BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

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)

SB 742 (Grall) and 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.

The bills also prohibit a local government from denying the ability of a licensed contractor within the state from receiving information about a public works opportunity or from submitting a bid on a project. (Branch)

CS/HB 665 (McClain) and 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 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.

•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. 

•CS/HB 665 was amended to change the creation of the program date from August 15, 2024, to October 1, 2024. (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)

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. (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)

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 609 (Botana) and SB 1144 (DiCeglie) would repeal local governments' ability to levy a local business tax. (Chapman)

SB 1184 (Ingoglia) and HB 1221 (McClain) are comprehensive bills relating to land use and development regulations. The bills amend various regulations relating to comprehensive plans. The bill would restrict optional elements of a comprehensive plan from containing a policy restricting density and intensity. The bills amend definitions of intensity, density, urban service area and urban sprawl to promote the construction of additional single-family, two-family and fee simple townhomes. The bills require local governments to adopt minimum lot sizes with single-family, two-family and fee simple townhouse zoning districts to accommodate the maximum density authorized in the comprehensive plan. The bills require local governments to adopt infill redevelopment regulations to administratively approve the development of infill single-family, two-family and fee simple townhouses. HB 1221 also contains a provision that would requires the automatic rezoning of agricultural land for single family housing in certain circumstances. This provision is not found in SB 1184. (Cruz)

HB 7019 (Buchanan) is the implementing bill for HJR 7015 and HJR 7017 if it is voter-approved and would 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. (Chapman)

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)

SB 770 (Martin) and HB 927 (Trabulsy) revise requirements relating to the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. The bills define “commercial property,” “facility,” “government commercial property,” “nongovernmental lessee,” “program administrator,” “qualifying improvement contractor,” “qualifying improvement program,” “qualifying improvement” and “residential property” for purposes of the PACE program. In addition, HB 927 revises the definition of “local government” in the PACE statute to clarify that an interlocal entity created pursuant to Section 163.01(7) may have jurisdiction only within the boundaries of the participating members of an interlocal agreement. The bills authorize local governments to enter financing agreements with property owners to finance or refinance qualifying improvements and require such agreements to meet specified conditions. The definition of “qualifying improvement” is expanded to include wastewater improvements relating to repair, replacement, or conversion of a septic tank system, and flood and water damage mitigation and resiliency improvements. The bills define “qualifying improvements” for commercial properties. The bills revise and specify public recording requirements for assessment financing agreements and notices of lien. The bills authorize local governments to include in any contracts with program administrators provisions for performing annual reviews to confirm compliance. The bills prohibit liens relating to PACE improvements from being enforced in a manner that accelerates the remaining nondelinquent unpaid balance. Numerous new consumer protection requirements are imposed on the approval of PACE financing agreements, including requirements that a local government or program administrator determine whether a property owner has the ability to pay the assessment, requirements for disclosures to property owners, requirements for obtaining the consent of certain mortgage holders or loan servicers, requirements for monitoring compliance by qualifying improvement contractors, and requirements for annual reporting by local governments. (O’Hara)

CS/HB 665 (McClain) and 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 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.

•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. 

•CS/HB 665 was amended to change the creation of the program date from August 15, 2024, to October 1, 2024. (Chapman)

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. (Chapman)