and inspection tasks. Of concerns to cities, the bill does the following:

•Defines "Private Provider Firm" as a business organization offering building code services to the public through licensed agents, including architects and engineers.

•Requires private provider firms to qualify as business organizations if using licensed architects and engineers.

•Allows building owners or their contractors to hire private providers for building code inspection services with a written contract.

•Permits fee owners to use private providers for plans review or building inspections, with the possibility of requiring both if plans review is chosen.

•Requires equal access to permitting and inspection documents for private providers, owners and contractors.

•Prohibits the local building official from conducting their own plans review or inspections if a private provider is hired.

•Specifies a timeframe of 12 business days for local building officials to issue permits or provide written notices regarding plan deficiencies.

•If the local building official does not provide specific written notice to the permit applicant within the prescribed 12-day period, the permit application is deemed approved as a matter of law, and the permit must be issued by the local building official on the next business day.

•Establishes a complaint process through the Department of Commerce for fee owners or contractors if local jurisdictions fail to reduce fees as required. (Branch)

CS/CS/HB 267 (Esposito) and SB 684 (DiCeglie) are comprehensive building permit bills. Of concern to cities, the bills do the following:

Expedited Approval of Residential Permits for Large Scale Developments

•Require municipalities with a population of 30,000 or more to create a program to expedite the process of issuing building permits for residential subdivisions by August 15, 2024.

•Create a two-step application process that would include the adoption of a preliminary plat and a final plat in order to expedite the issuance of building permits.

•Allow cities to work with the appropriate local government agencies to issue an address and a temporary parcel identification number for lot lines and lot sizes based on the metes and bounds of the plat contained in the application.

•CS/CS/HB 267 was amended to require applicants to have a performance bond for up to 130%. The Senate Companion, SB 684, requires applicants to have a performance bond for up to 120%.

•Require applicants to indemnify local governments that issue the permit.

•Specifies that upon an applicant's request, a local government must issue no less than 50% of the permits for dwellings to be built.

•CS/CS/HB 267 was amended to remove the provisions above from the bill. 

Shorten Timeframes for Building Permits (applies to all municipalities)

•CS/CS/HB 267 was amended to remove the requirement for the local jurisdiction to reduce the permit fee by 75% if an owner retains a private provider. SB 684 maintains this provision. 

•Reduce the timeframe when municipalities must provide written notice of receipt and any other additional information that is required for a properly completed application to an applicant.

•Reduce the number of times a municipality can ask an applicant for additional information.

•Allow an application to be “deemed” approved if municipalities fail to meet any of the timeframes. 

Only in CS/CS/HB 267:

•Requires a local government to: 

oDetermine if a building permit application is complete within five business days of receiving the application, previously set at 10 days. 

oDetermine if a building permit application is sufficient within 10 business days of receiving a completed application, previously set at 45 days. 

oApprove, approve with conditions, or deny a complete and sufficient permit application within the following timeframes: 

30 business days for applicants using local government review, previously set at 120 days; 

15 business days for applicants using a private provider, previously set at 120 days; and 

10 business days for applicants for a permit under an already-approved master plan permit, previously set at 120 days. 

60 business days for applicants for a multifamily project; previously set at 120 days.

oReview a completed application for sufficiency within 10 business days.

oProvide an opportunity for a virtual meeting, instead of just an in-person meeting, before a second request for additional information may be made. (Branch)