April 4, 2025 | Legislative Reporter
This pastweek was the fifth week of the 2025 Legislative Session, scheduled to end on May 2.
LastFriday, the House andSenaterevealed theirbudgetproposalsforFY 2025-26.TheHouseannounced ahistoric General AppropriationsActtotaling $112.95 billion, $6billion less than thecurrentyear budgetand$2.7billion less thanGovernor Ron DeSantis’proposed budget. TheHouse budgetreflects HouseSpeaker Perez’s initiative todiveinto governmentspendingand find savingsfor Floridians byreducingexpendituresandcutting wastefulspending.TheSenatereleasedtheir proposed budget,totaling $177.35billion.In hisannouncement,Senate PresidentAlbritton highlightedabudgetthatreduces state spending and the growthof statebureaucracy,allwhile maintaining significantinvestmentin state initiatives.This week, theHouseandSenateheardand passed theirproposed budgets outofcommittee, positioning themtobeheard in thefullHouseandSenatenextweek.Negotiations willbeginafterthat.
Currently,thetwoproposals areabout$4.4billionapart.While bothchambersagree toreducegovernmentspending,they have differentapproaches to gettingthere.A main differencebetween the two proposals isspendingon stateemployees.TheSenate proposalwoulddoawaywithabout1,000full-time positionsthathave been vacantatstateagenciesfor atleast100 days.The House, meanwhile,wouldeliminateabout7,000 positions thathave been vacantfor 90 days or longer.TheHouseapproachaligns closely with the charge of the House budgetsubcommittees todive intoexecutivebranchagency spendingandfind savings. Anotherbig issue thatwillovershadowbudgetnegotiationsisthe tax package. TheHouse has proposed apermanentcutto Florida’s sales tax from6% to5.25%,delivering nearly$5 billion inannualsavingsto Floridians. Meanwhile, the governor has proposedsales taxholidaysanda one-timeproperty taxbreak for homesteaded propertyowners.This would mark the firststep toward the governor’s long-termgoalofeliminatingpropertytaxes throughafuture constitutionalamendment. TheSenate has signaledcautionaboutmaking permanentchanges,favoring a temporarytax reliefapproach while stressing the importance ofa balancedapproach.A finalbudgetagreementmustbereached by April29 toadhere to theconstitutionallymandated 72-hour “cooling off”period if the legislature istoend itssession ontime onMay2.
The April4 BillTracking Reportcan be viewed here. Please review it to see the filed bills that APA Florida is tracking and their status. Note that if you click on the billnumber, you will be linked to more information about the bill. If you would like any bills added to this reportor would like more information abouta specific bill, please contactStefanie Svisco at ssvisco@floridaplanning.org.
The following bills of interesthad action this week. Note these summaries are based on a review of the bill language and legislative staff analysis. You are encouraged to read the actual bill language of bills that interest you. Please note that not all bills are covered in all legislative reports. The reports focus on bills of particular interest that have had action over the previous week. You can use the Bill Tracking Report to see the status of other bills.
GROWTHMANAGEMENT
Alternative Plans Reviews and Inspections: CS/CS/HB 1071 (Rep. Benarroch), a delete-allamendment, was reported favorably by the House IntergovernmentalAffairs Subcommittee on April1 and moves to the House Commerce Committee, its final committee of reference.
The billamends s.553.791 dealing with a private provider’s alternative plans review and inspection, to:
• revise the definition of “single-trade inspection” to include plans review and explicitly include solar energy and energy storage installations or alterations
• allow the use of private providers for the inspection of work related to a single-trade inspection for a single-family or two-family dwelling
• specify that a private provider may use an automated or software plans review program to determine if single-trade plans comply with the applicable building codes, if the programis designed to determine compliance with one or more applicable codes including but not limited to, the NationalElectricalCode and the Florida Building Code
• reduce the time-period for a localbuilding department to issue a permitfrom20 business days after receiptof the application and required affidavit from the private provider to two business days if the application is related to a singletrade plan review for a single-family or two-family dwelling;if the local building official does not provide a written notice of the plan deficiencies within the 2-day period, the application is deemed approved as a matter of law and the permit mustbe issued on the next business day
A similar bill, CS/SB1134 (Sen. Calatayud), is in the Senate Regulated Industries Committee, its second of three committees of reference
Annexing State-owned Lands: CS/CS/SB 384 (Sen. Burton) passed the Senate on April 3 and is in Messages to the House.
The billamends s.171.0413 to require thata municipality seeking to annex state-owned lands must, in writing or by e-mail, notify each member of the legislative delegation of the county in which the land is located when the advertisementfor the first public hearing is published.
CS/HB 275 (Rep. Albert), an identical bill, was reported favorably by the House State Affairs Committee, its finalcommittee of reference, on April 2 and placed on the House Calendar on Second Reading.
Construction Regulations: CS/SB 712 (Sen. Grall) was reported favorably, reflecting an amendment, by the Senate Community Affairs Committee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government, its second of three committees of reference.
The billcreates s.125.572 to direct the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to adoptminimum standards for the installation of synthetic turf on single-family residential properties 1 acre or less in size. These standards mustconsider material type, permeability, stormwater management, potable water conservation, water quality, proximity to vegetation, and other environmentalconditions.
Upon the adoption of such standards, localgovernments are prohibited from adopting or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, order, rule, or policy that prohibits, or is enforced to prohibit, a property owner frominstalling synthetic turf on his or her land thatcomplies with these standards. The section also prohibits a localgovernment fromadopting or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, order, rule, or policy thatregulates synthetic turf which is inconsistent to the standards adopted. “Synthetic turf” is defined to mean “a manufactured productthatresembles naturalgrass and is used as a surface for landscaping and recreational areas.” The bill directs the DEPto adopt rules to implement the section. (Previously the bill preempted synthetic turf regulation withoutrequiring DEP to adoptminimumstandards first.)
The billalso creates s.218.755 to provide that if a local governmentreceives a price quote for a change order from its contractor, which meets all statutory and contractualrequirements, the localgovernment mustprovide written notice to the contractor approving or denying the price quote within 30 days. If a localgovernmentdenies the price quote, the written notice mustspecify the alleged deficiencies in the quote and list the actions necessary to remedy the deficiencies. If a localgovernmentfails to provide such information in the written denial notice then itis liable to the contractor for any additional labor, staffing, materials, supplies, equipment, and overhead associated with the change order. A contractbetween a localgovernmentand a contractor may not alter these provisions.
Furthermore, it amends s.255.0992 to provide that the state or any politicalsubdivision which contracts for public works may not penalize a bidder for performing a larger volume of construction work for the state or politicalsubdivision, or reward a bidder for performing a smaller volume of construction work for the state or political subdivision.
Additionally, the billchanges s.489.505 to include surveillance cameras in the scope of work used to define certified alarm system contractors.
The billamends s.553.73 to provide that, by Jan. 1, 2026, or the next update of the Florida Building Code (currently scheduled for the end of 2026), the Florida Building Commission must amend the Florida Building Code to be consistentwith the International Building Code provisions recognizing tall masstimber as allowable materialfor certain construction types. It also provides totalexemption fromthe Florida Building Code for any systemor equipment, whether affixed or movable, which is located on property within a spaceport territory, and which is used for the production, erection, alteration, modification, repair, launch, processing, recovery, transport, integration, fueling, conditioning, or equipping of a space launch vehicle, payload, or spacecraft. (These provisions were added by the committee.)
Italso amends s.553.79 to provide thata local enforcementagency may notrequire a copy of a contractbetween a builder and an owner or any ancillary documents such as letters of intentas a requirement to apply for or receive a building permit.
An identicalbill, CS/CS/HB683(Rep. Griffitts, Jr.) wasreportedfavorably,reflectinga delete-allamendment, by the House IntergovernmentalAffairsSubcommittee onApril1andmoves to the Commerce Committee, itsfinalcommittee of reference.
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: CS/CS/HB651 (Reps. Tuck and Alvarez) was reported favorably by the House Agriculture &Natural Resources BudgetSubcommittee on March 31 and moves to the House Commerce Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
This comprehensive billmakes a number of changes to regulations related to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS).
Of particular interest, the bill amends s.163.3162 to address housing for legally verified agriculturalworkers. The billdefines “housing site” as the totality of development supporting authorized housing, including buildings, mobile homes, barracks, dormitories used as living areas, parking areas, common areas such as athletic fields or playgrounds, storage structures, and other related structures.
The billalso defines “legally verified agriculturalworker” as a person who:
• is lawfully presentin the United States;
• meets the definition of eligible worker pursuantto 29 C.F.R. s.502.10;
• has been verified according to the state’s employmenteligibility verification requirements and is authorized to work at the time of employment.;
• is seasonally or annually employed in a bona fide agriculturalproduction;
• remains lawfully presentand authorized to work throughout the duration of thatemployment;and
• is notan unauthorized alien as defined in s.448.095(1).
The billprovides thata governmental entity may notadoptor enforce any legislation, regulation, or ordinance to inhibit the construction or installation of housing for legally verified agriculturalworkers on land classified as agricultural land pursuantto s.193.461 that is operated as a bona fide farm, exceptas provided.
The billalso provides thatconstruction or installation of housing units for legally verified agricultural workers on parcels of lands classified as agricultural land must satisfy all of the following criteria:
• must meetfederal, localand state building standards, including migrantfarmworker housing standards regulated by the Departmentof Health and federalstandards for H-2A visa housing; if written notice of intent is required to be submitted to the Departmentof Health, the appropriate local governmentalentity with jurisdiction over the agriculturallands may also require a copy of the written notice;
• must be maintained in a neat, orderly, and safe manner;
• allstructures containing dwelling units mustbe located a minimumof 10 feetapart;
• the square footage of the housing site’s climate-controlled facilities may not exceed 1.5% of the property’s area or 35,000 square feet, whichever is less;
• must provide 50-footsetbacks on allsides; however, an internalproject driveway may be located in the required yard space if the yard is adjacent to a public roadway or to property thatis under common ownership with the housing site;
• may not be located less than 100 feetfroma property line adjacentto property zoned for residentialuse;
• if within 250 feetof a property line, mustprovide screening, meeting specified designs, between the housing site and any residentially developed adjacentparcels thatare under differentownership;and
• must cover access drives with relatively dust-free materialsuch as packed shellor gravel.
The billprovides thata localordinance adopted mustcomply with all state and federalregulations for migrantfarmworker housing, as applicable. A local governmentmay validly adoptlessrestrictive land use regulations butwhich still meetspecified Departmentof Health regulations and specified federalregulations. However, the ordinance may notconflict with the definition and requirements of a legally verified agriculturalworker.
The billfurther provides that, beginning July 1, 2025, a property owner must maintain records of allapproved permits for migrant labor camps or residential migranthousing for three years, and make the records available for inspection within 14 days after receiving a requestby a governmentalentity.
Additionally, itprovides that a housing site may notcontinue to be used and may be required to be removed under the following circumstances:
• if a housing site is not being used for legally verified agriculturalworkers for longer than 365 days, any structure used as living quarters must be removed with 180 days after receiptof written notice fromthe county unlessthe property owner can demonstrate use of the site for housing for legally verified agriculturalworkers willoccur within 90 days;
• If the property on which the housing site is located ceases to be classified as agricultural land pursuant to s.193.461;
• if the permitauthorized by the Departmentof Health for the housing site is revoked, all structures mustbe removed within 180 days of notice fromthe county unless the permit is reinstated by the Departmentof Health; and
• if a housing site is found to be occupied by any person who does not meet the definition of a legally verified agricultural worker, or is otherwise unlawfully presentin the United States;the property owner, shallbe imposed a Class Ifine not to exceed $1,000, for the first violation and a Class IIfine, notto exceed $5,000, for any subsequentviolations.
Furthermore, the proposal provides thatthe construction or installation of housing sites for legally verified agriculturalworkers in the Florida Keys and the City of Key Westareas of criticalstate concern is subject to the permitallocation systems.
It states that a housing site constructed and in use before July 1, 2024, may continue to be used, and the property owner may not be required to make changes to meet the new requirements, unless the housing site will be enlarged, remodeled, renovated, or rehabilitated.
The billalso amends s.366.94 asserting thatlocalgovernments shall issue permits for charging stations based solely upon standards established by DACS rule and other applicable standards in state law.
Itwillprohibita localgovernmentfrom adopting, any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limitany activities of public education facilities and auxiliary facilities constructed by a board for agricultural education, for Future Farmers of America or 4-H activities, or the storage of any animalor equipment thereof. Italso provides thatlands used for agriculturaleducation or for Future Farmers of America or 4-H activities are considered agricultural lands pursuant to s.193.461 and subjectto s.823.14.
CS/CS/SB700 (Sen. Truenow), a similar bill, is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its finalcommittee of reference, on April8.
Farm Products: HB 211 (Reps. Cobb and Hunschofsky) was reported favorably by the Housing, Agriculture, & Tourism Subcommittee on April 1 and moves to the IntergovernmentalAffairs Subcommittee, its second committee of reference.
The billamends the definition of “farmproducts” in s.163.3162. to mean plants and plantproducts, regardless of whether the plants and plantproducts are edible or nonedible, or any animalusefulto humans and includes, butis notlimited to, any product derived therefrom.
Itfurther amends s.163.3162(3)(a) to provide thata bona fide farmoperation, thatcannotbe regulated or limited by a local government, includes, but is not limited to the collection, storage, processing, and distribution of a farmproduct. SB374 (Sen. Truenow), an identicalbill, is in the Senate Community Affairs Committee, its second committee of reference.
Impact Fees: CS/SB482 (Sen. DiCelglie), a delete-all amendment, was reported favorably by the Senate Community Affairs Committee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, its second of three committees of reference. Note thatas part of the amendments, the committee removed previously proposed language prohibiting a county or municipality from requiring an applicant to install, pay a fee for, or reimburse the costs of a work of artas a condition of processing or issuing a development permitor order.
The billamends s.163.3164 to define “plan-based methodology” to mean the use of the mostrecentand localized data to project growth within a jurisdiction over a six-year period and the anticipated capacity impacts created by that projected growth, and the creation of a list of capital improvements or infrastructure as defined in s.163.31801(3) to be constructed in a defined time period to mitigate those impacts as partof a new or updated impact fee study.
Additionally, itchanges s.163.31801 to provide a definition of “extraordinary circumstance” for the purposes of raising impact fees beyond the statutorily prescribed percentage. The term means the measurable effects of developmentwhich will require mitigation by the affected local governmentand which exceed the totalof the currentadopted impactfee amountcombined with any of certain enumerated increases in less than four years.
Italso provides for circumstances which would permita localgovernmentto raise impactfees beyond the statutory ramp under the “extraordinary circumstances” exception separated by type of fee and specifies that the required demonstrated needs study must use plan-based methodology.
An increase in a non-transportation impactfee may notbe adopted unless the extraordinary circumstances demonstrated in the demonstrated-need study include at least two of the following:
• the population of the local government’s jurisdiction over the pastfive years exceeds, by at least10 percent, the population estimates and projections used to justify the most recentimpactfee increase;
• the average number of building permits issued by the local governmentover the pastfive years exceeds, by at least10 percent, building permitestimates and projections used to justify the most recentimpact fee increase;
• the employmentbase within the localjurisdiction over the pastfive years exceeds the employment estimates and projections used to justify the most recentimpact fee;and
• the existing level of service grade willbe lowered without an increase in the impactfee rate.
An increase in a transportation impact fee may not be adopted unlessthe extraordinary circumstances demonstrated in the demonstrated-need study include at least three of the following:
• any condition enumerated above;
• costgrowth over the past five years which exceeds, by an average of atleast10 percent, the FederalHighway Administration’s NationalHighway Construction Cost index average used to justify the previous impactfee increase;
• the vehicle miles traveled in the pastfive years exceed, by at least10 percent, the Department of Transportation’s vehicle miles traveled index average used to justify the most recentimpactfee;and
• the per-lane mile cost estimates for construction for the past five years exceed, by at least10 percent, the Departmentof Transportation average used to justify the mostrecentimpactfee.
An increase in an impactfee for an independent special districtmay not be adopted unlessthe extraordinary circumstances demonstrated in the demonstrated-need study include allof the following:
• the amountof growth experienced in the pastfive years and anticipated within the districtrequires a significant immediate infrastructure investmentto serve such growth which willneed to be financed by the special districtwith impactfees;
• the cost of infrastructure investmentrequired to be financed by the district in the nextfive years is increasing the need for public facilities and has a directimpact on the fee amountneeded to finance the additional infrastructure for the benefitof the growth;and
• the existing level of service willbe impacted without an increase in the impactfee rate.
The billalso provides thata localgovernmentmay not increase an impactfee rate beyond the phase-in limitations if the local government has notincreased the impactfee within the past five years. Any year in which the localgovernment is prohibited fromincreasing an impactfee because the jurisdiction is in a hurricane disaster area is notincluded in the five-year period.
HB665 (Rep. Steele), which also addresses impact fees, is in the House IntergovernmentalAffairs Subcommittee, its second committee of reference. Note that this bill contains the language regarding artinstallations deleted from the Senate version
Infrastructure and Resiliency: CS/HB 1345 (Rep. LaMarca), a delete-allamendment, was reported favorably by the House NaturalResources &Disasters Subcommittee on April1 and moves to the House Agriculture &NaturalResources Budget Subcommittee, its second committee of reference.
The billcreates s.380.0934 to provide for public-private partnerships for coastalresiliency projects. It defines “coastalresiliency project” and provides that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has the exclusive authority to execute coastal resiliency projects through public-private partnerships.
The billprovides that, to encourage investmentfromthe private sector in such projects, DEP may:
• enter into long-termrevenue-sharing agreements;
• provide expedited permitting for construction;
• seek comments from localgovernments and the public during projectplanning and execution and incorporate actions responsive to such comments into the project;and
• engage in-state vocationalschools and apprenticeship programs to train workers in specialized resiliency construction.
Italso mandates that DEPpublish biennialprogressreports for each coastalresiliency projectfunded through a public-private partnership. DEP mustalso create and maintain on its website an online dashboard for real-time updates on project execution. In reference to public-private partnerships, the bill amends s.255.065 to expand the definition of “qualifying project” to include coastalresiliency projects.
Note that the committee replaced previously proposed language, which comprised the originalbill, thatcreated the PublicPrivate Partnership Oversight Authority and the Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Programwithin the Executive Office of the Governor, intended to foster private investmentin infrastructure and resiliency projects, with the revised approach in the delete-allamendment.
An identicalbill, CS/SB1580 (Sen. Rodriguez), is in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government, its second of three committees of reference.
Local Governing Authorities: SB 1188 (Sen. McClain) was reported favorably by the Senate Transportation Committee on April1 and moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its third and finalcommittee of reference.
The billdoes the following:
• amends s.163.3180 to provide thatthe construction of public facilities, to include public schools, mustbe exemptfrom concurrency, and provide thata localgovernment may grant a construction projectata charter schoolan exemption fromconcurrency;
• amends ss.163.31801(5) to provide that, if a localgovernmentor specialdistrictcharges and collects an education impactfee, a developer may contractwith a schooldistrictor charter schoolto provide an improvementor contribution, such as a monetary contributions, land dedication, site planning and design, or construction, which mustbe credited against the collection of the education impactfee atfair marketvalue. The public school thatbenefits from the improvementor contribution must be within a three-mile radius of the development and the credits mustbe approved by the localgovernment or special district;
• amends s.316.008 to provide thatlocalauthorities may not impose or enforce any vehicular stacking ordinance or regulation againstany public schoolor private schoolduring adopted school hours, including during studentdrop-off and pick-up hours, in a manner that would limitenrollment; and
• amends s.1002.33 to prohibitlocalgovernmentfromalso enforcing any localbuilding requirements or site-development restrictions on charter schools thatare more stringentthan those found in the State Requirements for Education Facilities of the Florida Building Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code, and to prohibit a localgoverning authority from requiring a charter school to obtain a specialexemption or conditional use approvalto be an allowable use under the localland developmentcode.
A similar bill, CS/HB569 (Rep. Kendall) is in the House State Affairs Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
Local Government Land Development Regulation: SB1080 (Sen. McClain) was reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April1 and moves to the Senate Rule Committee, its final committee of reference.
The billamends s.125.022 and 166.033 to require thata county or municipality respectively mustspecify in writing the minimuminformation thatmust be submitted in an application for a zoning approval, rezoning approval, subdivision approval, certification, specialexception, or variance. Under the bill, the localgovernment must:
• make the minimum information available for inspection and copying atthe location where the localgovernment receives applications for developmentpermits and orders;
• provide the minimum information to the applicantata preapplication meeting;or
• post the minimum information on the localgovernment’s website.
Within five businessdays after receiving an application for approvalof a developmentpermitor developmentorder, the bill requires thata localgovernment mustconfirmreceiptof the application using the contactinformation provided by the applicant.
The billclarifies that, within 30 days after receiving an application for approvalof a development permitor order, a local government mustreview the application for completeness and either issue a written notification to the applicant indicating that allrequired information is submitted, or specify, with particularity and in writing, any areas thatare deficient.
For an application for a development permitor order thatdoes notrequire finalaction through a quasi-judicialhearing or public hearing, the billrequires a localgovernment to, within 120 days after the local governmenthas deemed the application complete, approve the application, approve the application with conditions or deny the application.
For an application for a development permitor order thatdoes require finalaction through a quasi-judicialhearing or public hearing, the billrequires a localgovernment to, within 180 days after the local governmenthas deemed the application complete, approve the application, approve the application with conditions or deny the application.
The billprohibits a localgovernmentfromlimiting the number of quasi-judicialhearings or public hearings held each month if such limitation causes any delay in the consideration of an application for approvalof a developmentpermitor order.
Additionally, the billclarifies thata localgovernmentand an applicant may agree in writing to an extension of time for processing an application, particularly in the eventof a force majeure or other extraordinary circumstance.
It provides thatthese timeframes restartif an applicantmakes a substantive change to the application. The term is defined as an applicant-initiated change of 15 percentor more in the proposed density, intensity, or square footage of a parcel.
A localgovernment mustissue specified refunds to an applicantif timeframes are not met. However, a localgovernmentis not required to issue a refund if:
• the applicantand the local governmentagree to an extension of time;
• the delay is caused by the applicant;or
• the delay is attributable to a force majeure or other extraordinary circumstance. Itchanges s.163.3184 dealing with the expedited state review process, to provide thatthe localgovernment complies if the second public hearing is held within the 180-day period following receipt of agency comments, even if the amendments are approved ata subsequent hearing.
A similar bill, CS/HB579 (Rep. Overdorf), a proposed committee substitute was reported favorably by the House Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee on April1 and moves to the House Commerce Committee, its finalcommittee of reference. This billis generally consistent with SB1080 but does not contain the language prohibiting a limitation on the number of quasi-judicialhearings or public hearings held each month if such limitation causes any delay in the consideration of an application for approvalof a development permitor order. It also does notinclude the expedited state review process provision in the Senate bill.
CS/HB 579 also amends s.163.3180. to provide thata schooldistrict may notcollect, charge, or impose any alternative fee in lieu of an impact fee to mitigate the impact of development on educationalfacilities unless such fee meets the requirements of s.163.31801(4)(f) and (g). In any action challenging a fee, the schooldistricthas the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition and amountof the fee meets the requirements of state legalprecedent.
Municipal Water and Sewer Utility Rates: SB 202 (Sen. Jones) was reported favorably by the Senate Community Affairs Committee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its third and finalcommittee of reference.
The billamends s.180.191 to provide that if a municipalutility provides water and sewer services to a second municipality, which also has a facility within that second municipality, thatmunicipality mustcharge the customers within that second municipality the same rates, fees, and charges as the customers within its own municipalboundaries.
It provides definitions for the terms facility, wastewater treatmentfacility, and water treatmentfacility.
A similar bill, HB 11 (Rep. F. Robinson), was passed by the House on March 26 and now is in the Senate Rules Committee.
Platting: CS/CS/SB 784 (Sen. Ingoglia) was reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 1 and moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
Thebillamends s.177.071to provide thatplatorreplatsubmittals mustbereviewedandapprovedadministratively bya designee or designees of theappropriate localgoverning bodywithin 15 days. In thattime,writtencomments specifyinganynoncompliance
mustbeprovided to theapplicant.Thesubmittalmustultimately beapproved,approvedwithconditions,ordeniedwithin30 working daysfromthe submittal.Anapplicantmay,and thegoverningbody maynot,requestanextension of time.
Note that the committee eliminated the proposed section of the billauthorizing applicants to engage a private provider of street and mailing addressand individualparcelidentification number information, if thatinformation is notissued within two weeks by the localgovernment.
CS/CS/HB381 (Rep. Holcomb), a similar bill, was reported favorably by the House IntergovernmentalAffairs Subcommittee on April1 and moves to the House Commerce Committee, its finalcommittee of reference. This bill contains the language regarding streetand mailing addresses deleted in the Senate bill.
Solar Facilities: CS/HB1595 (Rep. Koster), a delete-allamendment, was reported favorably by the House Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee on April 1 and moves to the House Commerce Committee, its second of three committees of reference. The billamends s.163.3205 related to the solar facility approvalprocess. Itrevises the current statementof legislative intent concerning the state’s solar facility approvalprocess to include ensuring thatagriculturalland used for a solar facility is returned to its originalstate and be viable for agricultural use at the end of the life of the solar facility.
Itauthorizes counties to adoptan ordinance requiring any solar facility over two megawatts thatis constructed on agricultural land be properly decommissioned once the facility reaches the end of its usefullife. It provides definitions for “agriculturalland” and “decommissioned” and creates a presumption thata solar facility has reached the end of its usefullife if:
• the facility fails to produce power for 12 months after construction of the facility has been completed, excluding periods due to a disaster or other event beyond the facility owner’s control;
• the facility is the process of being constructed and no significantconstruction has occurred for 24 months; or
• the facility becomes non-operationaldue to a disaster or other eventbeyond the controlof the facility’s owner and no significantreconstruction has occurred in 12 months.
A solar facility owner can rebuta presumption that the facility is at the end of its useful life by providing the county with a plan, schedule, and adequate assurances for the continuing construction or operation of the facility.
The legislative allows counties to require solar facility owners to provide financialassurance, such as a bond, an irrevocable letter of credit, a guarantee by the solar facility owner’s parentcompany, or another financial device, to the county in an amount adequate to cover estimated decommissioning costs. Facility owners mustupdate the estimated decommissioning costs atleast every five years. The county may require the facility owner to adjustany financialassurance to reflectthe updated costestimate.
Additionally, itprovides thatifafacilityowner does notcompletedecommissioningasrequiredby the ordinance, thecounty may acttocomplete thedecommissioning, includingrequiring theforfeiture of thefinancialassurance.The county mustallow the solar facility owneratleast12 months tostartdecommissioningand 24 months tocomplete decommissioningbeforetaking suchaction.
Note thatthecommittee restored previouslydeleted languagethatprovided thatsolarfacilities area permitted use in allagricultural land usecategories inalocalcomprehensiveplanandallagriculturalzoning districts withinan incorporatedarea and mustcomply with the setbackand landscapedbufferareacriteriafor othersimilarusesin theagriculturalarea. Thecommitteealsorestored languageallowing acounty to adoptan ordinance specifyingbufferand landscapingrequirementsfor solarfacilities.
A similar bill, CS/SB1304 (Sen. Bradley) is in the Senate Community Committee, its second of three committees of reference. Note this billincludes deletion of the language that the above committee justrestored.
Stormwater Management Systems: CS/CS/SB 810 (Sen. Burgess) was reported favorably, reflecting amendments, by the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee, its third and final committee of reference, on April2. Ithas been placed on the Senate Special Order Calendar for April 9.
The billamends s.373.423 relating to the stormwater managementsystem inspections. The billprovides thatMS4 means a municipalseparate storm sewer as defined in 40 C.F.R. s.122.26(b), which in turn defines the termas a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipalstreets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains):
• owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to state law) having jurisdiction over disposalof sewage, industrialwastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including specialdistricts under state law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar
entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribalorganization, or a designated and approved managementagency under section 208 of the Clean Water Actthatdischarges to waters of the United States;
• designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater;
• which is nota combined sewer;and
• which is notpartof a publicly owned treatmentworks.
Itrequires each MS4 entity to conductan operation and maintenance inspections of all permitted stormwater management systems owned or operated by the MS4 entity by Sept. 1, 2026. As partof such inspections, the MS4 entity must identify any infrastructure within the MS4, or any component thereof, which has a significantvulnerability to obstruction, blockage, deterioration, failure, or other deficiencies and, upon operationalfailure, would resultin flooding and property damage. Any infrastructure thatmeets either of these conditions must be inspected annually by June 1. (The bill previously required allMS4 facilities to be inspected annually.)
Additionally, the MS4 entity is required to complete the stormwater facility inspection checklistdeveloped by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for any time an MS4 is inspected pursuant to this bill. The completed checklist mustbe submitted to the DEPand the Division of Emergency Managementby Sept. 1, 2026, and, as applicable, by September 1 of each year thereafter. Each checklistmust include any infrastructure within the MS4, or any componentthereof, that is identified as vulnerable or thatwould result in flooding and property damage upon operationalfailure.
Note that there is no House companion to this bill.
Transportation Concurrency: CS/HB203 (Rep. Grow) was reported favorably, reflecting amendments, by the House Housing, Agriculture &Tourism Subcommittee on April1 and moves to the House IntergovernmentalAffairs Subcommittee, its second committee of reference.
The billamends s.163.3180 with respect to transportation concurrency, to provide thatthe capital improvements element must identify facilities necessary to meetadopted levels of service during a five-year period or to maintain currentlevels of service for small counties as defined in s.339.2818(2).
The committee amended the bill to provide that only smallcounties could utilize the option of maintaining existing levels of service;the originalbill allowed any local governmentto use this option.
SB1074 (Sen. McClain), identical to HB203 as originally filed, is in the Senate Community Affairs Committee, its first of three committees of reference. SB1738 (Sen. Ingoglia), also identicalto HB203 is originally filed, is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Rules Committee, its finalcommittee of reference, on April 8.
CONSTITUTIONALAMENDMENTS
Term Limits for Members of Boards of County Commissioners and District School Boards: HJR679 (Rep. Salzman) was reported favorably by the House Education Administration Subcommittee on April 2 and moves to the House State Affairs Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
The jointresolution billproposes an amendment to the Florida Constitution to create a new term limit of eightconsecutive years for county commissioners. Service in a termof office which commences on or before Nov. 3, 2026, (the general election at which the proposal willbe on the ballot), will notcount toward the new term limit. The jointresolution specifies thatexisting statutory provisions governing single-member districts after decennialredistricting will still apply.
The jointresolution also proposes adding to the Florida Constitution the term limitof eightconsecutive years for school board members thatcurrently exists in statute. It maintains the statutory specification that service in a termof office which commenced before Nov. 8, 2022, does notcounttoward the termlimit.
If adopted by the legislature, the proposed amendmentwillbe submitted to Florida’s electors for approval or rejection at the next generalelection in November 2026. If approved by atleast60 percentof the electors voting on the measure, the proposed amendment takes effectupon such approval.
An identicalbill, SJR 802 (Sen. Ingoglia), is in the Senate Community Affairs Committee, its second committee of reference.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Community Redevelopment Agencies: SB 1242 (Sen. McClain) was reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April1 and moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
The billamends s.163.3755 to provide thata community redevelopmentagency (CRA) in existence on July 1, 2025, shall terminate on the expiration date provided in the agency’s charter on July 1, 2025 or Sept. 30, 2045, whichever is earlier. The bill removes the current law option for a local government to vote to extend a subordinate CRA’s expiration date. However, the bill provides thata CRA with outstanding bonds as of July 1, 2025 that do not mature until after the termination date of the agency or Sept. 30, 2045, whichever is earlier, remains in existence untilthe bonds mature.
Italso provides that a CRA may not initiate any new projects or issue any new debton or after Oct. 1, 2025. Furthermore, the bill provides that no CRA may be created on or after July 1, 2025.
A similar bill, CS/HB991 (Rep. Giallombardo), is in the Senate Commerce Committee, its second committee of reference.
Rural and Urban Business Enterprises: CS/SB 1264 (Sen. Collins) , a delete-allamendment, was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, its second committee of reference.
The billmakes severalchanges relating to businessenterprises. Specifically, the bill:
• repeals and replaces statutory references to minority businessenterprises with “certified ruralor urban business enterprises,” which are defined as businesses located in a defined geographic area where either the per capita income in the area is lessthan 80% of Florida’s per capita income or the unemploymentrate in the area is greater than the unemployment rate for Florida by more than 1% over the previous 24 months;
• repeals regionalplanning councils and allows localgovernments to enter into agreements to formregionalplanning entities;
• includes business developmentin ruralor urban areas as one of the programs the Department of Commerce (department) must implement;
• revises the department’s Division of Economic Development’s (division) responsibilities to require the division to establish the Office of Secure Florida, which is responsible for;
• administering and enforcing e-Verify, employmentauthorization compliance, and the prohibition against the purchase and registration of realproperty in Florida by foreign principals;
• revises the information required in the department’s annual incentives report to include a description of trends relating to businessinterest in and usage of the various incentives and the number of smallbusinesses and businesses in ruralor urban areas receiving incentives;
• creates the Research, Innovation, Science, and Engineering (RISE) InvestmentTax Credit Program within the department to increase venture capital investment in Florida;
• revises the eligibility requirements for the Law Enforcement Recruitment Bonus Payment Programfor newly employed law enforcementofficers by removing the requirement that the officer maintain continuous full-time employmentor at leasttwo years from the date on which certification was obtained, extends the break in service from15 calendar days to 180 days, and specifies thatany break in service will not counttoward satisfying the 2-year fulltime employment requirement;also deletes the expiration date of the program;
• repeals the expiration of the sales tax exemption for certain data centers on June 30, 2027;
• requires the Departmentof Emergency Management’s statewide emergency shelter plan to identify the general location and square footage of specialneeds shelters annually through 2030;also provides thatstate funds must be maximized and targeted to regional planning councilregions as those regions existed on Jan. 1, 2025;
• provides an exemption fromland being reverted to the Board of Trustees if land conveyances are atlessthan the appraised value for federalgovernmentagencies, including the Departments of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, and U.S. Coast Guard, if the primary purpose of remaining as a military installation buffer continues, even though the specific military purpose, mission, and function on the conveyed land is modified or changes from thatwhich was presentor proposed at the time of the conveyance;
• renames the Office of Supplier Diversity to the Office of Supplier Development under the Department of Management Services (DMS);
• renames the Florida Advisory Councilon Smalland Minority Business Development to the Florida Advisory Council on Small, Rural, and Urban Business Developmentunder the DMS;
• specifies thatSpace Florida is notan agency under s.287.055 for purposes of its ability to bid and contractin professional or construction services, or both, under an arrangementwith a person under certain circumstances;and
• revises the definition of “managerialemployees” to include those who have a significantand specific role executing statewide business and economic developmentprojects in supportof business recruitment, retention, and expansion, which has the effectof classifying such employees as Selected ExemptService.
Tax Credits for Investment in Rural Communities: CS/SB 1322 (Sen. Simon), a delete-allamendment, was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce and TourismCommittee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, its second of three committees of reference.
The billcreates s.288.062 the “Florida Rural Jobs Act.” It uses tax credits againstthe state premiumtax to incentivize investors to give funds to certified ruralfund entities that, in turn, will make capitalor equity investments, or loans with a maturity date of atleastone year in eligible businesses located in rural areas. The amount of investments is capped ata level thatwillresultin no more than $7.143 million in tax credits claimed in total each year.
The Departmentof Commerce (department) willadminister the programby certifying ruralfunds, granting tax credits to investors, and if necessary, revoking the fund’s tax credits and authority. The bill provides ongoing requirements for the rural funds to meetwhile participating in the program, allows ruralfunds to reinvest their rural investments, and outlines steps for a ruralfund to withdraw from the program.
An eligible business is one that has fewer than 250 employees and has its principalbusinessoperations in Florida. The departmentwill administer the programand monitor jobs created and retained as a resultof the eligible investmentand the annualsalary of each position.
An eligible investment is any capital or equity investment in an eligible business, or any loan to an eligible businesswith a stated maturity of at least one year fromthe date of issuance, provided that the eligible business has its principalbusiness operations located in a rural community in Florida, unless this requirementis waived by the department.
A ruralcommunity is defined as:
• a county with a population of 75,000 or fewer;
• a county with a population of 125,000 or fewer, if the county is contiguous to a county with a population of 75,000 or fewer;
• any municipality in a county that meets the above criteria;
• an unincorporated federalenterprise community or an incorporated ruralcity with a population of 25,000 or fewer, with an employmentbase focused on traditionalagriculture or resource-based industries, located in a county notdefined as rural, and which has at least three or more economic distress factors;or
• a designated rural area of opportunity.
HB837 (Rep. Tuck), a similar bill, is in the House Housing, Agriculture &TourismSubcommittee, its firstof four committees of reference.
EDUCATION
Charter Schools: CS/SB140 (Sen. Gaetz) was reported favorably by the Senate Community Affairs Committee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
CS/SB140 modifies procedures regarding charter schoolconversions and establishes “job engine” charter schools.
Italso providesadditionalrequirementsfor districtschoolboardsrelated to theacquisitionand disposalofproperty.Specifically, it modifies s.1013.15 torequire districtschoolboards toapprovea five-year plan prior to occupyingrealproperty that addresses specificelements such as enrollmentgrowth, demographic shifts,andchanges incurriculum. Ifenrollmentin the districthas declined by more thanfour percentin theprecedingfive-yearperiod, the districtisrequired todemonstrateactualorprojectedfiveyear growth incertainareas of the districtprior to acquiringrealproperty. If the overalldecline inenrollmentis more than 4percent the districtschoolboard isrequiredto disposeofrealpropertyin theareasof thedistrictwhere there is decliningenrollment.
The billrequires surplus realproperty must be disposed of only in the best interest of the public, butpriority must be given for conversion to:
• affordable housing for teachers, firstresponders, or military servicemembers;
• charter schoolfacilities;or
• the use by a localgovernment for development of a localrecreationalfacility.
Similar bill, CS/HB 123 (Rep. Andrade), is in the House Education &Employment Committee, its Finalcommittee of reference.
Charter Schools: SB822 (Sen. Rodriguez) was reported favorably by the Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education, its second committee of reference.
The billrevises currentprovisions relating to charter schools. Of particular interest, the billas originally filed amended s.1013.28 dealing with the disposalof property, requiring schooldistricts to provide charter schools with a rightof first refusalwhen the schooldistrict seeks to sell, transfer, lease, or dispose of any realproperty, including schoolfacilities. The committee amended the bill to delete these provisions.
A similar bill, CS/HB443 (Rep. Snyder) stillcontains a similar provision and is in the House Education &Employment Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
Higher Education: CS/CS/SB1624 (Sen. Calatayud) was reported favorably, reflecting amendments, by the Senate Fiscal Committee, its finalcommittee of reference, on April 2 and placed on the Senate SpecialOrder Calendar for April9.
CS/CS/SB1624 modifies provisions related to higher education, workforce development, and regulation which focuses on tuition and fee policies, educational programs, workforce training, and institutionaloperations.
Of particular interest, the bill amends s.1013.30 to revise the frequency of the university master plan submission fromfive years to 10 years.
ENVIRONMENTAND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Banks: CS/CS/HB1175 (Rep. Duggan) was reported favorably by the House State Affairs Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 2.
The billrevises requirements related to mitigation banking. Specifically, the billamends s.373.4136 to:
• create a standardized schedule for releasing mitigation credits;
• allows a permitapplicantto propose an alternative creditrelease schedule and the DEPor WMD shallconsider it;
• prohibitreleasing mitigation credit for freshwater wetland creation untilthe success criteria established in the mitigation bank permitfor initialconstruction activities are met;
• allow projectapplicants a one-time use of mitigation credits fromoutside a mitigation service area when an insufficient number or type of credits are available within the impacted area;
• require DEPor a WMD to verify the availability, or lack thereof, of mitigation banking credits within the impacted watershed;
• establishes multipliers thatmust be applied for out-of-service-area and out-of-kind mitigation credits;and
• require allmitigation banks in the state, beginning in July 1, 2026, to annually provide accounting reports of the number and type of available mitigation credits to DEPor a WMD, which must be compiled and reported to the governor and legislature.
Italsoamends s.704.06related to conservationeasements. The billrequiresaWMD, upon applicationby thefee simpleownerofa parcelforwhichaWMDownsaconservationeasement, to release theconservationeasementif thefollowingconditions are met:
• the land subject to the easement is less than 15 acres and is bordered on three or more sides by impervious surfaces;
• any undeveloped adjacentparcels of land are less than 15 acres and similarly bordered on three or more sides by impervious surfaces;
• the land contains no historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance;and
• before the release of the conservation easement, the applicantmusthave secured sufficient mitigation credits using the uniform mitigation assessment method froma mitigation bank located in the state to offsetthe lossof wetlands located on the land subject to the conservation easement.
It states that upon release of the easement, the ad valorem taxes on the property mustbe based on the justvalue of the property, and the property may be used for developmentconsistentwith the zoning designation of adjacent lands.
SB492 (Sen. McClain), which also deals with mitigation banking, is in the Senate Appropriations, Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and GeneralGovernment, its second of three committees of reference.
Recreational Customary Use of Beaches: SB1622 (Sen. Trumbull) was reported favorably by the Senate Community Affairs Committee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
The billrepeals s.163.035 thatestablishes procedures thata governmental entity must follow when attempting to establish a “recreationalcustomary use of property. ”
According to the committee staff report, the repealof the statute means a return to how customary use rights were determined prior to enactment of the statute:
• a governmentalentity may declare the existence of a customary use and adopta localcustomary use ordinance;
• property owners mustfile a lawsuitchallenging the ordinance and demonstrate in court that the public does notenjoy customary use rights over their privately-owned beaches;and
• courts willapply the common law doctrine of customary use when ascertaining, on a case-by-case basis, whether the public enjoys customary use rights over privately-owned beaches.
HB6043 (Rep. Andrade), an identicalbill, was reported favorably by the House Natural Resources & Disasters Subcommittee on April 1 and moves to the House Judiciary Committee, its finalcommittee of reference. SB284 (Sen. Rouson), also an identical bill, is in the Senate Judiciary Committee, its firstof three committees of reference.
Water Management Districts: CS/HB1169 was reported favorably, reflecting amendments, by the House natural Resources & Disasters Subcommittee on April1 and moves to the House Ways &Means Committee, its second committee of reference.
The billrevises various provisions related to water managementdistrict(WMD) planning, funding, budgeting, reporting, and businesspractices. Specifically, the bill:
• revises quorumand meeting requirements for WMD governing boards;
• requires a WMD that has requested bids for a contractfor the design, engineering, or construction, or for any combination of the design, engineering, or construction of capital improvementprojects with an estimated costof $20 million or more to give preference for a bid, proposal, or reply thatmeets certain requirements;
• prohibits WMD officials and employees fromaccepting an expenditure froma lobbyist;
• provides thata WMD musthave a resolution adopted by a majority vote of the governing board in order to levy ad valoremtaxes on property within the district;
• allows a WMD to levy separate ad valoremtaxes on property within the districtor basin, for the purposes of the construction of capital improvementprojects, by adopting a resolution to be approved by a majority vote of the electors in the district or basin voting in a referendumheld ata generalelection;
• requires WMDs to give preference to bids that include certain financialassurances for certain contracts;
• requires a WMD to include a section in its preliminary budgetthat includes the WMD’s capital improvement plan for the currentfiscal year and the nextfiscal year, which will be incorporated as part of the WMD’s five-year capital improvementplan;
• requires the South Florida Water ManagementDistrict(SFWMD) to include a separate section in its preliminary budget for allprojects within the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, provided on a project-by-projectbasis and include the source of funds;
• provides that the Legislative Budget Commission (LBC) cannotreject specified WMD budget proposals if they were specifically appropriated by the Legislature;expands the budgetproposals the LBCcan reject to include any individual portion of a WMD’s tentative budgetfunded with state appropriations, and any individual projectwithin the WMD’s five-year capitalimprovement plan;
• prohibits a WMD fromusing state funds as a local match for any state grantprogram unless those funds have been specifically appropriated to the WMD for thatpurpose;
• requires theSFWMD to include in itsannualprogress reporton thecomprehensive planfor the CentralandSouthern Florida ProjectComprehensive ReviewStudythetotalestimatedremainingcostto implementthecomprehensiveplan;and
• requires the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration task force to identify sources of funding when making recommendations for the Integrated Delivery Schedule.
A similar bill, CS/SB7002 (Senate Environment and NaturalResources Committee) was reported favorably, reflecting amendments, by the Senate Environmentand Natural Resources Committee on April2 and placed on the Senate Special Order Calendar for April9 if received.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Unlawful Demolition of Historical Buildings and Structures: SB582 (Sen. Leek) was reported favorably by Senate Rules Committee, its third and final committee of reference, on April1 and placed on the Senate SpecialOrder Calendar for April9
The billamends s.162.09 to authorize a code enforcement board or special magistrate to impose a fine thatexceeds the limits specified in s.162.09 for the demolition of a structure that is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or is a contributing resource to a district listed on the National Register. To impose the fine, a code enforcementboard or special magistrate mustfind, based on competent substantialevidence, thatthe demolition of the historic structure was knowing and willfuland notpermitted or the resultof a naturaldisaster. The fine may notexceed 20 percent of the fair or justmarket value of the property as determined by the property appraiser.
HB717 (Rep. Greco), an identicalbill, was reported favorably the House State Affairs Committee, its finalcommittee of reference, on April 2 and placed on the House Calendar on Second Reading.
HOUSING
Affordable Housing: CS/SB1730 (Sen. Calatayud) was reported favorably, reflecting amendments, on March 31 and moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its final committee of reference.
CS/SB1730 amends ss.125.01055 and 166.04151 related to the administrative approvalof certain affordable housing developments under the Live LocalAct. Specifically, the billamends s.125.01055(7) and s.166.04151(7) to:
• require localgovernments to authorize multifamily and mixed use residentialas allowable uses in portions of any flexibly zoned area such as a planned unit developmentpermitted for commercial, industrial, or mixed use, if at least 40 percentof the residential units in a proposed multifamily developmentare rentalunits that, for a period of at least30 years, are affordable;
• define “commercial,” “industrial,” and “mixed-use zoning,” and providing that the preemption applies in areas such as planned unit developments with different zoning mechanics;
• prohibit localgovernments fromrequiring a transfer of density or developmentunits, or an amendment to developments of regional impactfor the building height, zoning, and densities authorized under this subsection;
• prohibits localgovernments fromrequiring more than 10 percentof the total square footage of a mixed-use development be used for nonresidentialpurposes;and
• prohibit localgovernments from:
o restricting the density below the highestcurrently allowed, or allowed on July 1, 2023;
o restricting the floor area ratio below 150 percentof the highestcurrently allowed or allowed on July 1, 2023;
o restricting the heightbelow the highestcurrently allowed or allowed on July 1, 2023 for a commercial or residential building in its jurisdiction within one mile or three stories, whichever is higher;and
o if a proposed development is adjacent to, on two or more sides, a parcelzoned for single-family residential use which is within a single-family development with at least25 contiguous single-family homes, localgovernments may restrict the height to 150 percentof the tallest building on any property adjacent to the proposed development, the highestheight currently allowed, or allowed on July 1, 2023 in the land development regulations, or three stories, whichever is higher butnotto exceed 10 stories
• clarifies that proposed developments authorized under these subsections mustbe administratively approved with no further action including any quasi-judicialor administrative board or reviewing body;
• upon request of an applicant, requires localgovernments to reduce parking requirements, as opposed to considering such reduction, by 20 percentwhere certain conditions are met;
• provide that,notwithstandinganyother lawor localordinanceorregulation to thecontrary, localgovernmentsmayallow anadjacentparcelof land to be includedwithina proposed multifamilydevelopmentauthorizedunder these subsections;
• specifies thatthese subsections do notapply to the Wekiva Study Area or the Everglades Protection Area;
• provides for priority docketing and prevailing party attorneys’ fees in lawsuits brought under the Live LocalAct, notto exceed $200,000;
• prohibits localgovernments from imposing building moratoria thatwould have the effectof delaying the permitting or construction of a multifamily residentialor mixed-use residential developmentauthorized under these subsections exceptas follows:
o a localgovernmentmay, by ordinance, impose such a building moratorium for no more than 90 days in any threeyear period. Before adoption of such a building moratorium, an assessmentof the need for housing at the extremelylow-, very-low-, low-, or moderate- income limits specified in s.420.0004, including projections of such need for the nextfive years, mustbe prepared. This assessmentmust be posted on the localgovernment’s website by the date the notice of proposed enactmentis published, and presented at the same public meeting atwhich the proposed ordinance imposing the building moratoriumis adopted. This assessment mustbe included in the business impact estimate for the ordinance imposing such a moratorium required by s.125.66(3):
• provides that the provisions regarding moratoria do not apply to moratoria imposed due to unavailability of public facilities or services or imposed to addressstormwater or flood water management, if such moratoria apply equally to all types of multifamily or mixed-use residential development
Italso includes a provision thatallows an applicant written requestor notice of intentto use the provisions of s.125.01055(7) or s.166.04151(7) to the local governmentbefore July 1, 2025, may notify the local government by July 1, 2025 of its intent to proceed under the provisions of the applicable subsection as they existed at the time of submittal. Additionally, the local government mustallow such an applicantthe opportunity to submita revised application, written request, or notice of intent to accountfor the changes made by this bill.
The billamends s.380.0552 to amend the hurricane evacuation clearance time which subjectlocal governments mustbase comprehensive planning around from24 to 26 hours.
Additionally, itcreates s.420.5098 to institute a state housing policy on public sector and hospital employer-sponsored housing. The policy of the state to support housing for employees of hospitals, health care facilities, and governmental entities and to allow developers using low-income housing tax credits and other sources of funding to create a preference for housing for such employees. However, such preference mustconformwith the requirements of Section 42(g)(9) of the InternalRevenue Code.
Additionally, the billamends s.760.26 to provide thatitis unlawfulto discriminate in land use decisions or in the permitting of development based on the nature of a development or proposed developmentas affordable housing, exceptas otherwise provided by law.
CS/HB 943 (Rep. V. Lopez), which also addresses issues in the Live Local Act, is in the House Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee, its second of three committees of reference. (Note:A reference to the House CivilJustice &Claims Subcommittee was removed on March 31.)
Affordable Housing: CS/CS/CS/SB184 (Sen. Gaetz) was reported favorably by the Senate Rules Committee, its final committee of reference, on April 1 and placed on the Senate SpecialOrder Calendar for April9.
The billamends s.163.31771 to require counties and municipalities to adopt an ordinance by Dec. 1, 2025, to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in any area zoned for single-family residentialuse. (The date was added by the committee.) Such ordinance applies prospectively to ADUs permitted or constructed after adoption of the ordinance. (This provision was added by the committee. The committee also deleted previously proposed language thatstated the ordinance did notapply to a planned unit developmentor master planned community.)
The ordinance may regulate the construction, permitting, and use of ADUs, butmay not:
• prohibit the owner of an ADU fromoffering the ADU for rent, exceptas otherwise provided by law;
• require an ADU owner to reside in the primary dwelling unit, defined as the existing or proposed single-family dwelling on the property where a proposed ADU would be located;
• increase parking requirements on any parcelthatcan accommodate an additional motor vehicle on a driveway without impeding access to the primary dwelling unit; and
• require replacementparking if a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is converted to create an accessory dwelling unit.
The owner of a property with an ADU may not be denied a homestead exemption for those portions of property on which the owner maintains a permanentresidence solely on the basis of the property containing an ADU. However, if the ADU is rented to another person, the ADU must be assessed separately fromthe homestead property and taxed according to its use.
Itremoves the requirement for property owners seeking to construct an ADU to attestthatthe unitwill be rented atan affordable rate to a low-income person or persons. However, the bill maintains the provision allowing ADUs which provide affordable rentalhousing to apply toward satisfying affordable housing goals in the local government’s comprehensive plan.
The billalso amends s.420.615 to expand the express authorization for localgovernments to grantdensity bonuses to landowners thatdonate land to the local governmentfor the purpose of providing affordable housing, to specify thataffordable housing includes housing for military families receiving the basic allowance for housing.
Finally, the billdirects the Office of Program Policy Analysis and GovernmentalAccountability (OPPAGA) to evaluate the efficacy of using mezzanine finance, or second position short-termdebt, to stimulate the construction of owner-occupied affordable housing. OPPAGA mustalso evaluate the potentialof tiny homes to meetaffordable housing needs in this state.
OPPAGA mustconsultwith the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida and submita reportof its finding to the legislature by Dec. 31, 2026. The reportmust include recommendations for the structuring of a modelmezzanine finance program.
Note that the committee also removed a proposed provision allowing manufactured homes to be ADUs and removed a proposed provision prohibiting ADUs frombeing leased for a term lessthan one month.
CS/HB 247 (Rep. Conerly), which also requires localgovernments to adoptan ordinance to allow ADUs in areas zoned for single family use, is in the House IntergovernmentalAffairs Subcommittee, its second of three committees of reference.
Local Housing Assistance Plans: CS/SB 1714 (Sen. Burton) was reported favorably, reflecting amendments, by the Senate Community Affairs Committee on March 31 and moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development, its second of three committees of reference.
The billamends s.420.9072 to permit localgovernments to expend funds from their localhousing distribution on lotrental assistance for mobile home owners not to exceed six months’ rent.
Italso changes s.420.9075 to provide thata local housing assistance plan must include a strategy for providing program funds to mobile home owners, including lotrentalassistance. Lotrentalassistance is considered homeownership activity for the purposes of allocating program funds, while rehabilitation and emergency repairs for mobile homes is considered construction, rehabilitation, or emergency repair of affordable, eligible housing.
It separates the requirement, currently paired in statute with another, thata local governmentinclude in its local housing assistance plan a strategy thataddresses the needs of persons who are deprived of affordable housing due to the closure of a mobile home park.
CS/HB 701 (Reps. Stark and Berfield), a similar bill, is in the House IntergovernmentalAffairs Subcommittee, its second of three committees of reference.
TRANSPORTATION
Rapid Rail Transit Compact: HB833 (Rep. Hinson) was reported favorably by the House Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee on March 31 and moves to the House Commerce Committee, its second and finalcommittee of reference. The billauthorizes the governor to enter into a Rapid RailTransit Compact(Compact) with Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and provides the wording for the compact. The Compact’s purpose is to study the feasibility of rapid rail transit service between Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippiand to establish a jointinterstate commission to assist in this effort. The Compacttakes effectwhen a state has ratified it and Congress has consented. States outside of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippimay become a party to the Compactif it is contiguous to another party state and the legislature of the contiguous state becoming a party approves.
The Southern Rail Commission (SRC) is the jointagency created by the parties under the Compact. The bill identifies the membership, powers, and terms for withdrawalfrom the SRC. The billprovides thateach party state agrees thatits Legislature may, in its discretion, from time to time make available and pay over to the commission funds for the establishmentand operation of the commission.
An identicalbill, SB966 (Sen. Davis), is in the Senate Transportation Committee, its firstof three committees of reference.
Transportation: CS/CS/HB1397 (Reps. Abbottand Bankson) was reported favorably by the House Transportation & Economic Development BudgetCommittee in April 2 and moves to the House Commerce Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
CS/CS/SB1397 addresses various provisions relating to transportation. Specifically, the bill:
• provides position titles for the assistant secretaries of the Florida Departmentof Transportation (FDOT) and authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to appointan Executive Director of Transportation Technology;
• revises FDOT’s powers and duties;
• revises provisions regarding the qualifications of Florida Transportation Commission (FTC) members;
• expands FTC’s duties to include monitoring the efficiency, productivity, and managementof any transitentity thatis a recipientof funding from FDOT’s public transitblock grant program;
• creates the Florida Transportation Research Institute as a consortiumof higher education professionals to drive cuttingedge research, innovation, transformational technologies, and breakthrough solutions to supportworkforce development efforts thatcontribute to Florida’s transportation industry;
• provides thatauthorities created by the state, counties, municipalities, or politicalsubdivisions , including butnotlimited to transportation, parking, and economic developmentauthorities, shallhave fullpower to conductbusiness; to operate, manage, and controlfacilities;and to provide services beyond the geographicalboundaries of such counties, municipalities, or politicalsubdivisions that originally chartered such authority upon entering into an interlocal agreementwith the governing body of the affected county, municipality, or politicalsubdivision;
• provides a county or municipality may notadopta rule or regulation thatprohibits or requires a permitfor a public sewer transmission line thatis within a public right-of-way as part of a septic-to-sewer conversion project in which the FDOT and the Departmentof Environmental Protection or its designee have previously issued a permit;
• authorizes certain space-related and commercial shipbuilding projects are eligible to receive Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Developmentfunding;
• requires seaports to submit semiannualreports to FDOT regarding their operations and their supportof the state’s economic competitiveness and supply chain;
• expands FDOT’s ability to fund spaceportdiscretionary capacity improvementprojects by requiring projects to meet only one, rather than all, of the existing criteria for funding;
• repeals provisions regarding high-occupancy vehicle lanes;
• authorizes the withholding of any state funds to local jurisdictions until traffic signals not in compliance with FDOT’s uniform systemfor traffic control devices are broughtinto compliance;
• requires FDOT to certify private airports of public interest before aircraftoperations are permitted;
• authorizes FDOT to fund certain infrastructure projects associated with spaceports;
• requires airports to provide FDOT with the opportunity to use airportproperty as a staging area during certain declared states of emergency;
• requires airports to submitannual maintenance reports to FDOT and authorizes the agency to withhold capital improvementfunds if an airportfails to perform routine maintenance;
• makes non-hub airports subject to commercialservice airporttransparency and accountability requirements and amends such requirements for allcommercialservice airports;
• requires commercial service airports to notify FDOT after receiving certain communications or directives from the federalgovernmentand following issues or incidents of concern;
• requires FDOT to carry outspecific tasks related to the adoption of advanced air mobility as a new mode of transportation;
• revises FDOT’s authorization regarding public information and education campaigns;
• creates the Florida Transportation Academy, within FDOT, to coordinate with certain entities to support, promote and sustain workforce developmentefforts of the transportation sector;
• authorizes FDOT to require the modification of an existing connection to a state road due to safety or operational concerns;
• refocuses FDOT’s priorities on small businesses by consistently replacing language throughoutthe Florida Transportation Code related to minority, socially and economically disadvantaged, and woman-owned business enterprises with language favoring smallbusinesses;
• requires FDOT to adoptrules to comply with requirements of 49 C.F.R. part 26 and applicable federallaw, which addresses participation by disadvantaged businessenterprises in financialassistance programs under the U.S. Departmentof Transportation;
• increases the maximumannual funding amountfor the SmallCounty Road Assistance Programfrom $25 million to $50 million beginning in FY 2025-26;
• increases the size of a “small business” as it relates to FDOT’s business developmentprogram to include businesses with yearly average gross receipts of lessthan $25 million for road and bridge contracts, and lessthan $10 for professional and nonprofessional services contracts;
• authorizes FDOT to require a surety bond for construction or maintenance contracts in an amountlessthan the awarded contractprice;
• prohibits camping on right-of-way of the State Highway System, excepton the Florida NationalScenic Trailwith the appropriate permit;
• repeals an obsolete reportrequirementrelated to electric vehicle charging infrastructure;
• provides thatfunds allocated to a projectthat qualifies for the New Starts Transit Programin the currentfiscalyear must be reallocated for the purpose of the Strategic Intermodal Systemfor the next fiscalyear if the transit projectwillnotbe ready for production by June 30, and removes a provision of currentlaw which provides thatunallocated funds for the New Starts TransitProgramremaining as of June 30, 2024, must be reallocated for the purpose of the Strategic IntermodalSystem, with an expiration of June 30, 2026;
• revises the membership of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority’s governing body and requires that authority follow FDOT’s small business programand establish protocols and systems in accordance with specified items;and
• requires the Jacksonville Transportation Authority to establish protocols and systems and follow FDOT’s smallbusiness program.
A similar bill, CS/SB1662 (Sen. Collins), is in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development, its second of three committees of reference
Transportation: CS/CS/SB 462 (Sen. DiCeglie) was reported favorably, reflecting amendments, by the Senate Regulated Industries Committee on April1 and moves to the Senate FiscalPolicy Committee, its finalcommittee of reference.
CS/CS/SB462 addresses various provisions relating to transportation. The bill:
• revises provisions regarding metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to:
o repealthe Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council(MPOAC);
o amend legislative intentregarding MPOs to emphasize: developing multimodal transportation systems, instead of surface transportation systems;and serving the mobility needs of people and freightand fostering economic growth and developmentthroughout the urbanized areas of this state while balancing conservation of natural resource;
o provide thatafter July 1, 2025, no additional MPOs may be designated in Florida except in urbanized areas where the urbanized area is notcontiguous to an urbanized area designated before the 2020 census;
o repealthe requirement thatwhen there is more than one MPO in an urbanized area, the MPOs must consultwith every other MPO in the urbanized area and the state to coordinate plans and transportation improvementprograms and to ensure consistency in data used in the planning process;
o amend the considerations required by each MPO in developing its Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include conserving natural resources, instead of promoting energy conservation;additionally, MPOs mustconsider projects and strategies to reduce traffic and congestion;
o require that Florida Departmentof Transportation (FDOT) to atleast annually, convene MPOs of similar size, based on population served, to exchange bestpractices, and authorizes MPOs to develop committees or working groups as needed to accomplish such purpose;
o provide that, at FDOT’s discretion, training for new MPO governing board members mustbe provided by FDOT, an entity pursuantto a contractwith FDOT, by the Center for Urban Transportation Research atthe University of South Florida, or by the Implementing Solutions for Transportation Research and Evaluation of Emerging Technologies (I-STREET) Living Lab atthe University of Florida;
o revise provisions relating to MPO LRTP’s by removing the requirementthatmultiple MPOs within a contiguous urbanized area mustcoordinate the development of LRTPs to be reviewed by the MPOAC;
o include public-private partnerships in the listof innovative financing techniques that MPOs may consider;
o regarding transportation enhancementactivities, include the integration of advanced air mobility and integration of autonomous and electric vehicles, electric bicycles, and motorized scooters used for freight, commuter or micromobility purposes;remove historic preservation, mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff, and controlof outdoor advertising as potential transportation enhancementactivities;
o authorize each MPO to execute a written agreement with FDOT, which mustbe reviewed, and updated as necessary, every five years, which clearly establishes the cooperative relationship essential to accomplish state and federaltransportation planning requirements;
o require FDOT to establish, in collaboration with each MPO, quality performance metrics such as safety, infrastructure condition, congestion relief, and mobility;require each MPO, as partof its LRTP, in direct coordination with FDOT, to develop targets for each performance measure within the metropolitan planning area and reportprogress toward establishing performance targets for each measure annually in its transportation improvementplan:
• distributes $4.167 million monthly in sales tax revenues to the State Transportation Trust Fund to accountfor the impact of electric and hybrid vehicles;
• requires each county to annually submit specified uniformtransportation projectdata to FDOT;
• increases maximumallowable speed limits on certain highways by five miles per hour;
• authorizes a county, municipality or authority that owns a public use airport to participate in the federalAirport InvestmentPartnership Program and make such airports eligible for certain state funds;
• authorizes FDOT to use eminent domain to preserve a corridor for future proposed improvements;
• authorizes FDOT to provide workforce developmentgrants to state colleges and schooldistricts, prioritizing those in in counties in rural communities, to fund elective courses in heavy civilconstruction;
• amends the membership of the Center for Urban Transportation Research to consistof 10 transportation experts;
• requires projectconcept studies and PD&E studies for capacity improvements on limited access facilities to evaluate alternatives the using elevated roadways above existing lanes;
• requires PD&E studies for new alignmentprojects and capacity improvementprojects to be completed within 18 months after the date of commencement;
• stipulates thatcontractors who enter into construction and maintenance contracts with FDOT are providing a service to the department;
• provides requirements for FDOT to obtain bestand finaloffers frombidders, and for rebidding certain contracts;
• revises provisions related to phased design-build contracts;
• provides additional insurance requirements for bridge-related contracts over navigable waters;
• prohibits FDOT, through the settlement of a bid protest, fromcreating a new contractunless the new contract is competitively procured;
• authorizes FDOT to waive prequalification for contracts of $1 million or less which have a diverse scope of work that may or may not be performed;
• requires contractors seeking to bid on certain FDOT maintenance contracts to possessthe qualifications and equipment needed to performsuch work;
• increases threshold amounts for contractdisputes resolved by the State Arbitration Board from $1 million to up to $2 million, or upon agreement, greater than $2 million;
• requires FDOT, in its Strategic IntermodalSystem highway corridors plan of projects, to prioritize projects affecting gaps in a corridor so that the corridor becomes contiguous in its functionalcharacteristics;
• amends the requirements for the Greater MiamiExpressway Authority governing body members;and
• requires FDOT to develop and submit a reporton the efficientwidening of Interstate 4 fromU.S. 27 in Polk County to I75 in Hillsborough County; the report mustbe submitted to the Governor, Senate Presidentand House Speaker by Dec. 31, 2025.
Note that the committee, among its changes, removed previously proposed bill language related to utility relocation. A similar bill, CS/HB567 (Rep. McFarland) is in the House Transportation &Economic Development BudgetSubcommittee, its second of three committees of reference.