BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

HB 119 (Melo) and SB 188 (Brodeur) – Trespass on Commercial Agricultural Property

SB 1068 (Rodriguez) – Marketable Record Title to Real Property (Cruz)

HB 397 (Cross) and SB 404 (Rouson) expand the urban agricultural pilot project to allow for commercial agricultural use of residential property in certain circumstances. (Cruz)

SB 1184 (Ingoglia) is a comprehensive bill relating to land use and development regulations. The bill amends 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 bill amends 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 bill requires 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. Lastly, the bill requires local governments to adopt infill redevelopment regulations to administratively approve the development of infill single-family, two-family and fee simple townhouses. (Cruz)

HB 1177 (Duggan) and SB 1110 (DiCeglie) amend various provisions related to land development regulations in Florida. The bills amend the Community Planning Act to require modifications to transportation concurrency system requirements for local governments, change to the adoption of impact fees by special districts, and adjustment provisions governing credits against local impact fees. The bills also address revisions in procedures regarding local government review of changes to previously approved developments of regional impact (DRIs), specifying certain types of changes that won't necessitate local government review. The bills allow for modifications to multimodal pathways in previously approved DRIs under specific conditions and outline that certain changes to comprehensive plan policies and land development regulations won't apply to developments with vested rights. Additionally, the legislation revises the criteria that constitute acts of reliance by a developer to vest rights. (Cruz)

HB 1051 (Tuck) and SB 1082 (Collins) prohibit a governmental entity from adopting or enforcing legislation inhibiting the construction or installation of housing for agricultural workers on agricultural land. The bills establish criteria for the construction and installation of these housing units, including adherence to federal, state and local building standards, minimum distance requirements between units, limitations on the square footage of climate-controlled facilities and specified setbacks from property boundaries. The bills prohibit local governments from adopting land use regulations that are more restrictive than certain state and federal regulations, while requiring property owners to maintain records of all approved permits for at least three years. The bills also outline conditions under which housing sites may cease to be used or be required to be removed, including non-use for over a year or loss of agricultural land classification. The bills are set to take effect on July 1, 2024. (Cruz)

HB 479 (Robinson, W.) and SB 688 (Martin) revise and provide additional guidance concerning the use of mobility plans and the collection of mobility fees. The bills provide definitions for “mobility fee” and “mobility plan” to be used within the Community Planning Act. The bills prohibit local governments from charging for transportation impacts if they are not the local government that is issuing a building permit, require that local governments collect for extra jurisdictional impacts if they are issuing building permits and prohibit local governments from assessing multiple charges for the same transportation impact. Concerning impact fees, the bills provide that local governments adopting and collecting impact fees by ordinance or resolution must use localized data available within the previous 12 months of adoption for the local government’s calculation of impact fees. (Cruz)

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

HB 557 (Stevenson) – Moveable Tiny Homes

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)

SB 426 (Garcia, I.) – Community Associations

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

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

SB 404 (Rouson) – Urban Agriculture Pilot Projects

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)

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 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) – 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 913 (McFarland) – 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

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 (Cruz)

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 bills further revise which expenses and projects may be covered by Tourism Development Taxes. (Chapman)

HB 55 (Tant) and 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)

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

WMC3 (Ways and Means Committee) is the implementing bill for WMC1 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)

WMC1 (Ways and Means Committee) 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)

HB 635 (McFarland) and SB 820 (Grall) amend Section 170.201, Florida Statutes, and provide an exemption for public and private preschools from specified special assessments levied by a municipality. (Chapman)