BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

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. The bills specify that when at least two members of the governing body are physically present, a member of the governing body may be considered present if, by the use of any technology, the member can participate in the deliberation of the governing body. The bills define “present” as meaning that a member of a governing body has, for the purpose of determining a quorum, the ability to participate meaningfully in the deliberation of the governing body, either by physical presence at the meeting or by his or her use of technology that allows the member to see, hear and speak at the meeting as if physically present. (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 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)

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)

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)

HB 1555 (Giallombardo) and 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)

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/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/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.

Shorten Timeframes for Building Permits  (applies to all municipalities)

•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. (Branch)

CS/SB 742 (Grall) and CS/HB 705 (Shoaf) revise and expand the definition of "public works project" to include an activity that is paid using any local or state-appropriated funds. Under current law, this is defined as any state funds. Of concern to cities, the bills prohibit municipalities that contract for a public works project from requiring a contractor to do the following:

•Pay employees a predetermined amount of wages or prescribe any wage rate

•Provide employees a specified type, amount or rate of employee benefits

•Control, limit or expand staffing

•Recruit, train or hire employees from a designated, restricted or single source. (Branch)

CS/HB 665 (McClain) and CS/SB 812 (Ingoglia) are comprehensive bills dealing with the expedited approval of residential building permits. Of concern to municipalities, the bills do the following:

•Require counties with a population of 75,000 or more and 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 October 1, 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.

•Require applicants to have a performance bond for up to 130%.

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

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

CS/SB 280 (DiCeglie) and HB 1537 (Griffitts) are comprehensive bills dealing with short-term rentals. Here is a brief description of how the bills are different:

HB 1537:

•Pay a fee of no more than $150 per unit for processing an individual registration application and a $50 per unit yearly renewal. A local government may impose a $300 fine for failure to register.  

•State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental based on the number of sleeping accommodations for persons staying in the short-term rental. 

•Requires the responsible party to respond to a complaint or emergency by 9 a.m. the next calendar day.

CS/SB 280:

•Pay a “reasonable fee” per unit for processing an individual registration application and renewal. A local government may impose a $500 fine for failure to register. 

•State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental based on the number of sleeping accommodations for persons staying in the short-term rental in accordance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code. 

•Display their individual registration number in a conspicuous location in the vacation rental. 

Below is how the bills remain identical:

Impact on Local Governments

The bills maintain the current preemption on local governments from adopting zoning ordinances specific to short-term rentals as well as regulating the duration of stays and the frequency in which the properties are rented. 

Local Registration Programs 

The bills create a statewide process for the local registration of vacation rentals. Under the program, a local government has 15 days after receiving an application for registration to accept the application or issue a written notice specifying all deficiencies. Both parties may agree to extend the time line. If a municipality does not accept or deny an application within that 15-day window, that application is deemed approved. 

As a condition of registration, the local registration program may only require the owner or operator of a vacation rental to:

•Charge a reasonable fee for inspections to ensure compliance with the Florida Building and Fire Prevention Codes. 

•Renew their registration no more than once per year per unit, unless the property has a change in ownership.

•Submit identifying information about the owner or the property manager and the short-term rental being registered.

•Obtain a license as a transient public lodging establishment by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR).

•Obtain all required tax registration, receipts or certificates issued by the Department of Revenue, a county or a municipal government. 

•Maintain all registration information on a continuing basis so it is current.

•Designate and maintain a property designee who can respond to complaints and other immediate problems related to the property, including being available by phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

•Pay in full all municipal or county code liens against the property being registered. 

June 1, 2011, Grandfather Provision

The bills maintain the grandfathering of ordinances that were adopted prior to June 1, 2011. Additionally, the bills clarify that cities may amend grandfathered ordinances to be less restrictive without voiding those ordinances. 

Impact on Advertising Platforms and DBPR

Advertising platforms will now be required to:

•Collect and remit all required taxes.

•Require each person listing a property as a vacation rental to include in the advertisement the state license number and, if applicable, the local registration number. They will also be required to attest that the license and registration numbers are valid.

•By January 1, 2026, the advertising platform will be required to check and verify the license number of all listings with DBPR prior to posting the advertisement. Additionally, license numbers must be checked at the end of each calendar quarter with the department.

•Remove from public view an advertisement from their website within 15 business days after notification by DBPR in writing that a vacation rental fails to display a valid license number.

•Adopt an anti-discrimination policy.

Revocation/Denial of License

A local government may revoke or refuse to renew a vacation rental registration:

•An owner’s vacation rental registration has been suspended three times.

•There is an unsatisfied municipal or county code lien, so long as the local government allows the owner at least 60 days before the termination to satisfy the lien.

•The premises and its owner are subject of a final order or judgment directing the termination of the premises’ use as a vacation rental.

•A local government may suspend a local registration for up to 30 days if a short-term rental is found to have one or more violations on five days for violations of another local law, ordinance or regulation in a 30-, 60- or 90-day period. (Wagoner)

SB 472 (Brodeur) and CS/HB 569 (McFarland) increase the statutory limits on liability for tort claims against the state and its agencies and subdivisions (which include cities). The current statutory limits for claims are $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. Both bills would increase the caps to $400,000 per person and $600,000 per incident. To reflect inflation, the bills require caps to be adjusted annually on July 1 to reflect changes in the regional Consumer Price Index. The bills prohibit an insurance policy from conditioning the payout of a claim on the passage of a claims bill. CS/HB 569 allows a subdivision of the state to settle a claim above the statutory limits without the need for a claims bill. CS/HB 569 narrows the statute of limitation on negligence claims against government entities from 4 years to 2 years. CS/HB 569 also abolishes the common law doctrine of “home venue privilege” in relation to negligence suits against the state. Both the House and Senate bills allow the limitations of liability in effect on the date a final judgment is entered to apply to the claim. Therefore, allowing claims that occurred prior to implementation of these new limits to avail themselves to the increase in caps. (Cruz)

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/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.

Shorten Timeframes for Building Permits  (applies to all municipalities)

•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. (Branch)

HB 1277 (Busatta Cabrera) and SB 1510 (Brodeur) impose restrictions on the use of municipal water, wastewater, gas or electric utility revenues to fund general government services and impose restrictions on the imposition of water and wastewater extraterritorial surcharges. The bills specify that the portion of utility revenues transferred may not exceed the transfer rates specified in the bills. The specified transfer rates for gas and electric utility revenues are based on the average midpoints of the rates of return on equity approved by the Public Service Commission for investor-owned utilities. The transfer rates for water and wastewater utilities are based on the rate of return on equity established by the Public Service Commission for water and wastewater utilities regulated by the Commission. The bills require further reductions in the allowable transfer rate based on the percentage of the utility’s retail customers located outside the municipality’s boundaries. The bills further specify that these reductions do not apply if the utility service is governed by a utility authority board that, through the election of voting members from outside the municipal boundaries, provides for proportionate representation of customers located outside the municipal boundaries. With respect to extraterritorial surcharges, the bills eliminate the first 25% extraterritorial surcharge that may be imposed without a public hearing. The bills eliminate the second 25% surcharge that may be imposed after a public hearing. In addition, the bills provide that rates, fees and charges that may be imposed on extraterritorial customers shall not exceed 25% (reduced from the 50% allowed under current law) of the total amount the municipality charges customers served within the municipality for corresponding service. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 777 (Brackett) and SB 1088 (Martin) remove statutory authorization for municipalities to impose any surcharge for serving customers outside their municipal boundaries. HB 777 would require that rates, fees and charges be the same for customers served inside and outside the municipality’s boundaries. SB 1088 specifies that rates, fees, and charges for extraterritorial customers must be just and equitable and be based on the same factors used to fix rates, fees, and charges for customers inside the municipality’s boundaries. The bills also require municipal utilities that serve extraterritorial customers to conduct a rate study by January 1, 2027, and every seven years thereafter. (O’Hara)

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 1995 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)

HB 1635 (Steele) and SB 1796 (Burgess) require local governments to provide compensation for a nonmonetary exaction equal to the fair market value of the exaction imposed. The bills require a local government that adopts and collects impact fees by ordinance to ensure the impact fee is collected only if the relevant property receives the service for which the fee was assessed. The bills also require local governments to establish impact fee zones or districts to assist local governments in ensuring the fee is expended to provide additional capital facilities within the appropriate zone or district. HB 1635 places the maximum amount an impact fee may charge depending on the type of development in state law. The bill also prohibits the imposition of both an impact fee and a mobility fee for master planned unit developments and planned home developments. (Cruz)