March 17, 2023 | Legislative Reporter
This is the end of the second week of the session and bills are moving through the process.
The Bill Tracking Report, as of March 17, 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.
Please note: Not all bills are covered in all legislative reports. If a bill was covered in a previous reporter, and no action has taken place since that reporter, the bill will not be discussed until further action has occurred. Thank you.
Since the last update, there were no bills of interest filed.
The following bills of interest had action this week:
Please 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.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Local Ordinances: HB 1515 (Rep. Brackett), a similar bill to SB 170E1, was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the House Local Administration, Federal Affairs & Special Districts Subcommittee, on March 15 and is scheduled to be heard in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee, its second of three committees of reference, on March 20. SB 170E1 was passed by the Senate on March 8 and is Messages to the House.
HB 1515 amends s.57.112, F.S., to include that if a civil action is filed against a local government to challenge the adoption of a local ordinance on the grounds that the ordinance is arbitrary or unreasonable, the court may assess and award reasonable attorney fees and costs and damages to a prevailing plaintiff. An award of reasonable attorney fees
or costs and damages pursuant to this subsection may not exceed $50,000. In addition, a prevailing plaintiff may not recover any attorney fees or costs directly incurred by or associated with litigation to determine an award of reasonable attorney fees or costs. This section also includes an addition prohibiting double recovery if an affected person prevails on a claim brought against a local government pursuant to the other applicable law involving the same ordinance, operative acts, or transactions. The bill also states that the proposed amendments to this section, effective Oct. 1, 2023, are prospective in nature and only apply to ordinances adopted on or after that date. Note that existing language provides that this section does not apply to local ordinances adopted to Part II of Chapter 163, s.553.73, F.S., (Florida Building Code) and s.663.202 (Florida Fire Prevention Code.)
The bill also amends s.125.66 and s.166.041, F.S., to require counties and municipalities to prepare a “business impact estimate” before enacting new ordinances. The business impact estimate must be posted on the county or city’s website no later than the date the notice of proposed enactment is published and must include all of the following:
• A summary of the proposed ordinance, including a state of the public purpose to be served by the proposed ordinance, such as serving the public health, safety, morals, and welfare;
• An estimate of the direct economic impact of the proposed ordinance on private, for-profit businesses in the county or municipality, including the following:
o An estimate of direct compliance costs that businesses may reasonably incur if the ordinance is enacted.
o Identification of any new charge or fee on businesses subject to the proposed ordinance or for which businesses will be financially responsible.
o An estimate of the county or municipality’s regulatory costs, including an estimate of revenues from any new charges or fees that will be imposed on businesses to cover such costs.
• A good faith estimate of the number of businesses likely to be impacted by the ordinance; and
• Any additional information the county or municipality determines to be useful
The bill indicates that these provisions should not be construed to require a county or municipality to procure an accountant or other financial consultant to prepare the business impact statement.
The bill also provides that a business impact estimate is not required for the following:
• Emergency ordinances;
• Ordinances related to Part II of Chapter 163, relating to growth policy, county and municipal planning, and land development regulation, including zoning, development orders, development agreements, and development permits;
• Building code ordinances under s.553.73, F.S.;
• Fire prevention code ordinances under s.633.202, F.S.; and
• Ordinances establishing or terminating, contracting, or expanding community development.
Districts under s.190.005 and 190.046, F.S.:
• Ordinances required to comply with federal or state law or regulation;
• Ordinances relating to issuance or refinancing of debt;
• Ordinances related to the adoption of county or municipal budgets or budget amendments, including revenue sources necessary to fund the budget;
• Ordinances required to implement a contract or agreement, including but not limited to federal, state, local, or private grants or other financial assistance accepted by a county or municipality; and
• Ordinances related to procurement.
The bill creates s.125.675 and s.166.0411, F.S., to state that a county or municipality must suspend enforcement of an ordinance that is the subject of an action challenging the ordinance’s validity on the grounds that it is expressly preempted by the State Constitution or by state law or is arbitrary or unreasonable if:
• The action was filed with the court no later than 90 days after the adoption of the ordinance;
• The plaintiff requests suspension in the initial complaint or petition, citing this section; and
• The county or municipality has been served with a copy of the complaint or petition.
If the plaintiff appeals a final judgment finding that an ordinance is valid and enforceable, the county or municipality may enforce the ordinance 45 days after the order’s entry unless the plaintiff obtains a stay of the lower court’s order. Additionally, the bill provides that the court must give cases in which the enforcement of an ordinance is suspended under this section priority over other pending cases and must render a preliminary or final decision as expeditiously as possible The bill also provides that the signature of an attorney or party certifies that the pleading or motion is not done for improper purposes, including harassment or frivolous purposes; if the court finds this has been violated, it may impose sanctions including payment of reasonable expenses incurred, to the other party.
The bill provides that s.125.675 and s.166.0411, F.S., do not apply to the same types of ordinances as identified above for the “business impact estimates” created in s.125.66, F.S. It also provides that the court may award attorney fees and costs and damages as provided in s.57.112, F.S.
The bill amends s.125.66 and s.166.041, F.S., to provide that consideration of the proposed ordinance at a meeting properly noticed pursuant to this subsection may be continued to a subsequent meeting if, at the meeting, the date, time, and place of the subsequent meeting are publicly stated. No further publication, mailing, or posted notice as required under this subsection is required, except that the continued consideration must be listed in an agenda or similar communication produced for the subsequent meeting. This paragraph is remedial in nature, is intended to clarify existing law, and shall apply retroactively.
Public Construction: CS/SB 346 (Sen. DiCeglie) was reported favorably by the first of its three committees of reference, the Senate Community Affairs Committee, on March 15 and moves to its second committee of reference, the Senate Governmental Affairs.
The bill amends requirements for construction service contracts between local government entities and contractors for public construction projects. It also revises the definition of “public works project”, in s.255.0992, F.S, by lowering the $1 million in value requirement to $350,000 in value and including works funded by local government without the use of state funds.
However, it also amends s.166.033(2), F.S., to provide that if an application for a development order or permit is under review 180 days after submission, the municipality must deem the application approved, notwithstanding any agreement between both parties to extend deadlines.
CS/ HB 383 (Rep. Griffiths Jr.), a similar bill, is in the House State Affairs Committee, its last of two committees of reference. Note that the House bill was previously amended to delete the language regarding development orders and permits still in the Senate bill.
Vacation Rentals: CS/SB 714 was reported favorably as amended by the Senate Regulated Industries Committee on March 14 and now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government, its second of three committees of reference.
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) to preempt the licensing of vacation rentals to the state. The bill creates s.509.013(17), F.S., to define the term “advertising platform”. 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 s.509.032(7) 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 with a grandfathered regulation on June 1, 2011, may pass a new, less restrictive ordinance. The bill does not affect vacation rental ordinances in jurisdictions located in an area of critical state concern.
The bill provides that a local government may require vacation rentals to be registered. The registration fee may not exceed $50 for an individual or $100 for a collective vacation rental registration. A local government may 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 division 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 always maintain 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.
Additionally, the bill requires local governments to accept or deny a registration application within 15 days of receipt of an application; failure to do so results in the application being deemed accepted. The vacation rental owner or operator may agree to an extension of this time period and such notice may be provided by mail or electronically. If an application is denied, the local government must provide written notice to the applicant and specify with particularity the factual reasons for denial, including a citation to the applicable portions of an ordinance or other legal authority for the denial. The local government may not deny an applicant from reapplying if the applicant cures the identified deficiencies.
A local government may terminate or refuse to issue or renew a vacation rental registration when:
• the operation of the subject premises violates a registration requirement authorized pursuant to ss. 509.032(7)(b) or a local law, ordinance, or regulation that does not apply solely to vacation rentals; or
• the premises and its owner are the subject of a final order or judgment lawfully directing the termination of the premises’ use as a vacation rental.
The bill amends s.509.241, F.S. to require that all applications to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for a vacation rental license must include 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 authorizes the division to revoke, refuse to issue or renew, or suspend state vacation rental licenses for certain specified violations.
The bill provides that the application of vacation rental provisions created by the bill does 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 on July 1, 2023. However, the provisions relating to the regulation of advertising platforms take effect on Jan. 1, 2024.
HB 833 (Rep. Duggan), a similar bill, is in the House Regulatory Reform & Economic Development Subcommittee, its first of three committees of reference.
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Saltwater Intrusion Vulnerability Assessments: SB 734 (Sen. Polsky) 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:
• The 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.
SB 734 was reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee on March 14 and moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment and General Government, its second of three committees of reference. An identical bill, HB 1079 (Rep. Cross), is in the House Agriculture, Conservation, and Resiliency Subcommittee, its first of three committees of reference.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Florida Main Street Program and Historic Preservation Tax Credits: CS/SB 288 (Sen. DiCeglie), reflecting amendments made by the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, creates the Main Street Historic Tourism and Revitalization Act, which provides a tax credit against corporate income taxes and insurance premium taxes for qualified expenses incurred in the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure.
The tax credit may not exceed 20 percent of qualified expenses incurred in the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure that has been approved by the National Park Service to receive the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit or 30 percent of the total qualified expenses incurred in the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure that has been approved by the National Park Service to receive the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit and that is located within a local program area of an Accredited Main Street Program.
Any unused amount may be carried forward for a period of up to five taxable years. Tax credits may also be sold or transferred. There is no limit on the total number of transactions for the sale or transfer of all or part of a tax credit. However, qualified expenses may only be counted once in determining the amount of an available tax credit, and no more than one taxpayer may claim a tax credit for the same qualified expenses.
The Senate Finance and Tax Committee reported the bill favorably on March 14 and it now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee, its final committee of reference. A similar bill, HB 499 (Rep. Stark and Rep. Baker) is in the House Ways & Means Committee, its first of three committees of reference.
TRANSPORTATION
Regional Transportation Planning: CS/HB 1397 (Rep. McClure) was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the House Transportation & Modals Subcommittee, on March 15 and moves to its second committee of reference, the House Infrastructure & Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee.
The bill, as originally filed, required the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct a study on the potential merger of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority and the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority into one entity responsible for regional planning and operation of a public transit system covering the Tampa Bay
Area. The House Transportation & Modals Subcommittee amended the bill to delete the references to the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. The amended bill now requires the FDOT only to conduct a study regarding the potential dissolution of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority to see whether this would result in operational efficiencies and reduced administrative costs and further a regional approach to transit. FDOT’s report detailing the study results shall be submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Jan. 1, 2024.
SB 1532 (Sen. Burgess), identical to HB 1397 as originally filed, is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee, its first of three committees of reference, on March 20.
NEWS CLIPS
Florida lawmaker wants to crack down on slow left-lane drivers
Tampa Bay Times | March 16
After a pandemic boom, lawmakers seek to regulate 'ghost kitchens' and food trailers
WUSF | March 15
Insurers slashed Hurricane Ian payouts far below damage estimates, documents and insiders reveal The Washington Post | March 11
Can Florida survive climate change? Here’s what the Aspen Ideas: Climate conference had to say South Florida Sun Sentinel | March 14
