March 24, 2023 | Legislative Reporter
This is the end of the third week of the session and bills are moving through the process.
The Bill Tracking Report, as of March 24, 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
Land Development Initiative and Referendum Processes: CS/CS/HB 41 (Rep. Garcia) was reported favorably by its second of two committees of reference, the House State of Affairs Committee, on March 23.
The bill would amend ss.163.3167(8), F.S., to revise the current prohibition on initiative and referendum processes regarding development orders and prohibit those processes from also being used for any amendment to land development regulations.
A similar bill, SB 856 (Sen. Rodriguez), is in the Senate Community Affairs Committee, its first of three committees.
Local Government Comprehensive Plans: SB 540 (DiCeglie) was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the Senate Community Affairs Committee, on March 22 and now moves to its second committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The bill amends ss.163.3184(5) and 163.3187(5), F.S., to provide that the prevailing party in administrative challenges to a comprehensive plan or amendment, including small-scale amendments, is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs in challenging or defending the order, including reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs. The bill also amends s.163.3177, F.S., to authorize administrative approval of modifications to update the capital improvements component of a comprehensive plan if all the projects are adopted by the appropriate board. Finally, the bill amends s.163.3215, F.S., to resolve a split among Florida district courts of appeal by clarifying that the scope of review for a challenge to a local government decision to grant or deny a development order is limited to whether the development order would materially alter the use, density, or intensity of a property in a manner not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
CS/HB 359 (Rep. Duggan) is similar to SB 540 but had the language regarding the administrative approval of capital improvements element modifications removed in its first committee of reference. CS/HB 359 was reported favorably with two amendments by the House State of Affairs Committee, its final committee of reference, on March 23. The first amendment was added to s.163.3184(3)(C), F.S., related to the expedited review process, to provide that if an amendment is not adopted at the second public hearing, the amendment shall be formally adopted within 180 days after holding the second hearing or else it is deemed withdrawn. This amendment is stated to be remedial in nature and applies retroactively to Jan. 1, 2022.
The second amendment added language to s.163.3202, F.S., to state that land development regulations related to any characteristic of development other than use, or intensity or density of use, may not be applied to the Florida College System institutions as defined in s.1000.21, F.S.
Local Tax Referenda Requirements: CS/HB 731 (Rep. Temple), was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the House Local Administration, Federal Affairs & Special Districts Subcommittee, on March 21, and is now in its second, the House Ways & Means Committee.
The bill adds a provision for a referendum to reenact an expiring local government discretionary sales surtax and an expiring tax on motor and diesel fuel which must be held at the general election immediately preceding the expiration date of the surtax. A referendum may be held only once during the 48-month period preceding the effective date of the referendum.
A similar bill, SB 698 (Sen. Ingoglia), is in the Senate Community Affairs Committee, its first of three committees of reference.
HOUSING:
Housing: The “Live Local Act”, SB 102 E1 (Sen. Calatayud), has been passed by the Legislature. The bill was first passed by the Senate on March 8. Its companion bill, CS/CS/HB 627 (Rep. Busatta Cabrera) was reported favorably by the House Ways and Means Committee, its last committee of reference, on March 20 and added to the Special Order Calendar. It was substituted for SB 102 E1 and was passed by the House on March 24.
Cited as the “Live Local Act”, SB 102 E1 makes various changes and additions to affordable housing-related programs and policies at both the state and local levels. Much of the bill involves the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, a public-private entity that administers the two largest statewide affordable housing programs: the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program and the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program.
Among the changes, the bill provides up to $150 million annually to the SAIL program to be used for certain specified projects as identified in the newly created s.420.50871, F.S. This provision sunsets July 1, 2033. The bill also significantly amends the state housing strategy delineated in s.420.0003, F.S. The bill also creates s.420.50872, F.S.,
“Live Local Program”, a new tax donation program to allow taxpayers to direct certain tax payments, up to $100 million annually, to help fund the SAIL program.
However, the bill also includes several changes that impact local government. Specifically, the bill would do the following:
Rent Control
Amend s.125.0103 and s.166.043, F.S., to remove the authority of local government to enact ordinances controlling the price of rents.
Expedited Development Projects for Affordable Housing
Amend s.125.01055(6) and 166.04151(6), F.S., to provide that a county or municipality may approve the development of affordable housing, including but not limited to a mixed-use development, on any parcel zoned for commercial or industrial use, so long as at least 10 percent of the housing units in the project are affordable. (This language deletes current statutory language which included parcels zoned for residential and required that the project developer agree not to seek funding under the SAIL program.)
Comprehensive Plans/Zoning Regulations
Create ss.125.01055(7) and 166.04151(7) F.S., to:
• Require counties and municipalities to authorize multifamily and mixed-use residential as allowable uses in any area zoned for commercial or mixed-use if at least 40 percent of the residential units in a proposed multifamily rental development are, for a period of at least 30 years, affordable as defined in s.420.004, F.S.;
• Prohibit a county or municipality from requiring the proposed multifamily development to get a zoning or land use change, special exception, conditional use approval, variance, or comprehensive plan amendment for the building height, zoning, and densities;
• Require that at least 65 percent of the total square footage in a mixed-use residential project must be used for residential purposes;
• Prohibit a county or municipality from restricting the density of a proposed development authorized under these subsections below the highest allowed density on county unincorporated land or land within the municipality respectively, where residential development is allowed;
• Prohibit a county or municipality from restricting the height of a proposed development authorized under these subsections below the highest currently allowed height for commercial or residential development in its jurisdiction within 1 mile of the proposed development or three stories, whichever is higher;
• Require that a proposed development authorized under these subsections must be administratively approved and no further action required if the development satisfies the local land development regulations (including but not limited to regulations relating to setbacks and parking requirements) for multifamily developments in areas zoned for such use and is otherwise consistent with the comprehensive plan, except for provisions establishing allowable densities, height, and land use;
• Require that counties and municipalities must consider reducing parking requirements if the proposed development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in the land development code, and the major transit stop is accessible from the development;
• Specify that except as otherwise provided in these subsections, a development authorized under these provisions must comply with all applicable state and local laws and regulations;
• Provide that the provisions of ss.125.01055(7) and 166.04151(7) do not apply to property defined as recreational and commercial working waterfront in s.342.201(2)(b) in any area zoned as industrial; and
• State that these subsections expire on Oct. 1, 2033.
The bill also includes an additional provision in ss.125.01055(7), F.S., to provide that for multifamily developments in an unincorporated area zoned for commercial or industrial use which is in the boundaries of a multicounty independent special district that was created to provide municipal services and is not authorized to levy ad valorem taxes, and less that 20 percent of the land within such district is designated for commercial or industrial use, a county must authorize such development only if the development is mixed-use residential.
The bill also adds a provision to ss.166.04151(7), F.S., which states a municipality that designates less than 20 percent of the land area within its jurisdiction for commercial or industrial use must authorize a proposed multifamily development in areas zoned for commercial or industrial use only if the proposed multifamily development is mixeduse residential.
The bill was also amended on the floor to include language which:
Building Permits
Amends ss.553.792(1)(a), F.S., to require that a local government must maintain on its website a policy containing the procedures and expectations for expedited processing of those building permits and development orders required by law to be expedited.
Local Government-Owned Property
Amends s.125.379 and 166.0451, F.S. to:
• Provide that counties and cities must produce their real property inventory list identifying property that is appropriate for affordable housing by Oct. 1, 2023, and every three years after;
• Require that the list be made publicly available on the applicable county or city website;
• Require that counties and cities must include real property owned by dependent special districts within their boundaries on the inventory lists;
• Provide that acceptable uses of property identified as appropriate for affordable housing includes utilization through a long-term land lease requiring the development and maintenance of affordable housing; and
• Encourage counties and cities to adopt best practices for surplus land programs, with the bill providing examples.
Ad Valorem Tax Exemptions
• Amend s.196.1978, F.S. to provide two new property tax exemptions:
o nonprofit land lease exemption for land that is owned entirely by a nonprofit entity that is a corporation not for profit that meets other specified conditions – first applies to the 2024 tax roll and is repealed on Dec. 31, 2059; and
o exemption for units in a newly constructed multifamily project containing more than 70 units dedicated to housing natural persons or families below certain income limitations and meeting other specified conditions. The first applies to the 2024 tax roll and is repealed on Dec. 31, 2059.
• Create s.196.1979, F.S., to authorize a county or municipality to adopt a local ordinance to exempt those portions of property used to provide affordable housing meeting certain requirements. First applies to the 2024 tax roll and expires the fourth January 1 after adoption; however governing body may adopt a new ordinance to renew the exemption
Keys Workforce Housing Initiative
Provide that the Department of Economic Opportunity’s Key Workforce Housing Initiative, approved by the Administration Commission on June 13, 2018, is considered an exception to the evacuation time constraints of s.380.0552(9)(a)2, F.S., by requiring deed-restrictive affordable workforce housing properties to agree to evacuate at least 48 hours in advance of hurricane landfall.
A comprehensive plan amendment approved by the Department of Economic Opportunity to implement the initiative is considered valid and the respective local governments may adopt local ordinances or regulations to implement such plan amendment.
Affordable Housing in Areas of Critical State Concern: HB 1293, (Rep. Mooney, Jr.) was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the House Local Administration, Federal Affairs & Special Districts Subcommittee, on March 20, and now moves to its second, the House Agriculture, Conservation & Resiliency Subcommittee.
The bill amends ss.125.01055 and 166.04151, F.S., to exclude land designated as an area of critical state concern from county and municipality provisions that allow them to approve the development of affordable housing on any parcel zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use.
The bill also amends s.420.9075, F.S., to provide that if a county or municipality is in an area designated within the previous five years as an area of critical state concern by the legislature for which the legislature has declared its intent to provide affordable housing, that county or municipality is exempt from the requirement to spend at least 30 percent of SHIP program funds on awards for very-low-income persons and another 30 percent on awards for low-income persons. This provision applies retroactively and expires on July 1, 2028.
SB 1212 (Sen. Rodriguez), a similar bill, is in the Senate Community Affairs Committee, its first of three committees of reference.
Residential Tenancies: HB 1417, (Rep. Esposito) was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the House Civil Justice Subcommittee, on March 20, and is now in its second, the House Local Administration, Federal Affairs & Special Districts Subcommittee.
The bill creates s.83.425, F.S., to expressly preempt to the state the regulation of residential tenancies, the landlordtenant relationship, and all other matters covered by the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Act). The bill also specifies that it supersedes any local government regulations on matters covered under the Act, including, but not limited to:
• The screening process used by landlords in approving tenancies;
• Security deposits;
• Rental agreement applications and fees associated therewith;
• Terms and conditions of rental agreements;
• The rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants; disclosures concerning the premises, dwelling unit, rental agreement, or rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants;
• Fees charged by the landlord; and
• Notice requirements.
The bill also increases the notice period for terminating a:
• Month-to-month tenancy from 15 days’ notice to 30 days’ notice.
• Tenancy with a specific duration, providing that the applicable rental agreement cannot require less than 60 days’ notice of termination, instead of more than 60 days’ notice as required in current law.
An identical bill, SB 1586, (Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Rodriguez), is in its first of three committees of reference, the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Local Ordinances: HB 1515 (Rep. Brackett), a similar bill to SB 170E1 (Sen. Trumbull), was reported favorably by the House Civil Justice Subcommittee, on March 20 and by the House State of Affairs Committee, its last committee of reference, on March 23. It has been placed on the House Calendar on Second Reading. SB 170E1 was passed by the Senate on March 8 and is in 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 (Florida Building Code) and 663.202, F.S. (Florida Fire Prevention Code.)
The bill also amends s.125.66 and 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 provision 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 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.;
• Ordinances establishing or terminating, contracting, or expanding Community Development Districts under ss.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 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 66.0411, 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 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 is 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.
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
State Acquisition of Lands: CS/SB 1476 (Sen. Simon) was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, on March 20, and now moves to its second, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government.
The bill amends ss.253.025 and 570.715, F.S., to require, rather than authorize, the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to disclose appraisal reports to private landowners or their representatives during acquisition negotiations. It also requires private landowners and their representatives to maintain the confidentiality of such reports or information disclosed by these entities and requires final purchase price in certain options contracts for state land acquisitions and less than fee simple conservation easement acquisitions to be the fair market value as determined by the highest appraisal.
The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee amended the original bill language to restore a previously deleted provision that declared option contracts must state that the final purchase price is subject to approval by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Secretary of Environmental Protection as applicable.
HB 1271 (Rep. Canady), identical to SB 1476 as originally filed, is in its first of three committees of reference, the House Agriculture, Conservation & Resiliency Subcommittee.
Environmental Protection: CS/ SB 1632 (Sen. Brodeur), reflecting amendments made by the committee, was reported favorably by its first of 3 committees of reference, the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, on March 20, and now moves to its second, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government.
This bill is related to environmental protection. The major topics in this bill include wastewater treatment, onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDSs), sanitary sewer services, basin management action plans (BMAPs), the wastewater grant program, the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), and the acquisition of state lands. However, it does have provisions that impact local government comprehensive plans as follows:
• Amends ss.163.3177(3)(a), F.S., to include that, where applicable, the capital improvement schedule must include a list of projects necessary to achieve the pollutant load reduction attributable to the local government, as established in a basin management action plan pursuant to s.403.067(7).
o amends ss.163.3177(6)(c) to require that the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element addresses upgrade in treatment of facilities to meet future needs, and prioritize advanced waste treatment for increased capacity.
• Creates ss.163.3177(6) (C)(3) to require that in the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element, for any development of more than 50 residential lots, built or unbuilt, with more than one onsite sewage treatment and disposal system per one acre:
o the element must include a plan to provide sanitary sewer services within a 10- year planning horizon;
o an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is presumed to exist on a parcel if sanitary sewer services are not available at or adjacent to the parcel boundary;
o the plan must identify the name and location of the intended wastewater facility to receive sanitary sewer flows after connection; the capacity of the facility and any associated transmission facilities; the projected wastewater flow at that facility for the next 20 years, inclusive of expected future new construction and connections of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems to sanitary sewer; and a timeline for the construction of the sanitary sewer system; and
o each comprehensive plan must be updated to include this element by July 1, 2024. This does not apply to a local government designated as a rural area of opportunity.
HB 1379 (Rep. Steele), which contains language related to local comprehensive plans, is currently in its first of three committees of reference, the House Water Quality, Supply & Treatment Subcommittee. This bill contains similar requirements to the Senate bill but also requires that plans related to providing sanitary sewer services within a 10year planning horizon, described above, that are within a basin management action plan of an impaired waterbody, must be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection for review.
Everglades Protection Area: CS/CS/SB 192 (Sen. Avila) was reported favorably by its second of three committees of reference, the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, on March 20, and now moves to its third, the Senate Rules Committee.
The bill amends s.163.3184, F.S., to require that proposed plans and plan amendments by a county as defined in s.125.011(1) or any municipality located therein, that apply to any land within, or within two miles of, the Everglades Protection Area as defined in ss.373.4592 must follow the state-coordinated review process:
• The Department of Environmental Protection must determine whether the proposed plan or plan amendment by a county as defined in s.125.011(1), F.S., or any municipality located therein, or any portion thereof, will adversely impact the Everglades Protection Area or the Everglades restoration and protection objectives identified in s. 373.4592. DEP must issue a written determination to the Department of Economic Opportunity, the local government, and all federally recognized Indian tribes in the state within 30 days after receipt of the proposed plan or plan amendment. The determination must identify any adverse impacts and may be provided as part of DEP’s reviewing comment;
• Before adoption of the proposed plan or plan amendment, DEP must coordinate with DEO, the local government, and all federally recognized Indian tribes in the state to identify any planning strategies or measures that the local government could include in the proposed plan or plan amendment to eliminate or mitigate any adverse impacts to the Everglades Protection Area or the Everglades restoration and protection objectives identified in s. 373.4592, F.S.;
• If DEP determines that any portion of the proposed plan or plan amendment will adversely impact the Everglades Protection Area or the Everglades restoration and protection objectives identified in s.373.4592, F.S., the local government must modify that portion of the proposed plan or plan amendment to include planning strategies or measures to eliminate or mitigate such adverse impacts before adopting the proposed plan or plan amendment, or that portion of the proposed plan or plan amendment may not be adopted;
• During the review process for a plan amendment by a county as defined in s.125.011(1), F.S., or any municipality located therein, a local government may consider an application for a development permit or development order that is contingent upon the adoption of the plan amendment. (This was amended into the bill by the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.);
• Comprehensive plan amendments by a county as defined in s.125.011(1), F.S., or any municipality located therein that apply to any land within, or within two miles of, the Everglades Protection Area must be transmitted within 10 working days after the second public hearing to Department of Environmental Protection; and
• DEO’s compliance determination must be limited not only to the objections raised in the objections, recommendations, and comments report (consistent with existing law), but also a review of planning strategies or measures adopted pursuant to the new provision.
The bill further amends ss.163.3187, F.S., to:
• Clarify that text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, a small-scale future land use amendment must be site specific;
• Provide that property that is the subject of a small-scale amendment by a county as defined in s.125.011(1) or many municipalities located therein cannot be located in whole or in part within, or within two miles of, the Everglades Protection Area; and
• Provide that within 10 days after the adoption of a small-scale development amendment by a county as defined in s.125.011(1) or any municipality located therein, a county whose boundaries include any portion of the Everglades Protection Area as defined under state law, and the municipalities within the county, must transmit a copy of the amendment to DEO for recordkeeping purposes.
A similar bill, HB 175 (Rep. Busatta Cabrera), is in its first of 3 committees of reference, the House Agriculture, Conservation & Resiliency Subcommittee.
TRANSPORTATION
Tampa Bay Regional Transit Authority: CS/HB 155 (Rep. Holcomb), was moved favorably by its third of three committees of reference, the House Infrastructure Strategies Committee, and was passed during the House Special Order Calendar on March 24.
The bill repeals Chapter 343, Part III, F.S., relating to TBARTA. The bill dissolves TBARTA effective June 30, 2024. TBARTA must:
• Provide for the discharge of its liabilities. Any liabilities in excess of its assets will be assumed by each county represented on TBARTA’s board in proportion to what each county contributed to TBARTA in the 2021-2022 fiscal year;
• Settle and close its affairs, and transfer any pending activities, including, but not limited to, the administration of its vanpool program;
• Close and appropriately dispense any applicable federal or state grants or funds;
• Provide for the distribution of any remaining assets such that each county represented on TBARTA’s board receives an amount in proportion to what each county contributed to TBARTA in the 2021-2022 fiscal year;
• Provide written notice of final dissolution to the Department of Economic Opportunity and each entity represented on TBARTA’s board; and
• Forward its records to the Department of State upon final dissolution.
A similar bill, CS/SB 198 (Sen. DiCeglie), is now in its third of three committees of reference, the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Department of Transportation: CS/SB 1250 (Sen. DiCeglie) was reported favorably by its first of three committees, the Senate Transportation Committee, on March 20, and now moves to its second, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development.
This bill contains the Florida Department of Transportation’s 2023 legislative proposals. Among these proposals, the bill:
• Authorizes the FDOT to provide up to 100 percent of project costs for eligible intermodal logistics center projects in rural areas of opportunity. (This language was amended into the bill by the Senate Transportation Committee.);
• Creates subsection (10) of s. 332.007, F.S. to authorize FDOT, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, and unless otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act or the substantive bill implementing
the General Appropriations act, to fund at a publicly owned, publicly operated airport located in a rural community which does not have regularly scheduled commercial service:
o the capital cost of runway and taxiway projects that add capacity, prioritized based on the amount of available nonstate matching funds; and
o economic development transportation projects pursuant to s. 339.2821, F.S.
• The bill also amends s.341.052(1), F.S., to statutorily require provider transportation development plans to also be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with the long-range transportation plans of the metropolitan planning organization in which the provider is located.
HB 1305 (Rep. Abbott), which also reflects some of FDOT’s legislative priorities, is in its first of three committees of reference, the House Transportation & Modals Subcommittee.
Regional Transportation Planning: CS/SB 1532 (Sen. Burgess) was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the Senate Transportation Committee, on March 20, and is now in its second, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development.
The bill requires FDOT to conduct a study regarding the potential dissolution of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority. In the original bill language, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority was also to be in question and there was a potential merger of the two organizations in question, but the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority was deleted from the bill by the Senate Transportation Committee.
The bill requires that FDOT 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.
CS/HB 1367 (Rep. McClure), an identical bill, is in the House Infrastructure Strategies Committee, its second of three committees of reference.
Alternative Mobility Funding Systems: CS/ HB 235 (Rep. W. Robinson Jr.), reflecting amendments by the subcommittee, was reported favorably by its first of three committees of reference, the House Local Administration, Federal Affairs & Special Districts Subcommittee, on March 20 and now moves to its second, the House Ways & Means Committee.
The bill revises provisions concerning impact fees and concurrency and provides additional guidance concerning mobility fees. Specifically, it does the following:
• Creates subsections 32 and 33 of s.163.3164, F.S., to include the following definitions:
o “Mobility fee” means a local government fee schedule established by ordinance and based on the projects included in the local government’s adopted mobility plan; and
o “Mobility plan” means an integrated land use and alternative mobility transportation plan adopted into a local government comprehensive plan that promotes a compact, mixed use, and interconnected development served by a multimodal transportation system in an area that is urban in character as defined in s.171.031.
• Amends s.163.3180(5), F.S., to require that a proportionate share agreement must provide that after an applicant makes its contribution or constructs its proportionate share, the project shall be considered to have mitigated its transportation impacts and be allowed to proceed;
• Amends ss.163.31801,F.S., related to impact fees, to:
o require that the calculation of an impact fee be based on the most recent and localized data available within the previous 12 months before adoption of the impact fee;
o require that impact fees may be increased beyond the phased in limitations by establishing extraordinary impacts that show the need for the increase;
o define extraordinary impacts as effects of development that will require mitigation by the affected local government, school district, or special district in the next four years that will exceed the current
impact fee amount, together with any increase that is permissible under the four year phase-in provisions;
o require the demonstrated-need study to show that the projected population growth and in demand for the specific services funded by the impact fee will exceed the projected population growth and demand for those specific services statewide;
o maintain a requirement that two publicly noticed workshops to be dedicated solely to the extraordinary impacts justifying the increase to impact fees and adds an additional two properly noticed public meetings solely dedicated to the extraordinary impacts; and
o provide that in any administrative or judicial proceeding challenging an impact fee increase by a local government due to extraordinary impacts, the local government shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the local government justifiably relied upon the demonstrated need study in the process of increasing impact fees.
• Creates s.163.31803, F.S., to establish the method for adoption and implementation of a mobility plan as an alternative to transportation concurrency under s.163.3180 (5):
o provides that mobility plans adopted:
may include existing and emerging transportation technologies that reduce dependence on motor vehicle travel capacity.
may not be based solely on adding motor vehicle capacity.
must reflect modes of travel and emerging transportation technologies reducing reliance on motor vehicle capacity established in the local government’s comprehensive plan.
prohibit the imposition of a transportation impact fee or fee that is not a mobility-based fee within the area designated for a mobility fee.
must identify multimodal projects consisting of improvements, services, and programs which increase capacity needed to meet future travel demands.
o provides that mobility fees, fee updates, and fee increases must be based on the mobility plan, may not rely solely on motor vehicle capacity, and must be used exclusively to implement the mobility plan;
o requires mobility fees to be updated at least once within five years after the date the fee is adopted or updated. The bill provides that an annual inflation adjustment or any phased-in fee is not considered an update. Mobility fees that are not updated are void;
o provides that local governments adopting a mobility plan and mobility fee system for transportation mitigation must:
be based on an adopted mobility plan, if adopted after Sept. 1, 2023.
meet the requirements of impact fee.
be calculated using specified criteria.
o provides that the per person travel demand data that is included in the mobility plan must be focused on local travel data. Local governments may recognize reductions in per person travel demand for affordable housing and economic development projects;
o specifies that any calculation of per person travel demand must ensure that a new development or redevelopment is not assessed twice for the same transportation impact;
o provides that mobility fees that are collected for specific transportation mitigation improvements must be expended or committed for an identified project within six years after the date of collection or must be returned to the applicant who paid the fee;
o provides that local governments that issue building permits for development within the local government’s jurisdiction must develop a mobility fee based on the adopted mobility plan. Local governments must develop mobility fees based on the adopted mobility plan to ensure that the transportation impacts of the new development or redevelopment project are fully mitigated. Other local governments are prohibited from charging a new development or redevelopment for the same
travel demand, capacity, or improvements that have already been assessed by the governmental entity that issued the building permit;
o encourages local governments to coordinate with other affected local governments to identify multimodal projects, capacity improvements, full costs, and timing of improvements in mobility plans to address intra-jurisdictional and extra-jurisdictional impacts;
o provides that mobility fees, impact fees, and other transportation mitigation exaction other than the one assessed by the local government issuing the building permits must include the same benefit reductions in per person travel demand for affordable housing, economic development, urban areas, and mixed-use development;
o places the burden of proof on local governments adopting a mobility fee system or assessing a transportation exaction for intra-jurisdictional and extra-jurisdictional impacts to prove that the local government met the requirements provided by the bill. The burden of proof must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence and courts may not use a deferential standard for the benefit of the local government;
o provides that mobility fee credits must comply with the impact fee statute as to concurrency in any mode that creates equivalent capacity which is designated in a local government capital improvements list;
o provides that holders of transportation or road impact fee credits granted under s. 163.3180 or 380.06, F.S., along with other provisions, which existed before the adoption of the mobility feebased funding system, is entitled to the full benefit of the intensity and density prepaid by the credit balance as of the date it was first established; and
o provides that payment by a development of the authorizing local government’s adopted mobility fee is deemed to fully mitigate the development’s full transportation impacts.
SB 350 (Sen. Brodeur), a similar bill, is in the Senate Community Affairs Committee, its first of four committees.
NEWS CLIPS
Fight over Enterprise Florida, VISIT FLORIDA back as House budget cuts both
Florida Politics | March 22
Bill to protect neglected African-American cemeteries in Florida moves forward in the House WMNF | March 21
Jason Brodeur environmental protection package takes aim at septic tanks
Florida Politics | March 20
DeSantis Turns Heads with Comment that Citizens Insurance ‘Not Solvent;’ Board Approves Cat Bond Insurance Journal | March 20
Senate budgets billions in further relief after Hurricanes Ian, Nicole
Florida Politics | March 23
St. Pete city council approves zoning changes, allowing for more multi-family units
BayNews 9 | March 24
Senate budget slots $3.3 billion for DEP, just over $470M for FWC
Florida Politics | March 23
Florida legislators keep us in the dark about allowing developers to light up the night
Florida Phoenix | March 23