April 21, 2023 | Legislative Reporter
Two weeks remain in the legislative session. To date, 1,807 bills have been filed and 40 have passed both chambers. April 25 is the last day for regularly scheduled Senate committee meetings; bills that have not made progress in committee are likely not to pass before session is scheduled to end on May 5.
Over the past week, the following bills have been Enrolled:
• Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority: CS/HB 155 (Rep. Holcomb), passed by the House on March 24, was substituted for CS/SB 198 (Sen. DiCeglie) and passed by the Senate on April 19. The bill repeals Chapter 343, Part III, F.S., relating to the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority.
Every bill passed by the legislature is presented to the governor for approval and becomes a law if the governor approves and signs it, or fails to veto it within seven consecutive days after presentation. If during that period or on the seventh day, the legislature adjourns sine die or takes a recess of more than thirty days, the governor has 15 consecutive days from the date of presentation to act on the bill. To track Governor DeSantis’s action on bills, go to flgov.com and click on “2023 Bill Actions” on the right side of the page.
The Bill Tracking Report, as of April 21, can be viewed here. Please review it to see the bills filed that APA Florida is tracking. Note that these tracking reports contain a new feature; if you click on the bill number, you are linked to more information about the bill.
If you would like any bills added to this report or would like more information about a specific bill, please contact Stefanie Svisco at ssvisco@floridaplanning.org.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Building Construction: CS/CS/HB 89 (Rep. Maggard) was passed by the House on April 19 and has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee.
The bill makes changes to notification requirements a local government must provide regarding the specific reasons why building plans do not comply with the Florida Building Code and other specified codes. It amends ss.553.79(2), F.S., to provide that if the building code administrator, plans examiner, or inspector requests another local enforcing agency employee or person contracted by the local enforcing agency to review the plans and such person identifies specific plan features that do not comply with applicable codes, the building code administrator, plans examiner, or inspector, must provide this information to the local enforcing agency.
After a local enforcement agency issues a permit, the local enforcing agency may not make or require any substantive changes to the plans or specifications unless the changes are required for compliance with the Building Code, the Fire Prevention Code, Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto.
If the local enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or specifications after the permit has been issued, the local enforcing agency:
• must identify specific parts of the plan that do not comply with the applicable codes;
• identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based; and
• provide this information to the permitholder in writing.
A plans examiner or inspector who fails to provide the building code administrator with the reasons for making or requiring substantive changes to building plans or specifications is subject to disciplinary action against their certificate. Additionally, a building code administrator who fails to provide a permit applicant or permit holder with the reasons for making or requiring substantive changes to building plans or specifications is subject to disciplinary action against their certificate.
The bill also amends ss.633.208(2), F.S., to:
• provide that if a county, municipality, or special district concludes that the building plans for a building permit application do not comply with the Florida Fire Prevention Code, Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto, the local fire official must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific chapters and sections upon which the determination is based, and provide the information to the permit applicant;
• provide that, after a municipality, county, or special district issues a building permit, it may not make or require any substantive changes to the building plans except those required for compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code, the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If substantive changes are made or required, the local fire official must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific chapters and sections upon which the determination is based, and provide the information to the permit holder; and
• specify that a local fire official, who is also a certified fire safety inspector, who fails to comply with the requirements identified in the above two bullets, is subject to disciplinary action against their certificate.
An identical bill, CS/SB 512 (Sen. Hooper), is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Rules Committee on April 25.
Local Government Comprehensive Plans: CS/CS/CS/SB 540 (DiCeglie) was passed by the Senate on April 19 and is in Messages to the House.
The bill amends ss.163.3184(5) and ss.163.3187(5), F.S., to provide that the prevailing party in administrative challenges to a comprehensive plan or amendment, including small-scale amendments, is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs in challenging or defending the order, including reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs.
The bill adds language to s.163.3202, F.S., to state that land development regulations related to any characteristic of development other than use, or intensity or density of use, may not be applied to the Florida College System institutions as defined in s.1000.21, F.S.
Finally, the bill amends s.163.3215, F.S., to resolve a split among Florida district courts of appeal by clarifying that the scope of review for a challenge to a local government decision to grant or deny a development order is limited to whether the development order would materially alter the use, density, or intensity of a property in a manner not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
CS/CS/HB 359 (Rep. Duggan), a similar bill, has moved through its committees of reference and is on the House Calendar on Second Reading.
Local Tax Referenda Requirements: CS/CS/SB 698 (Sen. Ingoglia), was reported favorably with a committee substitute, by its second of three committees of reference, the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, on April 18, and is now in its last committee of reference, the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee.
CS/CS/SB 689 amends provisions related to several taxes that are approved by referendum. The bill requires a referendum to reenact or increase such taxes must be placed on the ballot at a general election occurring within the 48-month period immediately preceding the effective date of the tax. Furthermore, such referendums may appear on the ballot only once within 48 months of the effective date of the tax.
The bill pertains to the following taxes:
• tourist development tax;
• tourist impact tax;
• local government discretionary sales surtax;
• ninth-cent fuel tax;
• 1-5 cent local option fuel tax; and
• Children’s Services Independent District millage.
The committee deleted previously proposed language that would have these provisions apply to increasing millage, millage in excess of limits, and district school board millage elections.
CS/HB 731 (Rep. Temple), similar to CS/CS/SB 698 before its recent amendment, was reported favorably by the House State Affairs Committee, its third committee of reference, on April 11, and was placed on the House calendar for Second Reading.
Saltwater Intrusion Vulnerability Assessments: SB 734 (Sen. Polsky) was reported favorably by its second of three committees of reference, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government, on April 18. It is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 25.
The bill amends the Resilient Florida Grant Program to authorize the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to provide grants to coastal counties to conduct vulnerability assessments analyzing the effects of saltwater intrusion on their water supplies and the counties’ preparedness to respond to such threats, including water utility infrastructure, wellfield protection, and freshwater supply management. Each vulnerability assessment must include:
• A county’s primary water utilities;
• maps of the county’s freshwater wellfields and latest saltwater intrusion impact lines;
• projections of saltwater intrusion over the next decade; and
• an analysis of the costs necessary to relocate freshwater wellfields anticipated to be impacted.
The bill requires DEP to use the information from counties’ saltwater intrusion vulnerability assessments to update the Comprehensive Statewide Flood Vulnerability and Sea Level Rise Data Set. DEP must also make any appropriate information from the vulnerability assessments available to the public on its website. The bill requires DEP to provide 50 percent cost-share funding, up to $250,000, for each grant awarded. A county with a population of 50,000 or less is not required to contribute to the cost share.
An identical bill, HB 1079 (Rep. Cross) is in the House Agriculture, Conservation and Resiliency Subcommittee, its first of three committees of reference.
Vacation Rentals: CS/CS/HB 833 (Rep. Duggan) was reported favorably, reflecting committee amendments, by the House Commerce Committee, its last committee of reference, on April 18.
The bill amends s.509.032(7), F.S., to preempt the regulation of advertising platforms to the state. The bill also amends s. 509.032(7), F.S., to preempt the licensing of vacation rentals to the state. The bill amends s.509.013, F.S., to define the term “advertising platform”, transient and nontransient public lodging facilities, and amend other definitions. It amends s.212.03 F.S. and creates s.509.243, F.S., both effective Jan. 1, 2024, to provide requirements, including tax collection and remittance requirements, for an advertising platform.
The bill amends ss.509.032(7)(b) F.S. to allow any grandfathered local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011, to be amended to be less restrictive or to comply with local registration requirements. Additionally, a local government that had such a grandfathered regulation on June 1, 2011, may pass a new, less restrictive ordinance. The bill maintains the exemption to the preemption for areas of critical state concern.
The bill also amends this paragraph to provide that a local government may adopt a local vacation rental registration program. The committee added a provision that this paragraph does not prohibit a local law, ordinance, or regulation from restricting the maximum occupancy for residential properties that are rented if uniformly applied without regard to whether the residential property is used as a vacation rental. The committee also increased the proposed local registration fees so that the fees may not exceed $150 for an individual or $200 for a collective vacation rental registration, and deleted previously proposed language that would have allowed a local government to impose a fine for failure to register a vacation rental.
A local government registration program may only require the owner or operator of a vacation rental to:
• register no more than once per year; however, a new owner may be required to submit a new application for registration;
• submit identifying information about the owner or the owner’s agents and the subject vacation rental property;
• obtain a license as a transient public lodging establishment issued by the state within 60 days after local registration;
• obtain all required tax registrations, receipts, or certificates issued by the Department of Revenue, a county, or a municipal government;
• update required information on a continuing basis to ensure it is current;
• comply with parking standards and solid waste handling and containment requirements, so long as such standards and requirements are not imposed solely on vacation rentals;
• designate and maintain at all times a responsible party who is capable of responding to complaints and other immediate problems related to the vacation rental, including being available by telephone at a listed phone number;
• pay in full all recorded municipal or county code liens against the subject property. The local government may withdraw its acceptance of a registration on the basis of an unsatisfied recorded municipal or county code lien; and
• state the maximum occupancy of the vacation rental based on the number of sleeping accommodations for person staying overnight in the vacation rental. (This language was added by the committee.)
Additionally, the bill requires local governments to review a registration application for completeness within 15 days of receipt of an application and accept it or issue a written notice specifying with particularity the deficiencies. The vacation rental owner or operator may agree to an extension of this time period. Upon an accepted registration, the local government must assign a unique registration number to that vacation rental. Failure to accept or deny the registration within the specified timeframes will result in the application being deemed accepted. Note that the committee removed previously proposed language dealing with what happens if a local government denies an application, and language which identified circumstances under which a local government could terminate or refuse to issue or renew a registration.
The bill amends ss.509.241, F.S., to require that all applications to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (division) within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for a vacation rental license must include, if applicable, the local registration number or other proof of registration required by local law, ordinance, or regulation. The division may grant a temporary license to permit the operation of the vacation rental while the license application is pending. The bill also amends s.509.243, F.S., to authorize the division to revoke, refuse to issue or renew, or suspend state vacation rental licenses for certain specified violations.
The bill also amends ss.775.21, F.S., to require that sexual offenders and sexual predators register with the local sheriff’s office if they stay in a vacation rental for 24 hours or more.
The bill provides that the application of vacation rental provisions created by the bill do not supersede any current or future declaration or declaration of condominium, cooperative documents, or declaration of covenants or declaration for a homeowners’ association. The bill takes effect upon becoming law. However, the provisions relating to the regulation of advertising platforms take effect on Jan. 1, 2024.
CS/CS/SB 714 (Sen. DiCeglie), a similar bill, was reported favorably on April 18 by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government, its second of three committees of reference. It is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its last committee of reference, on April 25.
Agricultural Lands: CS/CS/CS/HB 1343, (Rep. Tuck), was reported favorably with committee substitute by its third of 3 committees of reference, the House Infrastructure Committee, on April 17 and has been placed on the House Special Order Calendar for April 25.
The bill defines the term agricultural employee as a person who produces a farm product as defined in s.823.14(3), F.S.; is seasonally or annually employed in agricultural production; is lawfully present in the United States; is eligible to work at the time of employment and remains so throughout the duration of that employment; and has been verified pursuant to s.448.095. (This language was added by the committee.)
The bill prohibits a county from levying any special assessment on lands classified as agricultural, including nonresidential agricultural structures, unless the revenue from the assessment is pledged for debt service and is needed to make required payment on that debt. The bill specifies that this prohibition does not apply to nonagricultural structures, including residential and nonresidential structures and their curtilage. (This language was added by the committee.)
The bill creates s.163.3161, F.S., to specify that the construction or installation of housing for agricultural employees is authorized on land zoned for agricultural use and operated as a bona fide farm. Such construction or installation of housing must be:
• located on a parcel of land no less than 10 acres in size (Added by the committee);
• not located within 500 feet of the property line (Added by the committee);
• may not exceed 7,500 square feet per parcel of land;
• must meet all local and state building standards for securing a residential certificate of occupancy; and
• does not require approval by ordinance or resolution of the governmental entity where the land is located.
The bill specifies that if agricultural operations are discontinued on the property for a minimum of three years and the agricultural land classification of the property is no longer valid, then the agricultural employee housing is no longer eligible for residential use unless and until approved by the local jurisdiction under its zoning and land use regulations for the intended non-agricultural use.
The bill prohibits a county or municipality from requiring the removal or relinquishment of an agricultural classification for land that is subject to a contract for sale that requires a development permit as a condition precedent of sale if the landowner notifies the county or municipality in writing at the time of application for the development permit that the reclassification is requested as a condition precedent for a pending sale of land. The agricultural classification for the land may not be removed or relinquished until such time that the landowner provides written notice to the county or municipality that the contract has closed, and the property has been conveyed to the contract purchaser.
The committee amendments made this bill closer to CS/SB 1184 (Sen. Collins), a similar bill. CS/SB 1184 is in its third of three committees, the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Land Use and Development Regulations: CS/CS/SB 1604 (Sen. Ingoglia) was reported favorably by the Senate Rules Committee, its final committee of reference, with an amendment on April 19.
The bill does the following:
• amends ss.163.3177(5)(a) to amend the planning periods for comprehensive plans from at least 5 and 10 years to at least 10 and 20 years;
• amends ss.163.3191(1) F.S. to specify that the notification sent by a local government to DEO regarding an EAR determination must include a separate affidavit:
o signed by the county governing body chair or the municipality mayor, attesting that all the elements of its comprehensive plan comply with the requirements of s.163.3191(1), F.S.;
o including a certification that the adopted plan contains the minimum planning period of 10 year; and
o citing the source and date of the population projections utilized in establishing the 10-year planning period.
• amends ss.163.3191(3) to:
o state that local governments are required, versus encouraged, to comprehensively evaluate and, as necessary, update comprehensive plans to reflect changes in local conditions; and
o add that updates to the required elements and optional elements must be processed in the same plan amendment cycle.
• amends ss.163.3191(4) and adds a new subsection (5), F.S., to provide that if a local government fails to provide its EAR notification and affidavit or fails to transmit its plan update within a year of transmitting the notification, it may not initiate or adopt any publicly initiated plan amendments until it complies, unless otherwise required by general law.
o this prohibition does not apply to privately initiated plan amendments;
o the failure of a local government to update its plan in a timely manner is not the basis for the denial of a privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment;
o if a local government fails to update its comprehensive plan, the state land planning agency must provide the required population projections that must be used by the local government and the local government must initiate an update within 3 months of receipt and transmit the update within 12 months;
o if the state land planning agency finds the update is not in compliance, it must establish a timeline to address the deficiencies, not to exceed an additional 12-month period;
o if the update is challenged by a third party, the local government may seek approval from the state land planning agency to process publicly initiated plan amendments that are necessary to accommodate the population growth during the pendency of the litigation; and
o during the update process, the local government can provide alternative population projections based on professionally acceptable methodologies, but only if they exceed the ones provided by the state land planning agencies and only if the update is completed in the timeframe.
• amends ss.163.3202(5), F.S.to:
o delete existing language that allows the application of building design element regulations to singlefamily or two-family dwellings located in a planned unit development or a master planned community;
o revise the provision regarding the application of building design regulations to single- or two-family dwellings within a local government that has a design review board or architectural review board to require that the board has to have been created before Jan. 1, 2020; and
o delete the definition of planned unit development and master planned community.
The Senate Rules Committee amended the bill to add a new ss.189.031 (7), F.S., dealing with the review of development agreements of independent special districts, and appears on its face to be aimed at Disney. The new language provides that an independent special district is precluded from complying with the terms of any development agreement executed within the three months preceding the effective date of a law modifying the manner of selecting the members of the district’s governing body. The new governing body has four months after taking office to review any development agreement and vote on whether to seek readoption of such agreement. This applies to any development agreement that is in effect on, or is executed after, the effective date of this new section which is stated to be upon becoming law. This new subsection expires July 1, 2028, unless reenacted by the legislature.
CS/CS/CS/HB 439 (Rep. McClain), which is more expansive than the Senate bill above, was reported favorably, with amendments by the House State Affairs Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 19. The amended bill:
• revises s.70.51, the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, to allow a negotiated settlement between a property owner and a local government to include the same types of relief that could be ordered by the special magistrate and provides that a special magistrate’s recommendation or a negotiated settlement between the property owner and the local government may contain relief that would otherwise be inconsistent with the local government’s comprehensive plan if the local government finds the relief protects the public interest served by the comprehensive plan provisions with which it is inconsistent. Also clarifies that any recommendation of the special magistrate with respect to a rezoning is not considered contract zoning;
• amends ss.163.3177(1)(f) to:
o delete existing language that identifies community goals and vision as a type of relevant data and analysis for required and optional comprehensive plan elements;
o add language to require support data or summaries be subject to the compliance review process; and
o require that support data or summaries be based on current data and analysis, which is relevant to and correlates to the proposed amendment. (Added by committee.)
• amends ss.163.3177(1)(f)(2) to delete existing language that limits how methodology used in data collection may be evaluated and deletes language indicating local government may use original data if methodology is professionally accepted;
• amends ss.163.3177(1)(f)(3) to require that the comprehensive plan population estimates (both permanent and seasonal) must be based on the greater of those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or those generated by the local government based on a professionally acceptable methodology
• amends ss.163.3177(2) to provide that optional elements of a comprehensive plan may not contain policies that restrict the density or intensity established in the future land use element and require that when data is relevant to optional and required elements, consistent data must be used, including population estimates and projections;
• amends ss.163.3177(5)(a) to amend the planning periods for comprehensive plans from at least 5 and 10 years to at least 10 and 20 years;
• amends ss.163.3177(6)(a) to:
o expand the data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth, on which future land use plans and amendments must be based, to include the amount needed to accommodate single-family, two-family, and fee simple townhome development (Added by committee.);
o expand the data on which future land use plans and amendments must be based to include the amount of land located outside the urban service area, excluding lands designated for conservation, preservation, or other public use (Added by committee.); and
o encourage the location of schools proximate to urban service areas (current law says urban residential areas) and encourage the location of schools in all areas as necessary to provide adequate school capacity to serve residential development.
• amends ss. 163.3191(1) to specify that:
o the EAR evaluation must include a determining if plan amendments are necessary to reflect a minimum planning horizon of at least 10 years;
o the notification sent by a local government to DEO regarding an EAR determination must include a separate affidavit:
signed by the county governing body chair or the municipality mayor, attesting that all the elements of its comprehensive plan comply with this paragraph;
including a certification that the adopted plan contains the minimum planning period of 10 years; and
cite the source and date of the population projections utilized in establishing the 10-year planning period.
• amends ss.163.3191(3) to add that local governments:
o must, versus are encouraged to, evaluate changes in local conditions and, as necessary, update comprehensive plans to reflect these changes; and
o must process required and optional elements in the same plan amendment cycle.
• amends ss. 163.3191(4) and add a new subsection (5) to provide that if a local government fails to provide its EAR notification and affidavit or fails to transmit a plan update within a year of transmitting the notification, it may not initiate or adopt any publicly initiated plan amendments until it complies, unless otherwise required by general law:
o this prohibition does not apply to privately initiated plan amendments;
o the failure of a local government to update its plan in a timely manner is not the basis for the denial of a privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment;
o if a local government fails to update its comprehensive plan, the state land planning agency shall provide the required population projections to be used by the local government and the local government must initiate an update within three months of receipt and transmit it within 12 months. During the update process, the local government can provide alternative population projections, but only if they exceed the ones provided by the state land planning agencies and only if the update is completed in the time frame;
o if the update is found not to be in compliance, the state land planning agency must establish the timeline to address the deficiencies, not to exceed an additional 12-month period (Added by committee.);
o if the update is challenged by a third party, the local government may seek approval from the state land planning agency to process publicly initiated plan amendments that are necessary to accommodate the population growth during the pendency of the litigation. (Added by committee.)
• amends s.163.3202, F.S. to require that land development regulations must:
o establish minimum lot sizes within single-family, two-family, and fee simple, single-family townhome zoning districts to accommodate the maximum density authorized in the comprehensive plan, net of the land area required to be set aside for subdivision roads, sidewalk, stormwater ponds,
open space, landscape buffers and other mandatory land development regulations that require land to be set aside that could otherwise be utilized for the development of these types of housing; and
o establish infill development standards for single-family homes, two-family homes, and fee simple townhome dwelling units to allow for the administrative approval of these types of development.
• amends ss.163.3202(5) to:
o delete existing language that allows the application of building design element regulations to singleor two-family dwellings located in a planned unit development or a master planned community;
o revise the provision regarding the application of building design regulations to single family or twofamily dwellings within a local government that has a design review board or architectural review board to require that the board has to have been created before Jan. 1, 2020; and
o delete the definition of planned unit development and master-planned community.
The House State Committee amended the bill to include the following provisions which would:
• amend ss.163.31801(7) dealing with impact fees, to provide that if a local government adopts an alternative mobility funding system in s.163.3180(5)(i), the holder of a transportation or road impact fee credits which were in existence before the adoption is entitled to the full benefit of the density or intensity prepaid by the credit balance as of the date the impact fee was first established;
• create s.163.32021 dealing with the affordable housing approval process. This would provide that an applicant of a development order of an existing development of housing that demonstrates, at the time of submission of the application, that at least 25 percent of the dwelling units are affordable as defined in s.420.0004, may be granted approval to expand development to adjacent property in any future land use category if at least 25 percent of the new dwelling units are affordable, as defined in s.420.0004 at the time of the initial sale or lease:
o the development order granting an application for this proposed development must be issued in accordance with Chapter 120 and applicable rules, and may not require further action by the local governing body if the new development is consistent with the same land development standards, including but not limited to, lot size and setbacks, as the existing development. An issued development order Is deemed to be consistent with the local government’s land development regulations;
o not withstanding any other law, local ordinance, or regulation to the contrary, an application submitted under this provision that requires a zoning or land use change may not be approved. A development order issued under this new subsection is deemed to be in compliance with the local comprehensive plan;
o upon issuing a development order approving the proposed development, a local government may not restrict:
the density of the new development below the density of the existing development; and
the height of the new development below the highest currently allowed height in the existing development.
o except as otherwise provided in this new provision, a development approved under it must comply with all state and local laws and regulations; and
o these provisions are self-executing and do not require the local government to adopt an ordinance or local regulation before using this approval process.
• amend s.163.3208 dealing with the substation approval process, to make a number of changes, among which are the following:
o change the term “distribution electric substation” to “electric Substation” and include accessory administration or maintenance buildings and related accessory uses and structures to its definition; and
o allow local governments, except for electric substations in s.163.3205 (2)c, F.S., to adopt and enforce land development regulations for existing electric substations, as well as for new ones.
• add a new ss.189.031(7), F.S., dealing with the review of development agreements of independent special districts, consistent with the change made in CS/CS/SB 1604 described above and which appears on its face to be aimed at the Walt Disney Corp.
Local Regulation of Nonconforming or Unsafe Structures: CS/CS/CS/ SB 1346 (Sen. Avila) was reported favorably, reflecting a committee amendment, by the Senate Rules Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 19.
The bill creates s.553.8991, F.S., which establishes the Resiliency and Safe Structures Act. The bill applies to all of the following structures, unless the structure is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places or is a single-family home:
• nonconforming structures located within one-half mile of the coastline and within zones V, VE, AO, or AE, as identified in the Flood Insurance Rate Map issued by FEMA;
• any structure determined to be unsafe by a local building official; and
• any structure ordered to be demolished by a local government that has proper jurisdiction.
The bill defines “nonconforming structure” as a structure that does not conform to the requirements for new construction issued by the National Flood Insurance Program.
The bill provides that a local government (municipality, county, special district, or any other political subdivision of the state) may not prohibit, restrict, or prevent the demolition of any qualifying structure identified in this section for any reason, other than public safety.
A local government may review an application for a demolition permit sought pursuant to this section only administratively for compliance with the Florida Building Code, Florida Fire Prevention Code, and the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto, and any regulation applicable to a similarly situated parcel. The local government may not subject an application to additional land development regulations or public hearings.
The bill requires that a local government authorize “replacement structures” to be developed to the maximum height and overall building size authorized by local development regulations. A “replacement structure” is defined as a new structure built on a property where a structure was demolished or will be demolished in accordance with this section.
A local government may not do any of the following:
• limit, for any reason, the development potential of replacement structures below the maximum allowed by the local development regulations
• require replication of a demolished structure
• require maintenance of any element of a demolished structure
• impose additional regulatory or building requirements on a replacement structure, demolished pursuant to this section, which would not otherwise be applicable to a similarly situated vacant parcel
Note that the committee deleted a previously proposed clause that would have included limiting the size or height of the replacement structure in the above list.
The bill states that s.553.8991, F.S., applies prospectively and retroactively to any “law” – defined to include any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, resolution, code enforcement order, agreement, or other governmental act – that is contrary to this section or its intent. The bill also provides that it does not apply to s.553.79(25), F.S., which deals with the demolition of single-family residential structures in certain high-hazard areas and flood zones. The bill specifically states that this new section must be liberally construed to effectuate its intent.
The bill also includes a preemption provision that prohibits a local government from adopting or enforcing a law that in any way limits the demolition of any structures or that limits the development of replacement structures that fall under this section. A local government may not penalize an owner or developer of a replacement structure for a demolition pursuant to this section or otherwise enact laws that defeat the intent of this section. Any local government law contrary to this section is void.
CS/CS/HB 1317 (Rep. Roach), a similar bill, was reported favorably by the House Commerce Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 18. The committee amended the bill to be more consistent with the Senate version. The committee also included language that requires development applications for replacement structures to be processed in accordance with the process outlined in local land development codes, including any required public hearings in front of the local historic board.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Economic Development: CS/CS/CS/HB 1209 (Rep. Shoaf) was reported favorably with committee amendments by its last committee of reference, the House Commerce Committee, on April 17 and placed on the House Special Order Calendar for April 25.
The bill as amended makes a number of changes to economic development programs:
Related to the Regional Rural Development Grants Program, the bill:
• removes the match requirements; and
• removes the requirement for local governments and private businesses to make financial or in-kind commitments to the regional organization.
Related to the Rural Infrastructure Fund, the bill:
• allows DEO to award grants for up to 75 percent of the total infrastructure project cost, an increase from 50 percent;
• allows DEO to award grants for up to 100 percent of the total infrastructure project cost for a project located in a rural community or a rural area of opportunity, if the county is also fiscally constrained; and
• removes the requirement related to infrastructure feasibility studies and other infrastructure planning activities that grants awarded be limited to 30 percent of the total project cost.
Related to the Florida Development Finance Corporation, the bill:
• removes the repeal of the corporation in current law; and
• provides that after July 1, 2023, the corporation may not establish any new residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) agreements.
Related to Triumph Gulf Coast, Inc., the bill:
• specifies that awards for public infrastructure projects may include projects for workforce housing; and
• defines workforce housing as rented or leased housing for residents of the eight disproportionately affected counties. (Added by committee.)
Related to the Everglades Restoration Agricultural Community Employment Training Program, the bill:
• specifies definitions and changes the phrase “areas of high agricultural unemployment” to “Everglades Agricultural Area and rural areas of opportunity”; and
• specifies that DEO must prioritize grants under the Everglades Restoration Agricultural Community Employment Training Program that assist training programs located in Rural Areas of Opportunity within a certain area. (Added by committee.)
The House Commerce Committee also amended the bill to:
• require agency agreements that provide state or federal financial assistance to a county or municipality which is a rural community or rural area of opportunity to include a provision allowing for the payment of certain invoices for verified performance;
• clarify that awards by Triumph Gulf Coast, Inc., for public infrastructure projects may include support for workforce housing properties owned by a local government in a disproportionately affected;
• provide definitions for “employer-based training program,” “Everglades Agricultural Area,” and “institutionbased training program; and
• revise the amount of time a resident must reside in the area to receive a grant for tuition to a training program under the Everglades Restoration Agricultural Community Employment Training Program.
Rural Development: CS/SB 1482 (Sen. Simon), which also deals with rural economic development programs, was reported favorably, reflecting committee amendments, by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development on April 18 and is scheduled to ne heard in the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its last committee of reference, on April 25.
The bill modifies economic initiatives relating to rural development including certain agreements funded with federal or state assistance, the Regional Rural Development Grants Program, and the Rural Infrastructure Fund. It prohibits an agency agreement that provides state or federal financial assistance to local government entities within a rural area of opportunity (RAO) from requiring the local government entity to expend funds in order to be reimbursed. The committee amended the bill to require agency agreements that provide state or federal financial assistance to a county or municipality that is a RAO to include a provision allowing for the payment of certain invoices for verified performance.
The bill amends the Regional Rural Development Grants Program to:
• eliminate the rural matching requirement;
• eliminate the requirement that grant funds received by a regional economic development organization must be matched each year by nonstate resources in an amount equal to 25 percent of the state contributions; and
• clarify that applicants must provide information about any financial or in-kind commitment to the regional organization by a unit of local government or the private sector. ( Added by committee.)
The bill amends the Rural Infrastructure Fund to:
• increase the maximum grant award from 50 percent to 75 percent of the total infrastructure cost, or up to 100 percent of the total infrastructure project cost for a project that is located in a rural community or a RAO and that is also located in a fiscally constrained county;
• remove the requirement that projects must be linked to specific job-creation or job-retention opportunities;
• increase the maximum grant for infrastructure feasibility studies, design and engineering activities, or other infrastructure planning and preparation activities to $300,000 for all projects and removes the limitation that the grant not exceed 30 percent of the total project cost;
• remove the 50 percent local matching fund requirement for surveys, feasibility studies, and other activities related to the identification and preclearance review of land which is suitable for preclearance review (Added by committee.);
• removes the requirement that a grant for an employment project create or retain a minimum number of jobs.
Economic Development: CS/CS/SB 1664 (Sen. Hooper), was reported favorably by its second of 3 committees of reference, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development, on April 19, and now moves to its last committee of reference, the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee.
The bill amends s.20.60(3)(b), F.S., to require the Secretary of the Department of Economic Development (Secretary/DEO) to appoint deputy secretaries for the Division of Strategic Business Development, the Division of Community Development, and the Division of Workforce Services. The secretary is also required to appoint directors for the Division of Finance and Administration and the Division of Information Technology.
The bill amends s.163.3175(2), F.S., to revise the list of local governments affected by Naval Support Activity Orlando to include Lake, Marion, and Sumter counties and the cities of Groveland, Howey-in-the-Hills, Leesburg, and Wildwood. The bill also amends s.163.3175(3), F.S., to rename the Florida Defense Support Task Force the Florida Defense Support Council to conform to the changes made in Section 12 of the bill.
The bill amends s.201.25, F.S., to exempt any loan made with funds administered by the DEO from the documentary stamp tax.
It also amends s.288.018, F.S., to specify that funding provided under the program is not required to be matched. The bill eliminates the requirement that grant funds received by a regional economic development organization must be matched each year by nonstate resources in an amount equal to 25 percent of the state contributions. The bill also removes the requirement that an applicant must show proof that each local government and the private sector made a financial or in-kind commitment to the regional organization in order to receive funding.
The bill amends s.288.065, F.S., to remove the requirement that funds be matched by the local government, or an economic development organization substantially underwritten by a local government, as long as the funds are retained for the purpose of funding regionally based economic development organizations representing the rural area of opportunity (RAO).
The bill amends s.288.0655, F.S., to:
• increase the maximum grant award from 50 percent to 75 percent of the total infrastructure cost, or up to 100 percent of the total infrastructure project cost for a project that is located in a rural community or a rural area of opportunity and that is also located in a fiscally constrained county. The bill removes the requirement that projects must be linked to financing specific projects;
• Increase the maximum grant for infrastructure feasibility studies, design and engineering activities, or other infrastructure planning and preparation activities to $300,000 for all projects. It removes the limitation that the grant not exceed 30 percent of the total project cost. remove the local match requirement for surveys, feasibility studies, and other activities related to the identification and preclearance review of land which is suitable for preclearance review; and
• remove the requirement that a grant for an employment project create or retain a minimum number of jobs. specify that funds may not be used to serve any retail end user that already has access to broadband Internet service.
The bill amends s.288.075(1)(a), F.S. to provide that the public economic development agency of a county or municipality or the county or municipal officers or employees assigned the duty to promote the general business interests or industrial interests of that county or municipality are considered an economic development agency for purposes of the public records exemption.
It also amends s.446.71, F.S., to specify that the DEO, in cooperation with CareerSource Florida, Inc., must use program funds to provide grants to stimulate and support employer-based training programs and institution-based training programs to match persons to nonagricultural employment opportunities in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) and any RAOs which include DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee counties and the cities of Pahokee, Belle Glade, and South Bay, and Immokalee. Grants must be prioritized for employer-based training programs. Program funds may also be used to provide other training, educational, and information services necessary to stimulate the creation of jobs within the same areas. The DEO must consider the location of the training program in proximity to the program’s intended participants.
• Program funds may be used to provide tuition for institution-based training programs, rather than public or private technical or vocational programs as provided in current law, or any other purpose directly associated with the employer-based training program or institution-based training program. The DEO must set aside up to 50 percent of the funds for employer-based training programs for the first six months of each fiscal year.
Any unused funds may be used for the institution-based training programs. The DEO must prioritize grants to employer-based training programs. However, grants may not be awarded to an employer-based training program if the grant exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of the program except that if the employer-based training program is in a rural area of opportunity,, then the DEO may grant an award up to 100 percent of the program costs; and
• A grant of up to 100 percent may be awarded for an institution-based training program participant who has lived within the Everglades Agricultural Area or in any rural area of opportunity in designated counties and cities for the past 12 months.
The bill clarifies that employer based training programs established in the Everglades Agricultural Area or in any rural area of opportunity in designated counties and cities must include opportunities to obtain the qualifications and skills necessary for jobs related to federal and state restoration projects, the Airglades Airport in Hendry County, or an inland port in Palm Beach County, or other industries with verifiable, demonstrated interest in operating within the Everglades Agricultural Area or in any rural area of opportunity in designated counties and cities.
It also authorizes, rather than requires, the DEO to adopt rules to administer the program. The bill defines an “employer-based training program” as a program established by, or to be established by, a business in the state that provides training for in-demand nonagricultural occupations for its employees.
The bill defines an “institution-based training program” as a certificate program or other program of study provided by a public or private university, college, or technical or vocational training institution which provides training for in-demand nonagricultural occupations.
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Flooding and Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Studies: CS/HB 111 (Rep. Hunschofsky) was passed by the House on April 19 and is now in the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee. The bill expands the Resilient Florida Grant Program, in ss.380.093(3), F.S., to include funding to:
• municipalities and counties for feasibility studies and permitting costs for nature-based solutions that reduce the impact of flooding and sea level rise; and
• water management districts to support local government adaptation planning, which may be conducted by the water management district or by a third party on behalf of the water management district. These grants must be used for the express purpose of supporting the Flood Hub for Applied Research and Innovation and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) through data creation and collection, modeling, and the implementation of statewide standards. Priority must be given to filling critical data gaps identified by the Flood Hub.
The bill creates s.380.0937, F.S, to deal with the public financing of construction projects within areas at risk due to sea level rise. Beginning July 1, 2024, a state-financed constructor may not commence construction of a potentiallyat-risk structure or infrastructure without:
• conducting a SLIP Study that meets DEP requirements;
• submitting the study to DEP; and
• receiving notification from DEP that the study was received and published on the department’s website for at least 30 days.
The bill defines a number of terms, including:
• “potentially at-risk structure or infrastructure” means any of the following when within an area at risk due to sea level rise:
o a critical asset as defined in 380.93(2)(a)1-3; and
o a historical or cultural asset.
• “area at risk due to sea level rise” means any location that is projected to be below the threshold for tidal flooding within the next 50 years by adding sea level rise using the highest of the sea level rise projections required by s. 380.093(3)(d)3. b, F.S.; with the threshold for tidal flooding being 2 feet above mean high water;
• “state-financed constructor” means a public entity that commissions or manages a construction project using funds appropriated from the state; and
• “public entity” means the state or any of its political subdivision, or any municipality, county, agency, special district, authority, or other public body corporate of the state which is demonstrated to perform a public function or to serve a governmental purpose that could properly be performed or served by an appropriate governmental unit.
The bill requires DEP to develop by rule the standard by which the SLIP studies must be conducted and may require that a professional engineer sign off on the study. The bill states that this rule would only apply to projects not yet commenced as of the date the rule is finalized, and may not apply retroactively. It also provides that a single SLIP study may be provided if multiple potentially at-risk structures or infrastructure are to be built concurrently within one project.
The bill requires, at a minimum, a SLIP study to:
• use a systematic, interdisciplinary, and scientifically accepted approach in the natural sciences and construction design;
• assess the flooding, inundation, and wave action damage risks relating to the potentially at-risk structure or infrastructure over its expected life or 50 years, whichever is less;
• provide alternatives for the design and siting of the potentially at-risk structure or infrastructure and analyze how such alternatives would impact the risks, as well as the risk and cost associated with maintaining, repairing, and constructing the potentially at-risk structure or infrastructure; and
• provide a list of flood mitigation strategies evaluated as part of the design of the structure or infrastructure, and to identify appropriate flood mitigation strategies for consideration as part of the structure or infrastructure design.
If a state-financed constructor commences construction of a potentially at-risk structure or infrastructure without complying with the SLIP study requirement, the DEP can bring a civil action to:
• seek injunctive relief to cease further construction or to enforce compliance with this requirement or rules adopted pursuant to this section; and
• seek recovery of all or a portion of the state funds expended if the potentially at-risk structure or infrastructure has been completed or substantially completed.
The bill states that this section does not create a cause of action for damages or otherwise authorize the imposition of penalties by a public entity for failure to implement what is contained in the SLIP study. It also sunsets, as of July 1, 2024, the provisions of s.161.551, F.S., which requires SLIP studies for state-financed structures within the coastal building zone, as these structures will be subject to the requirements of this bill.
CS/SB 1170 (Sen. Calatayud) was reported favorably by the Senate Fiscal Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 20. The committee appears to have amended the bill to be identical to CS/HB 111.
State Land Acquisition: CS/HB 7047 (Rep. Buchanan) was reported favorably by the House Infrastructure Strategies Committee on April 17.
The bill makes various changes to the Florida Forever Program and the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program (RFLPP). Specifically, with respect to the Florida Forever Program, the bill:
• dedicates $100 million annually to the program from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund;
• increases the contract price for a land acquisition agreement that requires approval by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) from $1 million to $5 million;
• revises appraisal requirements to increase the appraisal amount that requires a second appraisal to be conducted from $1 million to $5 million;
• requires the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to disclose appraisals to private landowners or their representatives during negotiations for acquisition;
• clarifies that the Board or, when applicable, DEP may acquire parcels of land for the full value of that parcel as determined by the highest approved appraisal;
• specifies that the Board is authorized to acquire lands that complete critical linkages through fee or lessthan-fee acquisition that will help preserve and protect the state’s green and blue infrastructure and vital habitat for wide-ranging wildlife, such as the Florida panther, with the Florida Wildlife Corridor; and
• requires the Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) to give increased priority to projects within the Florida Wildlife Corridor and projects in imminent danger of development, loss of significant natural attributes or recreational open space, or subdivision.
In addition, for RFLPP, the bill requires the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) to:
• update the RFLPP priority list and submit it to ARC by March 1, 2024; any acquisitions for which funds have been obligated before July 1, 2023, to pay for an appraisal are not impacted by the updated priority list (Added by committee.);
• give priority to lands in imminent danger of development or degradation as well as lands within the Florida Wildlife Corridor;
• disclose appraisal reports to private landowners or their representatives during negotiations for acquisition.;
• revise appraisal requirements to increase the appraisal amount that requires a second appraisal to be conducted from $1 million to $5 million (Added by committee.);
• specify that DACS acquisitions only require approval by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund when the purchase price exceeds $5 million (Added by committee.).
Note the committee also deleted previously proposed language that would require land managers to review stateowned lands at least every five years, rather than 10 years, to determine whether the lands should be retained in public ownership or disposed of by the board.
Environmental Protection: CS/CS/HB 1379 (Rep. Overdorf and Rep. Steele) was reported favorably with a committee substitute by the House Infrastructure Strategies Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 17 and has been placed on the House Special Order Calendar for April 25.
This bill is related to environmental protection. The major topics in this bill include wastewater treatment, onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDSs), sanitary sewer services, basin management action plans (BMAPs), the wastewater grant program, the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), and the acquisition of state lands, and the Florida Forever Act. (Read the legislative staff report for an overview of the whole bill.) However, it does have provisions that impact local government comprehensive plans as follows:
• amends ss.163.3177(3)(a) to include that, where applicable, the capital improvement schedule must include a list of projects necessary to achieve the pollutant load reduction attributable to the local government, as established in a basin management action plan pursuant to s.403.067(7);
• amends ss. 163.3177(6)(c) to require that the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element addresses upgrade in treatment of facilities to meet future needs, and prioritize advanced waste treatment for increased capacity;
• creates ss.163.3177(6)(c)(3) to require that in the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element, for any development of more than 50 residential lots, built or unbuilt, with more than 1 onsite sewage treatment and disposal system per 1 acre, the element must:
o consider the feasibility of providing sanitary sewer services within a 10- year planning horizon;
o an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is presumed to exist on a parcel if sanitary sewer services are not available at or adjacent to the parcel boundary;
o must identify the name and location of the intended wastewater facility to receive sanitary sewer flows after connection; the capacity of the facility and any associated transmission facilities; the projected wastewater flow at that facility for the next 20 years, inclusive of expected future new construction and connections of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems to sanitary sewer; and a timeline for the construction of the sanitary sewer system; and
o be updated in the comprehensive plan to include this information by July 1, 2024. This does not apply to a local government designated as a rural area of opportunity.
The House Infrastructure Strategies Committee made several amendments to the bill, among which were the following changes that are similar to provisions included in CS/HB 7047 discussed above:
• require DEP to disclose appraisal reports to private landowners or their representatives during negotiations for Florida Forever acquisitions;
• clarify the Board of the Internal Trust Fund may or, when applicable, DEP may acquire parcels of land for the full value of that parcel as determined by the highest approved appraisal;
• specifies that the Board of the Internal Trust Fund is authorized to acquire lands that complete critical linkages through fee or less-than-fee acquisition;
• require DACS, by March 1, 2024, to submit an updated priority list to the Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) and specifies that any acquisitions for which funds have been obligated prior to July 1, 2023, to pay for an appraisal may not be impacted by the updated priority list;
• require ARC to give increased priority to projects in imminent danger of development, loss of significant natural attributes or recreational open space, or subdivision, which would result in multiple ownership and make acquisition of the project costly or less likely to be accomplished, and requires ARC to give lands located within the corridor increased priority;
• dedicate $100 million annually to DEP from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund for the acquisition of lands through the Florida Forever Program;
• require DACS to give priority to lands in imminent danger of development or degradation as well as lands within the corridor;
• require DACS to submit purchase agreements to acquire perpetual, less-than-fee interest in land, to enter into agricultural protection agreements, and to enter into resource conservation agreements to the Board only if the purchase price exceeds $5 million;
• revise the appraisal requirements applicable to RFLPP acquisitions to increase the appraisal amount that requires a second appraisal to be conducted from $1 million to $5 million and allows, if both appraisals of a parcel exceed $5 million and differ significantly, a third appraisal to be conducted; and
• require DACS to disclose appraisal reports to private landowners or their representatives during negotiations for RFLPP acquisitions.
CS/SB 1632 (Sen. Brodeur), a similar bill to the House bill before its recent amendments, was reported favorably by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government, its second of three committees of reference, on April 18 and now moves to the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its last committee of reference.
State Acquisition of Lands: CS/SB 1476 (Sen. Simon) was reported favorably by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government, on April 18, and is now in the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its last committee of reference.
The bill amends ss.253.025 and 570.715, F.S., to require, rather than authorize, the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to disclose appraisal reports to private
landowners or their representatives during acquisition negotiations. It also requires private landowners and their representatives to maintain the confidentiality of such reports or information disclosed by these entities.
The bill also requires that the final purchase price in certain options contracts for state land acquisitions and less than fee simple conservation easement acquisitions to be the fair market value as determined by the highest appraisal.
HB 1271 (Rep. Canady), a similar bill, is in its first of 3 committees of reference, the House Agriculture, Conservation & Resiliency Subcommittee.
TRANSPORTATION
Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority: CS/HB 155 (Rep. Holcomb), passed by the House on March 24, was substituted for CS/SB 198 (Sen. DiCeglie) and passed by the Senate on April 19. The bill repeals Chapter 343, Part III, F.S., relating to the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority (TBARTA). The bill dissolves TBARTA effective June 30, 2024. TBARTA must:
• provide for the discharge of its liabilities. Any liabilities in excess of its assets will be assumed by each county represented on TBARTA’s board in proportion to what each county contributed to TBARTA in the 2021-2022 fiscal year;
• settle and close its affairs, and transfer any pending activities, including, but not limited to, the administration of its vanpool program;
• close and appropriately dispense any applicable federal or state grants or funds;
• provide for distribution of any remaining assets such that each county represented on TBARTA’s board receives an amount in proportion to what each county contributed to TBARTA in the 2021-2022 fiscal year;
• provide written notice of final dissolution to the Department of Economic Opportunity and each entity represented on TBARTA’s board;
• forward its records to the Department of State upon final dissolution.
Transportation: CS/CS/CS/HB 425 (Rep. Esposito and Rep. Andrade) was reported favorably, reflecting committee amendments, by the House Infrastructure Strategies Committee on April 17, its last of 3 committees of reference.
The amended bill addresses matters related to transportation. Specifically, it does the following:
• expands Florida’s existing Move Over Law to include disabled vehicles (Added in committee.);
• requires the Department of Transportation (FDOT) to establish standards by which the State Highway System will be graded according to their compatibility with the operation of autonomous vehicles;
• (Added by committee) amends s.333.03(2)dealing with the adoption of airport zoning regulations to: provide that airport land use compatibility zoning regulations shall, at a minimum consider, versus address, certain items
o provide that where a specified noise study or specified noise contours have been done, mitigation of incompatible uses, versus prohibition of them, should be considered; and
o provide that where a specified noise study has not been conducted, the mitigation, versus prohibition, of potential incompatible uses associated with residential construction and educational facilities should be considered.
• codifies the Implementing Solutions from Transportation Research and Evaluating Emerging Technologies (ISTREET) Living Lab within the University of Florida and provides for its duties relating to transportation research, education, workforce development, and related issues;
• provides that a producer of construction aggregates (gravel, sand, etc.) may not represent that an aggregate is certified for use unless such aggregate complies with FDOT rules;
• provides that a local governmental entity must accept an electronic proof of delivery for construction materials;
• requires FDOT contracts for bridge work over navigable waters to require a marine general liability insurance provision in an amount determined by FDOT;
• requires FDOT to implement strategies to reduce project costs while still meeting applicable federal and state standards;
• authorizes FDOT to share up to 10 percent of construction cost savings with design and engineering consultants whose input was involved in realizing the cost savings;
• provides that stipends paid by FDOT to nonselected design-build firms that have submitted responsive proposals for construction contracts, which stipends are contained in FDOT’s legislatively-approved work program, are not subject to specified documentation and notification requirements;
• authorizes a contractor who desires to bid exclusively on construction contracts with proposed budget estimates of $2 million or less (increased from $1 million) to submit reviewed, rather than audited financial statements;
• authorizes an applicant for a contractor certificate of qualification to submit a request to keep an existing certificate, with the current maximum capacity rating, in place until the expiration date of the existing certificate ;
• repeals a public records exemption for documents that reveal the identity of a person who has requested or obtained a bid package, plan, or specifications pertaining to any project to be let by FDOT;
• authorizes specific information panels to be placed on rights-of-way if specified conditions are met (Added by committee);
• authorizes FDOT to request legislative approval of a proposed turnpike project regardless of how complete the project’s design phase is;
• amends section 339.175 dealing with metropolitan planning agencies (MPOs) to:
o require each MPO designated for an area to consult with every other MPO designated for the area and the state to coordinate plans and transportation improvement programs;
o ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, the consistency of data used in the planning process, including data used in forecasting travel demand within the area;
o provide that an MPO may not perform project production or delivery for capital improvement projects;
o require that, in developing the long-range transportation plan, MPOs must consider the contiguous urbanized metropolitan area;
o require that membership of an MPO technical advisory committee must consider the proportional representation of tea area’s population and include intermodal logistics centers;
o require a report, due by Dec. 31, 2023, regarding the consolidation of the MPOs serving Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties which explores the benefits, costs, and process of consolidation into a single MPO serving the contiguous urbanized area. The report is to be done by these three MPOs and submitted to the Governor, Senate President and House Speaker; and
o revises provisions regarding the powers and duties of the MPO Advisory Council. (Added by committee.)
• authorizes DOT to use $5 million from the State Transportation Trust Fund for workforce development removes the requirement that railroad police be appointed by the Governor and gives them arrest powers in every county in which the railroad operates (Added by committee); and
• requires DOT to make $20 million available each year to provide for the movement and storage of aggregate (Added by committee.).
CS/CS/SB 64 (Sen. Hooper), a similar bill, was reported favorably by the Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism and Economic Development on March 8 and is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 25.
Department of Transportation: CS/CS/CS/HB 1305 (Rep. Abbott), was reported favorably, reflecting committee changes, by its final committee of reference, the House Infrastructure Strategies Committee, on April 17.
This bill relates to the Florida Department of Transportation and does the following:
• increases the maximum debt service coverage level for the State Transportation Trust Fund from $350 million to $425 million (Added by committee.);
• increases the term from 12 to 18 years for state bonds for federal aid highway construction (Added by committee.);
• authorizes the Florida Development Finance Corporation to finance certain FDOT-related public private partnership projects.
• authorizes installation of automated license plate recognition systems within the rights-of-way of the State Highway System at FDOT’s discretion when installed at the request of a law enforcement agency for the purpose of collecting active criminal intelligence or investigative information;
• provides that DOT may not, when granting airport site approval, require a written memorandum of understanding or letter of agreement with other airport sites regarding air traffic pattern separation procedures unless it is required by the FAA or is deemed necessary by FDOT;
• authorizes FDOT to acquire promotional items and materials to promote electric vehicle use and charging and autonomous vehicles;
• authorizes FDOT, at its discretion, to expend funds for training, testing, and licensing for full-time FDOT employees who are required to have a valid Class A or Class B commercial driver license as a condition of employment with FDOT;
• increases from $120 million to $200 million the cap on innovative contracts that FDOT may annually award, and exempts design-build contracts from this cap (Added by committee.);
• increases FDOT’s contracting cap where it is not required to receive competitive bids in certain circumstance from $250,000 to $500,000;
• expands the potential use of phased design-build by FDOT by authorizing them for any FDOT project, not just specified ones (Added by committee.);
• requires a public transit provider’s transportation development plan to be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with the long-range transportation plan of the local metropolitan planning organization;
• removes the requirement that each public transit provider’s productivity and performance report specifically address potential enhancements to productivity and performance that would have the effect of increasing the farebox recovery ratio;
• requires public transit providers to publish productivity and performance information on its website, instead of in the local newspaper;
• transfers the Santa Rosa Bay Bridge Authority’s bridge system to FDOT and authorizes FDOT to transfer it to the Florida Turnpike Enterprise; and
• repeals the Santa Rosa Bay Bridge Authority in statute.
CS/CS/SB 1250 (Sen. DiCeglie), which contains the Florida Department of Transportation’s 2023 legislative proposals, is scheduled to be heard in Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 25.
Regional Transportation Planning: CS/SB 1532 (Sen. Burgess) was reported favorably the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 20.
The bill provides legislative intent to explore the dissolution or transfer of the governance, staff, operations, funding, and facilities of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) with the goal of enhancing regional transit service and connectivity in the Tampa Bay Area. The legislature finds that the coordination of transportation planning, especially regional, is critical to the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of public transit systems considering Florida’s rapid population growth.
The bill requires FDOT, or its consultant, to conduct a study on the potential dissolution of HART. The study must address all of the following:
• the dissolution of the governance structure, including governing board membership, powers, and responsibilities;
• the drawdown or transfer of staff;
• the transfer of financial assets and obligations;
• the transfer of responsibilities and administered programs;
• the transfer of facilities and operations;
• impacts to federal or state grants or funds;
• any legal or financial impediments to or limitations on such dissolution;
• the advantages and disadvantages of dissolution or transfer;
• any other matters deemed necessary or appropriate by the department.
The bill requires FDOT to submit a report detailing the results of the study to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Jan. 1, 2024.
An identical bill, CS/HB 1397 (Rep. McClure), is on the House Special Order Calendar for April 25.