2025 Legislative Session Final Report

2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

DEAR CITY OFFICIAL:

We are pleased to provide you with the Florida League of Cities’ 2025 Legislative Session Final Report. The report summarizes key legislation that the League tracked during this year’s session. It is important to note that the report includes only a partial list of the 1,989 bills that were filed during the session. Out of these bills, only 269 bills were passed by both chambers and presented to the Governor.

Looking ahead, many issues that did not advance this year are expected to return in 2026. Staying actively engaged in legislative advocacy throughout the year is more important than ever. We encourage you to maintain regular communication with members of your local legislative delegation. These ongoing conversations are vital to the League’s advocacy efforts and help build a strong foundation for success in the upcoming 2026 Legislative Session. Legislative committees will begin meeting this Fall, with the 60-day session set to convene on January 13, 2026.

If you have any questions or require additional information on these bills or any other bills, please don’t hesitate to contact the League’s Legislative Affairs team at 850.222.9684.

Thank you for your continuous support of the Florida League of Cities and our mission of local voices making local choices.

Respectfully,

Michael C. Blake, President Mayor, City of Cocoa

Jeannie Garner Executive Director/CEO

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

PRESIDENT

Michael C. Blake, Mayor, Cocoa

FIRST VICE PRESIDENT

Holly D. Smith, Vice Mayor, Sanibel

SECOND VICE PRESIDENT

Mark Franks, Mayor, Shalimar

DISTRICT DIRECTORS

(1) William Schaetzle, Councilman, Niceville

(1) J.B. Whitten, Mayor, Crestview (2) Rufus Borom, Commissioner, Palatka (2) Thomas DeVille, Council Member, Penney Farms

(3) Chris Cloudman, Mayor, DeLand

(3) Nancy Miller, Mayor, Daytona Beach Shores

(4) Diana Adams, Councilmember, West Melbourne

(4) Sarah Stoeckel, Councilmember, Titusville

(5) Louie Davis, Mayor, Waldo

(5) Cal Rolfson, Councilmember, Mount Dora

(6) John Dowless, Mayor, Edgewood

(6) Joseph McMullen, Commissioner, Oakland (6) Rosemary Wilsen, Commissioner, Ocoee

(7) Dorothea Taylor Bogert, Mayor, Auburndale (7) Morris West, Vice Mayor, Haines City

(8) Thomas Reid, Commissioner, South Pasadena

(8) Trish Springer, Councilor, Seminole

(9) Ed Dodd, Mayor, Sebastian

(10) Brian Williams, Commissioner, Palmetto

(11) Joanne Ribble, Vice Mayor, Estero (12) Jeff Hmara, Mayor, Royal Palm Beach

(12) J.P. O’Connor, Mayor, Westlake

(12) Chelsea Reed, Councilmember, Palm Beach Gardens

(12) Molly Young, Mayor, Tequesta

(13) Felicia Brunson, Mayor, West Park (13) Traci L. Callari, Commissioner, Hollywood (13) Joyce Davis, Commissioner, Dania Beach

(13) Todd Drosky, Commissioner, Deerfield Beach (13) Denise Horland, Councilmember, Plantation

(13) Henry Mead, Vice Mayor, Weston (13) Susan Starkey, Councilwoman, Davie (14) Joseph Corradino, Mayor, Pinecrest (14) Karyn Cunningham, Mayor, Palmetto Bay (14) Rodney Harris, Mayor, Miami Gardens

(14) Omarr C. Nickerson, Mayor, El Portal

10 MOST POPULOUS CITIES

Rahman Johnson, Ph.D., Council Member, Jacksonville

Damian Pardo, Commissioner, Miami

Luis Viera, Councilman, Tampa

Robert Stuart, Commissioner, Orlando

Copley Gerdes, Vice Chair, St. Petersburg

Vacancy, Hialeah

Stephanie Morgan, Councilwoman, Port St. Lucie

Dianne Williams-Cox, Commissioner, Tallahassee

John Gunter, Mayor, Cape Coral

Dean Trantalis, Mayor, Fort Lauderdale

PAST PRESIDENTS

Scott Black, Mayor, Dade City

Joy Cooper, Mayor, Hallandale Beach

Pat Bates, Mayor, Altamonte Springs

Leo E. Longworth, Commissioner, Bartow

Isaac Salver, Mayor, Bay Harbor Islands

Tony Ortiz, Commissioner, Orlando

Jolien Caraballo, Vice Mayor, Port St. Lucie

FCCMA EX-OFFICIO MEMBER

Michael Pleus, City Manager, DeLand

FLC EXECUTIVE STAFF

Jeannie Garner, Executive Director/CEO

Eric Hartwell, General Counsel

Maclain Benton, Chief Financial Officer

Casey Cook, Chief of Legislative Affairs

Chris Krepcho, Chief of Insurance and Financial Affairs

Jenna Tala, Chief of Strategy and External Affairs

Michaela Metcalfe, Board Relations Administrator

LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM

PRIORITIES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS legislation that allows for a collaborative approach that balances the pressing needs for affordable and workforce housing while respecting the ability of local governments to effectively manage growth to ensure developments align with the character, capabilities and resources of each community.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS legislation that ensures all vehicles, regardless of fuel type, contribute fairly to the funding of Florida’s transportation infrastructure, which will allow cities to maintain safe and reliable roads for all residents.

ENTERPRISE FUND TRANSFERS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL SURCHARGES

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS preserving municipal authority over utility revenues and the ability to realize a reasonable rate of return on utility assets. Legislation should honor current practices, existing contracts, utility operation and maintenance costs, service territory obligations and revenues obligated for debt service and planned projects.

PROPERTY TAXES

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS the levy of property taxes by municipalities to provide critical services such as infrastructure, police, fire and emergency services. Further changes or exemptions to the property tax system and tangible personal property taxes would create inequities and unfairly shift the tax burden onto families, homeowners, renters, businesses and our most vulnerable population.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS preserving reasonable sovereign immunity liability caps for municipal governments to protect taxpayer funds and ensure delivery of public services.

POLICY POSITIONS

ANNEXATION

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS legislation that facilitates the municipal annexation of unincorporated areas in a manner that respects municipal boundaries, protects private property rights and encourages cooperation between municipal and county governments.

IMPACT FEES

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS protecting municipal authority to set impact fees that safeguard existing taxpayers from incurring additional infrastructure costs.

LOCAL BUSINESS TAXES

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS preserving municipal ability to collect local business taxes in order to foster economic growth, ensure public safety, deliver emergency services and drive community development.

ONE WATER

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS the state legislature’s endorsement of One Water policies that seek to enhance integration between different water systems while maintaining local flexibility.

PUBLIC SAFETY RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS legislation and funding to enhance recruitment and retention of municipal public safety personnel, which will help communities maintain effective emergency response and public safety services.

BILLS THAT PASSED

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Emergency Preparedness and Response (Opposed)

CS/CS/SB 180 (DiCeglie) makes a variety of changes relating to local and state emergency preparedness and response. Provisions of particular interest to local governments include the following:

▸ A local government that is participating in the National Flood Insurance Program may not adopt or enforce a “look back” ordinance for substantial improvements or repairs to a structure that includes a cumulative substantial improvement (CSI) period. The bill defines the CSI period as the period during which an aggregate of improvements or repairs is considered for purposes of determining substantial improvement. A lookback ordinance typically requires property owners to account for the cumulative value of past improvements or repairs made over a certain number of years when determining whether a structure meets the threshold for substantial improvement to prevent owners from breaking up major repairs into smaller projects over time to avoid triggering the FEMA 50% rule.

▸ Prohibits impact fees for the reconstruction or replacement of an existing structure if the replacement structure is the same land use as the original structure and does not increase the impact on public facilities beyond that of the original structure. If the replacement structure increases the impact on public facilities, any impact fee must be proportional to the difference in demand between the replacement structure and the original structure.

▸ Requires the Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM) to include in its biannual state comprehensive emergency management plan an update on the status of the emergency management capabilities of the state and its political subdivisions.

▸ Directs DEM to assist political subdivisions by developing a template for comprehensive emergency management plans and guiding the development of mutual aid agreements when requested.

▸ Mandates a continuous training program and authorizes DEM to specify requirements setting a minimum number of training hours

that must be completed biennially by municipal administrators, managers, emergency management directors, public works directors, or other officials responsible for the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure, in addition to the training required for county emergency management directors pursuant to section 252.38(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

▸ The bill requires DEM to conduct an annual hurricane readiness session by April 1 of each year in each region designated by DEM to facilitate coordination between all emergency management stakeholders. County emergency managers must, and other county and municipal personnel may, attend the session. The session must include, but is not limited to:

• Guidance on timelines for preparation and response

• Information on state and federal postdisaster resources and assistance

• Guidance to promote efficient and expedited rebuilding of the community after a hurricane

• Best practices for coordination and communication among entities engaged in post-disaster response and recovery

• Discussion of any outstanding county or municipal preparedness or readiness needs

▸ If the duration of a declared state of emergency issued by the Governor exceeds 90 days:

• All contracts executed by the Executive Office of the Governor or the appropriate agency before or during a declared state of emergency to secure resources or services must be posted on the secured contract tracking system

• DEM must provide an annual report to the Legislature on expenditures related to emergencies incurred over the year

▸ The heads of specified state agencies or their designated senior manager shall serve on a natural hazards risks and mitigation interagency coordinating group, which may provide recommendations for statutory changes and state and local hazard mitigation strategies. The bill prescribes composition, responsibilities, and meeting requirements for the interagency coordinating group.

▸ If DEM intends to apply for federal funds for a division-administered program that is new or

significantly different, it must notify the Legislature and include information on any estimated state match. In addition, DEM must take steps to maximize the availability and expedite the distribution of financial assistance from the federal government to state and local agencies.

▸ Each political subdivision shall notify DEM before May 1 of each year of the person designated as the emergency contact for the political subdivision and his or her alternate. The contact for each county is the county emergency management director.

▸ Counties and municipalities must post the following information on their publicly accessible websites:

• A frequently asked questions page related to emergency response, emergency preparedness, and public relief for residents following an emergency. The page must address evacuation, safety tips, generators, food and water, damage assessment, water safety, debris cleanup, FEMA assistance, and building recovery.

• A disaster supply list and list of emergency shelters

• Links to information about flood zones

• A checklist for residents explaining next steps to take during post-disaster recovery

• Information specific to persons with disabilities

▸ Counties and municipalities must develop a post-storm permitting plan to expedite recovery and rebuilding by providing special building permit and inspection procedures following a hurricane or tropical storm. The plan must be updated no later than May 1 annually and must, at a minimum:

• Ensure sufficient personnel are prepared and available to expeditiously manage post-disaster building inspection, permitting, and enforcement tasks

• Anticipate conditions that would necessitate supplemental personnel for such tasks and address methods for fulfilling such personnel needs, including through mutual aid agreements, arrangements with private sector contractors, or supplemental state or federal funding

• Include training requirements and protocols for supplemental personnel to ensure compliance with local floodplain management requirements that apply within the county or municipality

• Account for multiple or alternate locations where building permit services may be offered in person to the public during regular business hours

• Specify a protocol to expedite the permitting procedures and, if practicable, to waive or reduce applicable fees

• Identify the types of permits frequently requested following a hurricane or tropical storm, and methods to expedite the processing of such permits

• Specify procedures and resources necessary to promote expeditious debris removal

▸ Each county and municipality publish on its website annually by May 1 a hurricane and tropical storm recovery permitting guide for residential and commercial property owners that must describe:

• The types of post-storm repairs that require a permit and applicable fees

• The types of post-storm repairs that do not require a permit

• The post-storm permit application process and specific modifications the local government commonly makes to expedite the process, including physical locations where permitting services will be offered

• Local requirements for rebuilding specific to the county or municipality, including elevation requirements following substantial damage and substantial improvement pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and any local amendments to the building code

• As soon as practicable following a hurricane or tropical storm, a county or municipality within an area declared to be in a state of emergency must publish updates on its website with the information required above, specific to such storm, including any permitting fee waivers or reductions

▸ For 180 days after a state of emergency is declared for a hurricane or tropical storm, a county or municipality within the area for which the state of emergency is declared may not increase building permit or inspection fees.

▸ On or before May 1, 2026, each county and municipality must provide an online option for receiving, reviewing, and accessing substantial damage and substantial improvement letters. In addition, the local government must allow homeowners to provide an email address where they can receive digital copies of such letters.

▸ As soon as reasonably practicable after a storm, each county and municipality that has experienced a direct impact from such storm must use its best efforts to open a permitting office at which residents can access government services for at least 40 hours per week.

▸ DEM must provide an annual report to the Legislature that includes a list of facilities to be retrofitted using state funds. Funding should target counties with shelter deficits but should also prioritize other state, county, or municipalowned public buildings for retrofitting. In addition, the report shall include a statewide emergency shelter plan that projects shelter needs over the next five years, special needs shelters, and availability of shelters that accept pets.

▸ The bill revises the storm-generated debris management provisions of section 403.7071, as follows:

• To authorize and encourage local governments to add an addendum to existing contracts or franchise agreements to collect storm-generated debris

• To allow each county and municipality to apply to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for authorization of at least one debris management site and to annually seek preauthorization for any previously approved sites, as allowed by DEP

• A municipality may jointly apply for authorization of a debris management site with a county or at least one adjacent municipality if the parties develop and annually approve a memorandum of understanding clearly outlining the capacity and location of the site relative to each party

▸ By September 1, 2026, DEP must submit an annual Flood Inventory and Restoration Report to DEM. DEP must work with water management districts, local governments, and operators of public and private stormwater management systems to compile the necessary information for the report. Furthermore, DEP must review and update the report on a biannual basis. The report must include the following: identify priority infrastructure needs that may result in flooding or property damage; identify locations that have both historic flooding occurrences and the potential to flood from future storm events; a list of facilities prioritized for funding to address flooding issues; an inspection and maintenance schedule for infrastructure identified in the report; any

additional revisions based on storm event experience; and a revised list of facilities as new flooding events take place and new projects are implemented to alleviate infrastructure deficiencies that led to flood events. The owner of any priority infrastructure identified in the report must submit an inspection and maintenance schedule to DEP.

▸ The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) must conduct a study on actions taken by local governments after hurricanes related to comprehensive plans, land development regulations, and procedures for review, approval, or issuance of site plans, permits, or development orders. OPPAGA must make recommendations to the Legislature regarding options to remove impediments to the construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any property damaged by a hurricane and prevent the implementation by local governments of burdensome or restrictive procedures and processes. The OPPAGA report must be submitted to the Legislature by December 1, 2025.

▸ Restricts the ability of local governments to regulate land use and development following a hurricane. For one year after a hurricane makes landfall, local governments located entirely or partially within 100 miles of the storm’s track may not propose or adopt:

• A moratorium on construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment;

• More “restrictive or burdensome” comprehensive plan amendments or land development regulations; or

• A more restrictive or burdensome procedure concerning review, approval, or issuance of a site plan, development permit, or development order.

However, the local government may take such actions if:

• The associated application is initiated by a private party other than the impacted local government, and the property that is the subject of the application is owned by the initiating private party

• The proposed comprehensive plan amendment was submitted to reviewing agencies pursuant to section 163.3184 before landfall

• The proposed comprehensive plan amendment or land development regulation is approved by the state land planning agency pursuant to section 380.05

These restrictions may be enforced by any person through an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, which shall be entitled to the summary procedure in section 51.011. In addition, a local government may request a determination from a court of competent jurisdiction as to whether such action violates these provisions, but the local government may not enforce the action until the court has rendered a preliminary or final judgment. A plaintiff must notify the impacted local government before filing suit, and the local government has 14 days to withdraw, revoke, or declare the action void. A prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to fees and costs.

▸ The restrictions on more burdensome or restrictive local government regulations also apply retroactively to counties listed in federal disaster declarations for Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, as well as the municipalities within those counties. These affected jurisdictions may not impose construction moratoriums or adopt more burdensome or restrictive comprehensive plan amendments or land development regulations before October 1, 2027. However, an exception allows such amendments and regulations if initiated by a private party who owns the property in question. Any local regulations violating these provisions are considered void from the outset. The bill creates a cause of action for a person to challenge unlawful regulations or moratoriums, allowing a successful plaintiff to obtain injunctive relief and recover attorneys’ fees unless the local government withdraws the contested regulation within 14 days of receiving notice.

▸ Requires each contract for goods and services related to emergency response for a natural emergency entered, renewed, or amended after July 1, 2025, to include a provision that requires a vendor that breaches such contract during an emergency recovery period (the 1-year period following the emergency declaration) to pay a $5,000 penalty and damages.

▸ The Department of Commerce must conduct baseline modeling scenarios and gather data to determine the number of building permit allocations to be distributed in the Florida Keys Area based on the 24.5-hour hurricane evacuation clearance time provided in section 380.0552(9)(a), amended.

▸ Addresses the regulation of cranes during a hurricane as follows:

• Requires a hurricane preparedness plan for a tower crane or a mobile crane to be available for inspection at a worksite

• The controlling entity of the crane must ensure hoisting equipment is secured as specified in the bill no later than 24 hours before hurricane impacts are expected to begin

• The Florida Building Commission must establish best practices for the use of cranes during hurricane season and report its findings to the Legislature by December 2026

▸ Revises the definition of “renovated building” in the Florida Building Code to specify that if an alteration is a result of a natural disaster that is the subject of a state-declared emergency, the estimated cost of renovation must exceed 75% of the fair market value of the building before the disaster.

▸ Directs DEM, in consultation with local governments and state agencies, to develop recommendations for statutory changes necessary to streamline the permitting process for repairing and rebuilding structures damaged during natural emergencies. The report must be provided to the Legislature by July 2026. (Singer)

Effective date: Upon becoming law except as otherwise provided.

ENERGY

Utility Service Restrictions (Opposed)

CS/HB 1137 (Shoaf) expands a preemption in current law that prohibits a municipality or county from taking action that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the types or fuel sources of energy production that may be supplied, used, or delivered by a public utility or a natural gas transmission company, or a liquified petroleum gas dealer or dispenser. The preemption is expanded to apply to a “board, agency, commission, or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.” In addition, it prohibits rural electric cooperatives from taking action that restricts or prohibits the type or fuel sources of energy production or the use of appliances that use specified types or fuel sources of energy production. The bill also prohibits the Florida Building Commission and the State Fire Marshal from adopting any provision that prohibits or requires the installation of materials to facilitate the use

of more than one type of fuel source of energy production, except as specified. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

ETHICS AND ELECTIONS

Ethics (Monitored)

CS/SB 348 (Gaetz) prohibits candidates, elected public officers, appointed public officers, and public employees from knowingly misrepresenting their Armed Forces of the United States service records, awards, or qualifications. The bill also prohibits these individuals from wearing any uniform, medal, or insignia that they are not authorized to wear. In addition, the bill clarifies that a civil or restitution penalty under the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees is considered delinquent if the penalty has not been paid within 90 days of its imposition by the Commission on Ethics. It requires the Florida Attorney General to determine whether the individual owing the penalty is a current public officer or employee and, if so, to notify the appropriate governing body of the penalty owed. Upon receipt and verification of such notice from the Attorney General, the bill requires the appropriate governmental entity to begin withholding a specified percentage of salary payment until the fine is satisfied. The governmental entity may retain an additional amount to cover its administrative costs incurred. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to refer any unpaid penalty to the appropriate collection agency and to take any action to collect any unpaid penalty imposed within 20 years after the date the penalty is imposed. (O’Hara)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

FINANCE AND TAXATION

Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (Monitored)

CS/HB 1215 (Alvarez, D.) proposes an amendment to the Florida Constitution to exempt tangible personal property that meets the following requirements: 1) is habitually located or typically present on agricultural land; 2) used in the production of agricultural products or for agritourism activities; and 3) is owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the agricultural land. (Chapman)

Effective date: If approved by voters, it will first apply for assessments for tax years beginning July 1, 2027.

Taxation (Monitored)

HB 7031 ER (Ways & Means) is a comprehensive tax reform bill addressing various Florida statutes relating to tax and revenue. The following provisions are of note to municipalities:

▸ Affordable Housing Property Tax Exemption (owned by Not-for-Profits): Clarifies that owners of multifamily properties who currently receive a property tax exemption may continue to receive the exemption through an application process by either the current or successive owners of the property. Land that is assigned or subleased from a nonprofit entity to an extremely-low-income, very-low-income, low-income, or moderate-income person or persons as defined in section 420.0004, Florida Statutes, for such person’s or persons’ own use as affordable housing is exempt from ad valorem taxation.

▸ Affordable Housing Property Tax Exemption (Owned by the State): For properties owned by the state, if portions of said properties are used to provide 70 units of affordable housing to lowincome families as defined in section 420.0004, Florida Statutes, and the property is subject to restrictive uses by deed, then the property may be exempt from property taxes.

▸ Gold Seal Quality Certified Child Care Facilities: Provides that any portion of real property used by a child care facility that has achieved Gold Seal Quality status under section 1002.945, Florida Statutes, may qualify for an exemption from property taxes.

▸ Communication Services Tax (Local): The local rates are frozen until 2031 and each municipality must prioritize the use of these funds to ensure the timely review and processing of right-of-way permits for communications service providers pursuant to federal and state law.

▸ Business Rent Tax: This tax is eliminated by repeal of its governing law, section 212.031, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2025.

▸ Creation of the Rural Community Investment Program: For entities that have invested $100 million or more in Rural Areas of Opportunity as defined by section 288.0656, Florida Statutes, may receive a tax credit capped at $7 million if specific parameters are met, including but not limited to, job creation, or retention.

▸ Property Tax Study to Eliminate or Reduce Homestead Property Taxes: This study is to be conducted by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, addressing specific parameters, options, and market analysis. The report is due by November 1, 2025. (Chapman)

VETOED

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Administrative Procedures (Monitored)

CS/SB 108 (Grall) amends the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to agency rulemaking procedures. Some of the major changes include the following:

▸ Requires agencies to publish notice of intended agency action within 90 days after the effective date of the act granting rulemaking authority.

▸ Reinstates a requirement that an agency publish its notice of proposed rulemaking for at least 7 days before it may publish a notice of intended agency action.

▸ Establishes timeframes for an agency to propose rule language depending on whether the rule is required by the Legislature or permitted by the Legislature.

• If the Legislature requires rulemaking, an agency must publish a notice of rule development within 30 days of the effective date of the law and then publish a notice of proposed rule within 180 days.

• If the Legislature permits rulemaking, an agency is not required to issue a notice of rule development within a specified period of time.

▸ Revises the process for issuance of a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) and allows members of the public to request a workshop on the SERC.

▸ Requires all rules proposed after July 1, 2025, to have the full text of any materials incorporated by reference within the notice of proposed rulemaking and the notice of intended agency action.

▸ Limits the timeframe for legislative ratification of a proposed rule to one regular legislative session after the agency submits the rule for ratification. If the rule is not ratified, the agency must withdraw the rule. If rule adoption is required under the enabling statute, the agency must restart the rulemaking process.

▸ Revises the process for developing emergency rules and their duration. (O’Hara)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Anchoring Limitation Areas (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 481 (Lopez, V.) revises vessel anchoring and mooring requirements within Miami-Dade County. It authorizes Miami-Dade County or a municipality within the county to regulate the anchoring and mooring of vessels anchored for a period of 1 hour or more after sunset and before sunrise for more than 30 days in any 6-month period. It also revises anchoring limitation areas within the County. (Singer)

Effective date: Upon becoming law.

Disposition of Migrant Vessels (Monitored)

CS/SB 830 (Rodriguez) revises current law relating to the requirements that a law enforcement agency must follow for relocation or removal of derelict vessels to include migrant vessels. It defines the term “migrant vessel” and further authorizes a law enforcement agency or its designee to remove such vessel from state waters and destroy and disposal of the vessel. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Regulation of Presidential Libraries (Monitored)

SB 118 (Brodeur) preempts to the state all regulatory authority over the establishment, maintenance, activities, and operations of presidential libraries, as defined in the bill. It prohibits municipalities, counties, or other political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, rule, or other measure regarding presidential libraries unless authorized by federal law. (Wagoner)

Effective date: Upon becoming law.

Vessel Accountability (Monitored)

CS/SB 164 (Rodriguez) revises current law relating to vessel ownership, nuisance and derelict vessels, and anchoring and mooring practices. The bill deletes the definition of “owner” and replaces it with a definition for “vessel owner.” With respect to derelict vessels, the bill authorizes a law enforcement officer to require a test of a vessel’s means of propulsion to be conducted immediately if the owner or operator is present on the vessel. If the owner or operator is not present, the owner or operator must conduct the test in the presence of a law enforcement officer within 48 hours of receiving notice.

With respect to anchoring, the bill:

▸ Requires, beginning January 1, 2026, vessel owners to obtain a long-term, no-cost anchoring permit when engaging in long-term anchoring. “Long-term anchoring” means anchoring a vessel within 1 linear nautical mile of a documented anchorage point for 14 days or more within a 30day period.

▸ Specifies information that must be provided in a long-term anchoring permit application. Such permits expire 1 year after issuance. A permit may be revoked if the permitted vessel is derelict, at risk of becoming derelict, or is operated in violation of marine sanitation laws. A permit is not required if a vessel is docked at a public or private dock or moored to a permitted mooring buoy.

▸ Specifies that certain vessels are exempt from the long-term anchoring permit requirement and specifies that the long-term anchoring permit requirements do not supersede any other anchoring limitations established pursuant to law.

The bill provides the following noncriminal violations may be enforced by a uniform boating citation mailed to the registered owner of an unattended vessel anchored, aground, or moored on state waters: operating, using or storing a vessel with an expired registration on state waters; and anchoring a vessel within 1 linear nautical mile of a documented anchorage point for 14 or more days in a 30-day period without a long-term anchoring permit. The bill modifies current law relating to when a vessel will be declared a public nuisance to extend the time during which the violations occur from 18 to 24 months. It specifies penalties for violating long-term anchoring requirements and provides that a vessel subject to three or more violations of long-term anchoring requirements without a permit within a 24-month period must be declared a public nuisance. The bill provides the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or law enforcement officer may remove public nuisance vessels from waters of the state and will not be held responsible for damages to the vessel unless the damages result from gross negligence or willful misconduct.

It specifies that the title of a derelict vessel is prima facie evidence of ownership, and that an owner will not be exonerated from the responsibility of having

a derelict vessel if the owner fails to follow the statutory procedures for transfer of ownership of a vessel. It also prohibits a person from residing on a vessel determined to be derelict. In addition, the bill expands the scope of FWC’s derelict vessel removal and disposal grant program to include prevention. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025, except as otherwise provided.

Vessels (Monitored)

CS/SB 1388 (Trumbull) addresses vessel regulation by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The bill also includes a preemption entitled the “Watercraft Energy Source Freedom Act.” As defined in the bill, the term “energy source” means any source of energy used to power a watercraft (boats and personal watercraft). It prohibits a state agency, local government, or governmental entity from restricting the use or sale of a watercraft based on the energy source used to power the watercraft. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Water Access Facilities (Monitored)

HB 735 (Brackett) provides for sovereign submerged land leases for Clean Marine Manufacturer facilities and provides for competitive grant programs for the construction and maintenance of publicly owned parking for boat-hauling vehicles and trailers. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

HEALTH/HEALTH CARE

Fentanyl Testing (Monitored)

CS/HB 1195 (Harris) requires hospitals or hospitalbased off-campus emergency departments providing care for a possible drug overdose or poisoning to include testing for fentanyl in any urine test that is administered. If the test is positive for fentanyl, a confirmation test must be performed. The test results must be retained as part of the patient’s clinical record. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

LAND USE, BUILDING, AND DEVELOPMENT

Affordable Housing (Opposed)

CS/CS/SB 1730 (Calatayud) revises the land use policy provisions within the Live Local Act, subsections 125.01055(7) and 166.04151(7), Florida Statutes. It also amends the optional municipal and county affordable housing provisions of sections 125.01055(6) and 166.01055(6), Florida Statutes.

The bill authorizes, but does not require, a municipality or county to authorize an affordable housing development on any parcel, including any contiguous parcel, owned by a religious institution and containing a house of worship, regardless of the underlying zoning. At least 10% of the units of such development must be affordable.

The bill includes “any flexibly-zoned area” permitted for commercial, industrial, or mixed-use (such as a planned unit development) in the list of zoning categories in which a Live Local Act project may be located. Specifically, it authorizes a Live Local Act project in portions of such areas that are permitted for commercial, industrial, or mixed-use. The bill specifies that a local government may not require a Live Local Act project to obtain a density transfer or amendment to a development of regional impact. In addition, it prohibits a local government from requiring more than 10% of the total square footage of mixed-use residential projects to be used for non-residential purposes.

The bill specifies that a local government may not restrict the height of a proposed Live Local Act project below the highest currently allowed or allowed on July 1, 2023, for a building located within one mile of the project. The bill also adds the date of July 1, 2023, to the density and floor area ratio provisions in current law. It specifies the term “floor area ratio” includes floor lot ratio and lot coverage.

The bill also addresses proposed developments on parcels with a contributing structure or building within a historic district listed in the National Register of Historic Places before January 2000, or on parcels with a structure or building individually listed in the National Register. For such developments, the bill authorizes a county or municipality to restrict the height of a proposed development to the highest currently allowed, or allowed on July 1, 2023, height for a commercial or residential building located in its jurisdiction within ¾ mile of the proposed development, or 3 sto-

ries, whichever is higher. The term “highest currently allowed” in this paragraph includes the maximum height allowed for any building in a zoning district, irrespective of any conditions. A county or municipality must administratively approve the demolition of an existing structure associated with such a development if the proposed demolition otherwise complies with all state and local regulations. If the proposed development is on a parcel with a contributing structure or building or is on a parcel with a structure or building individually listed as described above, the county or municipality may administratively require the proposed development comply with local regulations relating to architectural design, provided it does not affect height, floor area ratio, or density of the proposed development.

The bill specifies that Live Local Act projects are subject to administrative approval by a local government, without further action required by the governing body or any quasi-judicial or administrative board or reviewing body, if the development satisfies the local government’s land development regulations for multifamily uses and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

If requested by an applicant, a local government must reduce parking requirements by at least 15% if the project is within ¼ mile of a transit stop, within ½ mile of a major transit hub, and parking is available within 600 feet of the project. The bill authorizes a local government to permit an adjacent parcel of land to be included within a proposed multi-family development authorized under the Live Local Act. It excludes the Wekiva Study Area and the Everglades Protection Area from the Live Local Act.

The bill directs courts to give priority to civil actions filed against a local government for violation of subsections 125.01055(7) or 166.04151(7) and specifies that fees and costs must be awarded to a prevailing party in such action, not to exceed $250,000. It defines the terms “commercial use,” “industrial use,” and “mixed-use.” It excludes homebased businesses, cottage food operations, and vacation rentals from the definition of “commercial.” It also excludes from the definitions of “commercial,” “industrial,” and “mixed-use” uses that are accessory, temporary, ancillary, or incidental to the allowable uses. Also excluded from these definitions are recreational uses, such as golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, and clubhouses, within an area designated for residential use.

The bill prohibits a municipality or county from imposing a building moratorium that has the effect of delaying the permitting or construction of a Live Local Act project, except as specified. It authorizes a local government to impose such a moratorium by ordinance for no more than 90 days in any threeyear period. Before adopting such a moratorium, the local government must prepare an assessment of the governmental entity’s need for affordable housing. The assessment must be posted on the local government’s website and included in the local government’s business impact estimate for the moratorium ordinance. It requires a court to award attorney fees and costs to a prevailing party, not to exceed $250,000, in an action brought for a violation of the moratorium requirements. The bill exempts moratoria imposed to address flooding, stormwater management, necessary repair of sanitary sewer, or unavailability of potable water if such moratoria apply equally to all types of multifamily or mixed-use residential development.

Beginning November 1, 2026, the bill requires municipalities and counties to provide an annual report to the Department of Economic Opportunity that includes the following for the previous fiscal year: a summary of any litigation involving the Live Local Act; a list of Live Local projects approved or proposed (including size, density, intensity, number of units, number of affordable units and associated household income). The Department must submit the aggregated reported information to the Governor and Legislature annually.

The bill authorizes an applicant for a proposed development with an application submitted prior to July 1, 2025, to notify the county or municipality of its intent to proceed under the Live Local Act as it existed at the time of application or its intent to submit a revised application to proceed under the Live Local Act as revised by the bill.

It creates section 420.5098, Florida Statutes, to establish legislative intent to support the development of affordable workforce housing for employees of hospitals, health care facilities, and governmental entities, using federal low-income housing tax credits, local or state funds, or other sources of funding to create a preference for housing for such employees. (O’Hara)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Annexing State-owned Lands (Monitored)

CS/CS/SB 384 (Burton) requires a municipality seeking to annex state-owned lands to notify each member of the legislative delegation of the county in which the land is located when the advertisement for the first public hearing is published. (Cruz)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Certified Recovery Residences (Monitored)

CS/CS/CS/SB 954 (Gruters) requires each county and municipality to adopt an ordinance by January 1, 2026, establishing procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences. The ordinance must include a process for requesting reasonable accommodation from any local land use regulation that serves to prohibit the establishment of a certified recovery residence. At a minimum, the ordinance must:

▸ Be consistent with the Fair Housing Act.

▸ Establish a written application process for reasonable accommodation.

▸ Require the local government to date-stamp an application upon receipt and notify the applicant in writing within 30 days if additional information is needed.

▸ Require the local government to issue a final written determination on the application within 60 days after receipt of a completed application. The determination must approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request with specific objective, evidence-based reasons, and identify any deficiencies or actions necessary for reconsideration.

▸ Provide that if a final written determination is not issued within 60 days, the request is deemed approved unless the parties agree otherwise.

▸ Require the application include specified information.

▸ The ordinance may not require public hearings beyond the minimum required by law, and it may include provisions for revoking the grant of an accommodation for cause. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Condominium and Cooperative Associations (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 913 (Lopez, V.) is a lengthy bill that addresses oversight and accountability of condominium associations and provides additional flexibility with respect to critical repairs

and maintenance. The bill imposes additional responsibilities upon local governments regarding milestone inspections for condominium and cooperative buildings. It requires, rather than authorizes, municipalities and counties to adopt ordinances mandating that condominium and cooperative associations—and any other property owners subject to milestone inspection requirements—begin repairs for substantial structural deterioration within 365 days of receiving a phase two inspection report. Under current law, if a building owner fails to submit proof to the local enforcement agency that repairs have been scheduled or have commenced within the required timeframe, the local enforcing agency must review and determine if the building is unsafe for human occupancy. The bill also requires local enforcement agencies to submit milestone inspection data to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) by December 1, 2025, and annually thereafter. The required data includes the number of buildings subject to inspections, completed inspections, extensions granted, permits issued, buildings deemed unsafe, and identifying information for the building code administrator. DBPR must forward this data to the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA). The bill authorizes OPPAGA to request additional information directly from local agencies and directs OPPAGA to provide a report on the data to the Legislature. In addition, the bill revises the requirements for milestone inspections to apply to condominium and cooperative buildings that are three habitable stories or more in height instead of three or more stories under current law. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Construction Regulations (Opposed)

CS/CS/CS/HB 683 (Griffitts) addresses the regulation of synthetic turf, public construction, building permits, and the use of private providers for certain plan reviews and inspections. With respect to synthetic turf, the bill:

▸ Requires the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to adopt minimum standards by rule for the installation of synthetic turf on single-family residential properties one acre or less in size. The standards must consider material type, permeability, stormwater management, potable water conservation, water quality, proximity to trees and other

vegetation, and other factors impacting the environmental conditions of adjacent properties.

▸ Upon the adoption of such standards by DEP, the bill prohibits local governments from prohibiting a property owner from installing synthetic turf that complies with DEP’s standards in singlefamily residential areas one acre or less in size.

▸ A local government may not regulate synthetic turf on such properties in a manner that is inconsistent with DEP’s standards.

With respect to public construction, the bill:

▸ Requires a local government that issues a change order to act within a specified timeframe after receiving a price quote from the contractor. The local government has 35 days to approve or deny a price quote and send written notice of its decision to the contractor. If the local government denies the price quote, it must specify the alleged deficiencies and the actions necessary to remedy the deficiencies.

▸ Specifies that if a local government fails to meet these requirements, the price quote is “deemed approved” and the local government will be liable to the contractor for all overhead associated with the change order.

▸ Specifies that a contract between a local government and a contractor may not alter the local government’s duties under section 218.755, Florida Statutes.

▸ Prohibits a local government, when scoring bids for a public works project, from penalizing a bidder for performing a larger volume or rewarding a bidder for performing a smaller volume of construction work.

With respect to building permits, the bill:

▸ Prohibits a local enforcing agency from requiring the submission of a contract between a builder and an owner, any copies of such contract, or any associated documents, including, but not limited to, letters of intent, material cost lists, labor costs, or overhead profit statements, for the issuance of a building permit or as a requirement for the submission of a building permit application.

▸ Revises the definition of “single-trade inspection” and adds “single-trade plans review” within the definition to include any inspection or plans review focused on a single construction trade. “Solar energy and energy storage installations or alterations” are also included within this definition.

▸ Authorizes a private provider to use any automated or software-based plans review system to determine compliance with one or more applicable codes for a single-trade plans review.

▸ Requires a local building official to issue a requested permit to a private provider for singletrade plans review for single-family or twofamily dwellings no more than five days after receipt of the permit application. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Education (Opposed)

CS/CS/HB 443 (Snyder) amends current law relating to charter schools. It amends section 163.3180(4), Florida Statutes, to specify that a charter school is a public facility for purposes of concurrency requirements. (Cruz)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Education (Opposed)

CS/CS/CS/HB 1105 (Kincart Jonsson) is a lengthy education bill that contains several provisions of note for local governments. First, the bill requires any interlocal agreement for distribution of local government infrastructure surtax proceeds that includes a school district to require the surtax revenues allocated to the school district to be shared with eligible charter schools. Second, it authorizes a municipality seeking to attract job-producing entities by establishing a job engine charter school to apply to the district school board to convert an existing public school to a charter school. Third, the bill specifies that in counties with exactly four incorporated municipalities (Clay, Sarasota, and Bradford counties), private schools may construct new temporary or permanent facilities on certain properties, such as those previously used by churches, libraries, museums, or child care centers, without the need for a rezoning, special exception, land use change, or any mitigation requirement. The private school must comply with applicable state and local health and safety codes. (Cruz)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Education (Opposed)

CS/CS/HB 1255 (Trabulsy) is a lengthy education bill that contains two preemptions impacting municipalities and counties. The first preemption in the bill relates to charter schools. It provides that if a charter school meets the requirements

of state law, the municipality or county must administratively approve the school’s site plan or development application. In addition, it prohibits municipalities and counties from requiring charter schools to obtain a special exception or conditional use approval to be considered an allowable use under the local government land development code. Additionally, it prohibits a municipality or county from enforcing conditions—such as limits on the number of students or teachers, hours of operation, or recreation space—unless those conditions are uniformly applied to all public schools and the charter school is located on a site with a previously approved development order that includes such conditions. With respect to private schools, the bill specifies that in counties with exactly four incorporated municipalities (Clay, Sarasota, and Bradford counties), private schools may construct new temporary or permanent facilities on certain properties, such as those previously used by churches, libraries, museums, or child care centers, without the need for a rezoning, special exception, land use change, or any mitigation requirement. The private school must comply with applicable state and local health and safety codes. (Cruz)

Effective date: July 1, 2025, except as otherwise specified.

Fire Prevention (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 551 (Borrero) revises the simplified permitting process in section 553.7932, Florida Statutes, for certain fire alarms and fire sprinkler system projects. The bill requires local governments to establish by October 1, 2025, a simplified permitting process that complies with the minimum requirements of the Florida Building Code’s simplified permitting process for fire alarm or sprinkler system projects of 20 or fewer alarm devices or sprinklers. The bill amends the current law to simplify the process. It requires a local enforcement agency to issue a permit within 2 business days after submission of a completed application and authorizes a contractor to begin work immediately after submission of a completed application before the local enforcement agency issues the permit. The bill provides that a local enforcement agency must provide an inspection within 3 business days after the inspection is requested. The bill provides for a refund of a percentage of the permit fee for each business day the local government fails to comply with deadlines for issuing permits or completing inspections, with specified exceptions.

The bill modifies provisions relating to a contractor’s requirement to make fire alarm project plans and specifications available to the inspector and prohibits the local enforcement agency from requiring documentation for areas or devices outside the scope of permitted work. The bill revises the definitions of “fire alarm system project” and “fire sprinkler system project” to clarify when the simplified permitting process applies to alterations of such systems. The bill revises the information required to be included in a uniform summary inspection report for fire protection system and hydrant inspections to require deficiencies to be separated into critical and noncritical categories and to include a brief description of impairment deficiencies. The contractor’s detailed inspection report must be submitted with the uniform summary inspection report.

The bill specifies a county or municipality may only enforce an ordinance providing for a local amendment to the Florida Fire Prevention Code if the ordinance was transmitted to the Florida Building Commission and the State Fire Marshal as of the date the permit was submitted. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Local Government Land Development Regulation (Opposed)

CS/SB 1080 (McClain) revises timeframes in sections 125.022 and 166.033, Florida Statutes, for counties and municipalities to process applications for approvals of development permits or development orders, and requires the local governments to issue certain refunds for failure to meet the timeframes. The bill requires counties and municipalities to specify in writing the information that must be submitted in an application for zoning approval, rezoning approval, subdivision approval, certification, special exception, or variance. The bill requires counties and municipalities to confirm receipt of an application for a development permit or order within five days. The bill does not otherwise change current law timeframes for review and action on a development permit or development order. It requires the statutory timeframes to restart if an applicant makes a substantive change to an application, which is defined as a change of 15% or more in the proposed density, intensity, or square footage of a parcel. The bill requires counties and municipalities to issue refunds ranging from 10 to 100% of the application fee for failure to meet the existing statutory timeframes.

The bill also prohibits school districts from imposing any fee in lieu of an impact fee unless such fee meets the requirements of section 163.31801(4)(f) and (g), Florida Statutes. It further provides that in any action challenging such fee, the school district has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent.

The bill modifies section 553.80(7)(a), Florida Statutes, relating to enforcement of the Florida Building Code by specifying that fees used for carrying out the local government’s responsibilities for enforcing the Florida Building Code include any process or enforcement related to obtaining or finalizing a building permit.

The bill revises section 163.31801(6), Florida Statutes, relating to impact fees and the circumstances under which an impact fee rate may be increased beyond the phase-in limitations established in the statute. It provides that the impact fee increase ordinance in such cases must be approved unanimously, and that the increase must be implemented in at least two but not more than four annual increments. In addition, a local government may not increase an impact fee beyond the phase-in limitations if the local government has not increased the impact fee within the past 5 years, excluding any year in which the local government is prohibited from increasing an impact fee because the jurisdiction is in a hurricane disaster area. (O’Hara)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

Platting (Opposed)

CS/CS/CS/SB 784 (Ingoglia) amends section 177.071, Florida Statutes, to require that plat or replat submittals be reviewed and approved administratively. A county or municipal governing body must designate an administrative authority to review, process, approve, approve with conditions, or deny the submittal. The appropriate governing body’s designee has 7 days from receipt of the application to acknowledge the application, provide information regarding the plat approval process, identify any missing information in the application, and inform the applicant of applicable timeframes for reviewing, approving, or processing the application. Unless the applicant requests an extension of time, the administrative authority shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the submittal within the timeframe identified in the

written notice. If the submittal is not approved, the administrative authority must notify the applicant in writing of the specific reasons, with citations, for the denial. The administrative authority may not request or require the applicant to file a written extension of time. The bill also makes conforming changes to section 177.111, Florida Statutes. (O’Hara)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Unlawful Demolition of Historical Buildings and Structures (Supported)

SB 582 (Leek) authorizes a code enforcement board or special magistrate to impose increased fines for the demolition of a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or that is a contributing resource to a National Register-listed district. The demolition must have been knowing and willful, not permitted, and not the result of a natural disaster. The fine may not exceed 20% of the fair or just market valuation of the property before demolition. (Cruz)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC LAND

Beaches (Supported)

CS/SB 1622 (Trumbull) repeals current law, section 163.035, Florida Statutes, relating to the establishment of recreational customary use of beaches. The bill also addresses beach restoration projects in counties located adjacent to the Gulf of America with at least three municipalities and an estimated population of less than 275,000. For these counties, the erosion control line shall be the mean high-water line as determined by a survey conducted by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. In addition, if an erosion control line has not been established for a critically eroded shoreline, it directs the Board to adopt the erosion control line by resolution. It authorizes the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for any area designated by the Department as critically eroded. It specifies that certain beach restoration projects do not require a public easement and that any additions to property seaward of the erosion control line that result from the restoration project remain state sovereignty lands. (Singer)

Effective date: Upon becoming law.

Brownfields (Supported)

CS/HB 733 (Anderson) revises current law related to brownfield rehabilitation. The bill eliminates the requirement for property owners to provide information about institutional controls for mapping by local governments and removes such mapping responsibilities for local governments. The bill expands the eligibility for brownfield program participation, introduces specific provisions for brownfield areas proposed by specified persons, and details criteria for local government designation responsibilities. The bill allows Superfund sites to enter the Florida Brownfields program prior to meeting certain conditions. The bill also addresses certain barriers to obtaining “No Further Action” status for brownfield sites to facilitate the rehabilitation of portions within larger contaminated areas. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Farm Products (Monitored)

HB 211 (Cobb) provides the collection, storage, processing, and distribution of a farm product is an activity of a bona fide farm operation that a governmental entity may not restrict or regulate. The bill revises the definition of “farm product” to include plants and plant products, regardless of whether such plants and plant products are edible or nonedible. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Geoengineering and Weather Modification Activities (Monitored)

CS/CS/SB 56 (Garcia) repeals various statutes relating to geoengineering and weather modification activities and prohibits any person, or a public or private corporation from releasing a chemical or substance into the atmosphere for the express purpose of affecting the weather, temperature, climate, or intensity of sunlight. In addition, the bill requires the operators of public airports to report monthly to the Department of Transportation the presence of any aircraft or infrastructure on airport property equipped with any device that may be used to engage in the activities prohibited by the bill. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Permits for Drilling, Exploration, and Extraction of Oil and Gas Reserves (Monitored)

HB 1143 (Shoaf) prohibits drilling, exploration, or production of petroleum products in counties designated as rural areas of opportunity if the proposed site is within 10 miles of a national estuarine research reserve. It requires the Department of Environmental Protection to consider specific factors when determining whether natural resources of certain bodies of water and shore areas are adequately protected from potential accident or blowout and requires the agency to balance the measures in place to protect the natural resources with the potential harm to the natural resources. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

OTHER

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Opposed)

CS/CS/CS/SB 700 (Truenow) revises current law relating to the duties and authority of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). The bill includes the following provisions of interest to local governments:

▸ Prohibits the operation of drones on agricultural land, private property, and state hunting lands with specified exceptions. A later section of the bill amends section 934.50, Florida Statutes relating to searches and seizure using a drone, to authorize a local government to use a drone for the purpose of managing and eradicating plant or animal diseases or activities consistent with chapters 369, 388, and 487, Florida Statutes.

▸ Requires land owned or acquired by an electric utility that has been classified as agricultural land at any time in the 5 years preceding the acquisition of the land by the utility to be offered to FDACS for fee simple acquisition before offering the land for sale or transfer.

▸ Revises provisions relating to FDACS’s regulation of electric vehicle charging stations and requires local governments to issue permits for electric vehicle charging stations based solely upon the standards established by FDACS rule, which rule shall include the timeframe for approving or denying applications.

▸ Expands the mosquito control statute to include municipal programs that enable enhanced administration, funding, and coordination between FDACS and local governments.

▸ Authorizes FDACS to adopt rules for enrollment in best management practices by certain agricultural producers with additional requirements for specified landowners. It requires annual site inspections by FDACS of 20% of all enrollments to ensure practices are properly implemented.

▸ Defines a “water quality additive” and prohibits the use of any additive (e.g., Fluoride) in a public water system that does not meet that definition.

▸ Revises the definition of “cottage food product” to include food that is not time or temperaturecontrolled for safety.

▸ Prohibits the transport, sale, or furnishment of spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other material that will contain a controlled substance.

▸ Creates a new statute for educational facilities used for agricultural education which contains a restriction on local governments adopting any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit any activities of public educational 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 animals or equipment therein. The bill specifies that the land used for these activities or by these organizations shall be considered agricultural land.

▸ Creates a new statute relating to housing for legally verified agricultural workers, which provides as follows:

• Defines “housing site” and “legally verified agricultural worker” and provides that a governmental entity may not adopt or enforce any legislation, regulation, or ordinance to inhibit the construction or installation of housing for legally verified agricultural workers on land classified as agricultural land that is operated as a bona fide farm.

• Specifies the criteria that must be met for such construction or installation.

• Provides that any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this section must comply with state and federal regulations for migrant farmworker housing. A governmental entity may adopt land use regulations that are less restrictive than those provided by this statute but must still meet regulations established by the Department of Health and federal regulations under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act or the H-2A visa program.

Furthermore, such an ordinance may not conflict with the definition and requirements of a legally verified agricultural worker.

• Beginning July 1, 2025, a property owner must maintain records of all approved permits for migrant labor camps or residential migrant housing for at least three years and make the records available for inspection within 14 days after receipt of a request for records by a governmental entity. It provides for several circumstances in which a housing site may not continue to be used and may be required to be removed.

• Provides that a housing site that was constructed and in use before July 1, 2024, may continue to be used, and the property owner may not be required by a governmental entity to make changes to meet the requirements of this section unless the housing site will be enlarged, remodeled, renovated, or rehabilitated.

• The owner of the housing site must provide regular maintenance and repair, including compliance with health and safety regulations and maintenance standards.

• FDACS must adopt rules that provide a method for government entities to submit reports of property owners who have a housing site for legally verified agricultural workers on lands classified as agricultural and a method for persons to submit complaints for review and investigation by FDACS. Government entities must provide this information on a quarterly basis to FDACS in a format and timeframe prescribed by the agency. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025, except as otherwise provided.

PERSONNEL AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Benefits for Firefighters Injured During Training Exercises (Monitored)

CS/SB 1202 (McClain) revises current law relating to benefits for injured firefighters and their spouse and dependent children. Current law provides that the employer of a firefighter who suffers a catastrophic injury in the line of duty shall pay the health insurance premium for the firefighter and his or her spouse or dependent child. The bill specifies that the injury must have occurred while

the firefighter was in the line of duty or engaged in an official training exercise. (Cruz)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Bonuses for Employees of Property

Appraisers

(Monitored)

HB 307 (Mayfield) authorizes county property appraisers to budget for and pay a hiring or retention bonus to an employee if such expenditure is approved by the Department of Revenue in the budget of the property appraiser. (Chapman)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Law Enforcement, Correctional, and Correctional Probation Officer Benefits (Monitored)

CS/HB 751 (Sapp) revises current law relating to benefits for injured law enforcement, correctional, or correctional probation officers and their spouse and dependent children. Current law provides that the employer of an officer who suffers a catastrophic injury in the line of duty shall pay the health insurance premium for the officer and his or her spouse or dependent child. The bill specifies that the injury must have occurred while the officer was in the line of duty or engaged in an official training exercise. (Cruz)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Law Enforcement Officers and Other Personnel (Monitored)

CS/CS/CS/HB 1371 (Nix) makes various changes to law relating to law enforcement officers and other personnel, including several provisions of interest to local governments. The bill authorizes first responder amputees to continue to serve as a first responder if he or she meet first responder certification requirements without an accommodation. It creates awards to be issued and administered through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for recognizing certain first responders and other personnel. The bill creates the Critical Infrastructure Mapping Grant Program within FDLE to award grants to state or local law enforcement agencies or political subdivisions that employ law enforcement personnel. The grants provide funding to map critical infrastructure locations, public gathering places, places of worship and other locations for which a map would be of high value for facilitating an emergency response. In addition, the bill requires

first responders and other specified employees who are exposed to an arrestee’s bodily fluids or bloodborne pathogens to provide notice of such exposure and requires an immediate blood test of the arrestee. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Peer Support for First Responders (Monitored)

CS/HB 421 (Maggard) adds “support personnel” who are involved in investigating a crime scene or collecting or processing evidence to the definition of “first responder” for the purpose of making such personnel eligible for peer support for first responders and providing confidentiality to communications when participating in peer support. The term “support personnel” is defined in current law as any employee or appointee of an employing agency who is not a law enforcement officer or another professional employee of the criminal justice system as defined by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. The term “peer support” is defined in current law to mean the provision of physical, moral, or emotional support to a first responder by a first responder peer for the purpose of addressing physical or emotional conditions or other issues associated with being a first responder. Under current law, a first responder peer is prohibited from divulging information or testifying about a peer support communication made by a first responder while receiving peer support, except as specified in section 111.09(2), Florida Statutes. (Wagoner)

Effective Date: July 1, 2025.

Purchase and Possession of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officers et al. (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 383 (Holcomb) exempts law enforcement officers, correctional officers, correctional probation officers, and servicemembers from the 3-day waiting period between purchase and delivery of a firearm by redefining the term “holder of a concealed weapons or concealed firearms license.” The bill authorizes a correctional probation officer who holds an active certification from the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission to carry a concealed firearm while off-duty at the discretion of his or her superior officer. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

PUBLIC RECORDS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS

Agency Cybersecurity Information (Monitored)

SB 7020 (Governmental Oversight and Accountability) extends for one year the current law public records and public meetings exemptions for agency cybersecurity information in section 282.318(5), Florida Statutes. The bill also moves up by one year the sunset review date for the public record and public meeting exemption in sections 119.0725(2) and (3), which exempts information pertaining to insurance for protection of IT systems, technology or data of an agency, information relating to critical infrastructure, cybersecurity incident information reporting by a state agency or local government, and certain network schematics, hardware and software configurations, or encryption information. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Applicants or Participants in Certain Federal, State, or Local Housing Assistance Plans (Monitored)

SB 7004 (Community Affairs) removes from scheduled repeal the current law public records exemption in section 119.071(5), Florida Statutes, which makes confidential and exempt certain information held by the Department of Commerce, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, a county, a municipality, or a local housing finance agency and provided by an applicant or participant in a federal, state, or local housing assistance program. (Wagoner)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

Congressional Members and Public Officers (Monitored)

CS/CS/SB 268 (Jones) creates a public records exemption for the partial home addresses and telephone numbers of current congressional members and public officers and their spouses and adult children, as well as the names, home addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of birth of, and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the minor children of such congressional members and public officers. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

NG911 Systems (Monitored)

SB 7006 (Regulated Industries) expands a current law exemption from public records requirements for components of 911, E911, and public safety radio communications systems to include NG911 (Next Generation 911) systems. It also expands a current law exemption from public meetings requirements to include portions of meetings that would reveal certain components of such NG911 systems. (Wagoner)

Effective date: Upon becoming law.

Lethality Assessment Forms (Monitored)

CS/CS/SB 1640 (Grall) makes confidential and exempt from public records requirements lethality assessment forms that contain a victim’s information and responses to a lethality assessment. Such forms are administered by law enforcement for calls relating to violence by an intimate partner to determine a victim’s risk of serious bodily injury or death. The bill authorizes the information to be shared with domestic violence centers and the state attorney’s office. (Wagoner)

Effective date: Upon becoming law.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Abandoning Restrained Dogs During Natural Disasters (Monitored)

CS/SB 150 (Gaetz) provides that any person who restrains a dog outside during a natural disaster and thereafter abandons the dog commits a thirddegree felony, punishable as provided in section 775.082, Florida Statutes, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. (Singer)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

Administration of Controlled Substances (Monitored)

CS/HB 519 (Bartleman) authorizes a certified paramedic, while providing emergency services, to administer a controlled substance if the paramedic is under the supervision and direction of a health care practitioner. (Wagoner)

Effective date: Upon becoming law.

Arrest and Detention of Individuals with Significant Medical Conditions (Monitored)

CS/HB 1099 (Canady) authorizes law enforcement to use discretion based on the totality of the

circumstances in determining whether to make an immediate arrest of a person with a significant medical condition. The term “person with a significant medical condition” is defined as a person who is a patient or resident of a hospital, a nursing home facility, or an assisted living facility. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Assault or Battery on a Utility Worker (Monitored)

CS/CS/SB 1386 (Yarborough) defines the term “utility worker” as a person bearing an emblem or other physical marking that identifies the utility and that clearly identifies the person as a utility worker employed or contracted by an entity that operates or controls a facility for the generation, transmission or furnishing to the public, electricity, gas, water, wastewater, or communications service. It reclassifies certain offenses committed against a utility worker engaged in work on critical infrastructure. (Wagoner)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

Dangerous Dogs (Monitored)

CS/HB 593 (Sapp) revises current law relating to dangerous dogs. The bill requires, rather than authorizes, that dogs subject to certain dangerous dog investigations that have killed or bitten a person to a certain severity be immediately confiscated, placed in quarantine if necessary, impounded, and held. If a dangerous dog has killed or bitten a person to a certain severity, the bill requires the animal control authority to euthanize the dog. For any other dangerous dog that is surrendered to an animal control authority, the bill authorizes the authority to euthanize the dog. If the authority elects to place the animal for adoption, the bill requires the authority to post signs informing potential adopters that the dog is dangerous and provide information about owner responsibilities if a person adopts the dog. It requires dogs that have been declared dangerous to be microchipped and spayed or neutered. The owner of a dangerous dog must obtain at least $100,000 of liability insurance. In addition, a dog owner who has knowledge of a dog’s dangerous propensities is required to securely confine the dog as if the dog had been determined to be “dangerous” under Florida law. The bill also revises penalties for violation of statutes relating to dangerous dogs. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Dangerous Excessive Speeding (Monitored)

CS/CS/CS/HB 351 (Plasencia) establishes the offense of dangerous excessive speeding. A person commits this offense if he or she operates a motor vehicle: in excess of the speed limit by 50 mph or more; at 100 mph or more in a manner that threatens the safety of other persons or property or interferes with the operation of any vehicle. The bill establishes fines and penalties associated with the offense. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Driving and Boating Offenses (Monitored)

CS/HB 687 (Kendall) increases the penalty for a conviction for DUI manslaughter, BUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide, or vessel homicide if a defendant has a prior conviction for committing DUI manslaughter or vessel homicide. (Wagoner)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

Electronic Transmittal of Court Orders (Monitored)

HB 513 (Gentry) requires the clerk of court to electronically deliver to the sheriff, within 6 hours of entry of an order by a judge, certain court orders, petitions, notices of hearings, and summons requiring prompt attention by the sheriff for the sake of public safety. The orders requiring prompt delivery are as follows: an order to detain an individual for involuntary mental health examination; an order to detain an individual for involuntary substance abuse evaluation; or an order to take possession of firearms and ammunition from an individual pursuant to a risk protection order. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Emergency Services (Monitored)

CS/HB 1487 (Basabe) removes a limitation on the number of red or red and white warning signals that vehicles of volunteer firefighters or medical staff may display. In addition, the bill revises the circumstances under which applicants for licensure as a basic life support or and advanced life support service who are faith-based, not-forprofit charitable corporations are exempt from the requirement to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity and requires an applicant seeking such exemption to submit a sworn affidavit to the Florida Department of Health attesting that the applicant meets the requirements for the exemption. Current law provides that the

exemption may be granted to operate in no more than four counties. The bill increases the number of counties to 15. It prohibits a licensed volunteer ambulance service from applying for, receiving funds under, or participating in any grant program designed exclusively for publicly operated fire departments or emergency medical service agencies. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Expedited DNA Testing Grant Program (Monitored)

CS/HB 847 (Johnson) creates within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement a competitive grant program to award grants to law enforcement agencies for the processing of evidentiary items for DNA testing as specified. The grants are to be awarded annually to cover testing of DNA samples by private laboratories when the technique needed to properly test the DNA sample is not readily available at a local or state laboratory, or when expedited testing of the DNA sample is in the best interest of advancing an investigation. The bill requires grant recipients to provide a report to the agency within one year of receipt of funding. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

False Reporting (Supported)

CS/CS/HB 279 (Partington) prohibits a person from causing another party to access the 911 system for the purpose of making a false alarm or false complaint, or reporting false information that could result in an emergency response. The bill provides for penalties as well as requires a court to order a person convicted of misusing the 911 system as described in the bill to pay the costs of prosecution, investigation, and restitution. (Wagoner)

Effective Date: July 1, 2025.

Firefighter Health and Safety (Monitored)

CS/HB 929 (Booth) directs the Division of the State Fire Marshal to adopt rules to address the following: requires firefighter employees to purchase gear that does not contain chemical hazards or toxic substances when such gear becomes readily available on the commercial market; requires employers that issue firefighting gear that contains or is manufactured with chemical hazards or toxic substances to provide their firefighter employees notice that the gear

may contain or be manufactured with such substances; and encourages firefighter employers to implement work schedules that do not require normally scheduled shifts to exceed 42 hours per workweek. The bill further directs the Division to adopt rules relating to cancer prevention that include education about chemical hazards or toxic substances regarding personal protective equipment and employers’ mental health best practices related to resiliency, stress management, peer support, and access to mental healthcare. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Fleeing or Attempting to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 113 (Chamberlin) increases the ranking on the offense severity ranking chart in state law for specified offenses involving fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer. It provides a sentencing multiplier for second or subsequent offenses of fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement officers. (Wagoner)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

Offenses Involving Motor Vehicles (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 253 (Bankson) prohibits the purchase, possession, manufacture, sale, distribution, or use of a “license plate obscuring device” as defined in the bill. In addition, the bill increases the penalty if a person drives a vehicle with prohibited lights (red, red and white, or blue light) and stops or attempts to stop another vehicle. (Wagoner)

Effective Date: October 1, 2025.

Property Rights (Monitored)

CS/CS/SB 322 (Rodriguez) authorizes the owner of commercial real property to request the county sheriff to immediately remove a person unlawfully occupying the owner’s commercial real property if the following conditions are met: the requesting person must be the property owner or its authorized agent; the property being occupied includes the commercial property; an unauthorized person has unlawfully entered and continues to occupy the property; the property was not open to the public at the time the person entered; the owner directed the person to leave; the person is not a current or former tenant; and there is no litigation relating to the property pending between

the property owner and any known unauthorized person. The owner must file a complaint listing the relevant facts that show eligibility for relief and must pay a civil eviction fee plus an hourly rate if a deputy must stand by while the unauthorized person is removed. A person wrongfully removed has a cause of action against the owner for damages, costs, and attorney fees. In addition, the bill expands the crimes relating to unlawfully occupying a residential dwelling or fraudulently advertising residential property for sale or lease to include commercial properties. (Cruz)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Registration of Sexual Predators and Sexual Offenders (Monitored)

CS/HB 1351 (Baker) amends sections 775.21 and 943.0435, Florida Statutes, to clarify that for purposes of sexual predator and sexual offender registration and reporting requirements, a person’s “permanent residence” is the person’s home or other place where the person primarily lives. The bill defines an “in-state travel residence” as a type of temporary residence in this state established by a person who already has an existing, permanent, temporary, or transient residence in this state. The bill increases the information a sexual predator or sexual offender must provide to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) upon his or her initial registration with the agency by requiring the sexual predator or sexual offender to register his or her occupation, business name, employment address, and telephone number. The bill requires a sexual predator or sexual offender to report a change in his or her “in-state travel residence” within 48 hours after establishing an in-state travel residence and requires the reporting of any changes in employment information or the creation of a new business. It requires a sexual predator who is under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or the Department of Juvenile Justice to report changes in vehicle ownership within 48 hours of such change to the sheriff’s office. The bill requires county and local law enforcement agencies, in conjunction with FDLE, to verify the addresses of sexual predators and sexual offenders who are not in the care, custody, or control of the Department of Corrections, at least four times per year. The bill specifies penalties for noncompliance. (Wagoner)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

Restrictions on Firearms and Ammunition During Emergencies (Monitored)

HB 6025 (Miller, Mayfield) repeals section 870.044, Florida Statutes, which prohibits a person from selling or offering to sell firearms or ammunition, intentionally displaying firearms or ammunition in a store or shop, or intentionally possessing a firearm in a public place during a local state of emergency declared pursuant to the conditions of violence and disorder specified in section 870.043, Florida Statutes, unless he or she is an authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of his or her duty. (Wagoner)

Effective Date: Upon becoming law.

School Safety (Monitored)

CS/SB 1470 (Burgess) revises school safety and security requirements. The bill includes childcare facilities as entities eligible for assistance from county sheriffs, including access to a school guardian program. It authorizes a childcare facility to partner with a law enforcement agency or security agency to establish one or more safe-school officers. It authorizes school boards to implement a school guardian program or to contract for the use of school security guards to satisfy the requirements of section 1006.12, Florida Statutes, and requires the sheriff guardian program to provide training for both school guardians and school security guards. The bill revises the duties of the sheriff regarding training for guardians and school security guards and specifies a county sheriff must approve and train all school security guards. It provides that a security agency employing a school security guard is responsible for all training and screening costs, but that such charges may not exceed the actual cost incurred by the sheriff to provide the training. It further provides training, qualification, and certification requirements for school security guards employed by a security agency.

The bill directs the Florida Office of Safe Schools to convene a stakeholder workgroup to make recommendations on the establishment of the Florida Institute of School Safety and directs the workgroup to submit findings and recommendations to the Governor and Legislature. It requires the Department of Management Services to cooperate with the Department of Education to develop a centralized panic alert

system for use by public schools, charter schools, and other educational institutions. The bill revises school safety requirements for school districts and charter school governing boards, including requirements for ingress and egress, the use of a “secure exclusive zone,” the use of temporary locks during an active assailant incident, and the provision of safety protocols and policies to substitute teachers. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Care (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 1091 (Gonzalez Pittman) recognizes Florida’s 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline as a crisis service and designates the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to provide oversight over the Lifeline’s call centers. The bill prohibits a call center from conducting crisis services unless authorized by DCF. It requires a 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline call center to meet national accreditation standards. It also directs DCF to require the call centers to implement a plan to achieve statewide interoperability with the 911 system and to adopt rules relating to the call centers. In addition, the bill clarifies the responsibilities of the courts and administrative law judges (ALJs) in hearings for continued involuntary services. It authorizes ALJs to waive a patient’s attendance at a hearing if specified criteria are met and to issue orders for continued involuntary services if the ALJ determines the patient meets the criteria for such services. The bill further requires a patient to be represented at a hearing for continued involuntary services by a public defender of the circuit in which the patient is receiving services. It also requires a clinical psychologist to have at least 3 years of post-licensure clinical experience to authorize the transfer of a patient from voluntary to involuntary status. In addition, the bill revises and expands DCF forensic evaluator training requirements. The bill also includes criteria for a forensic evaluator to determine the availability of acceptable treatments within the community for a criminal defendant considered incompetent to proceed. Finally, the bill removes the requirement for DCF to conduct an annual needs assessment before issuing a license to a medication-assisted treatment provider. (Wagoner)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Surrendered Infants (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 791 (Cobb) authorizes hospitals, emergency medical service stations, and fire stations that are staffed 24 hours per day to use infant safety devices to accept surrendered infants and establishes criteria for their use. The infant safety device must be: installed in a supporting wall of the facility; temperature controlled and ventilated; equipped with an alarm that is triggered inside the building when an infant is placed in the device; equipped with a 24-hour surveillance system to monitor the device; and located in an area where the interior point of access is visible to employees of the facility. The facility must use the surveillance system to monitor the device 24 hours per day, check the device at least twice daily, and test the alarm system weekly. (Wagoner)

Effective Date: July 1, 2025.

Trespass (Monitored)

CS/HB 1447 (Giallombardo) establishes enhanced criminal penalties for trespass on property maintained or secured by federal, state, or local law enforcement officers, which is legally posted and identified as a restricted site. In addition, the bill revises current law relating to interference with a sporting or entertainment event. It prohibits a person from willfully entering or remaining in a venue during a ticketed covered event where attendance exceeds 5,000 people, without being authorized, licensed, or invited to enter or remain in the venue. (Wagoner)

Effective date: Upon becoming law.

Comprehensive Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (Supported)

RETIREMENT/PENSION ISSUES

Retirement (Monitored)

SB 7022 ER originated as a proposed committee bill by the Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee. The bill in its original form would have amended the Florida Retirement System (FRS) to modify rules for elected officers in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). It would have allowed elected municipal officials (excluding legislators) in FRS-participating cities to access their DROP accumulations after age 59 ½ without leaving office—an exception to typical FRS distribution rules. The bill would have also adjusted employer contribution rates for various membership classes. SB 7022 was amended on the Senate floor, removing language that would have allowed elected municipal officials from accessing their DROP accumulation without leaving office. The amended bill would have also provided that holders of elective office who were appointed to their position may not participate in the Elected Officers’ Class until such person is officially elected. When the legislative session was extended, SB 7022 was included in the extension. After conference negotiations, SB 7022 does not make any policy changes to FRS, but it does adjust the employer contribution rates as well as the employee contribution rates to meet unfunded actuarial liabilities. (Chapman)

TRANSPORTATION

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Monitored)

VETOED

HB 295 (Casello) requires the Department of Environmental Protection to develop a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan by July 2026 based on the recommendations contained in the Department’s “Florida and the 2020 75% Recycling Goal, Final Report.” It directs the Department to convene a technical assistance group to help develop the plan and directs the plan to address specified goals and strategies, including new recycling goals and strategies for local government recycling assistance. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

CS/CS/HB 961 (Maney) revises the duties and authority of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Several provisions of the bill are of interest to county tax collectors who act as authorized agents of the Department. The bill prohibits the sale of service appointments with the Department unless authorized in writing by the Department or a tax collector. It also authorizes tax collectors to deliver original certificates of title for motor vehicles or mobile homes and corrected certificates by mail or to make such certificates available at tax collectors’ offices. It authorizes tax collectors to fulfill an application for a duplicate copy of a certificate of title, and authorizes the Department and tax collectors, at the request of an applicant, to mail or deliver

in person registration certificates and renewals, duplicate registration certificates, license plates, mobile home stickers, and validation stickers. The bill authorizes the issuance of a lifetime disabled parking permit to a person who is certified as permanently disabled. In addition, the bill extends the date for the complete transition of all driver license issuance services to tax collectors who are constitutional officers to June 30, 2027. The bill specifies that tax collectors issuing driver licenses and identification cards may be processed using the Department’s online license and registration portal and authorizes a tax collector to offer a licensee to donate additional money to certain charities. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2026.

Indemnification and Insurance Obligations of Commuter Rail Transportation Providers (Monitored)

CS/HB 867 (Lopez, V.) creates the Coastal Link Commuter Rail Service Act to establish a framework relating to the indemnification of, and insurance related to, the provision of commuter rail services by the various providers on the coastal link corridor. The indemnification and insurance obligations are similar to what is currently in place for SunRail and TriRail. The Act defines various terms relevant to the rail transportation providers and governmental agencies involved. The bill identifies the Florida East Coast Railway, the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Brightline, and “agencies” as parties operating rail service on the coastal link corridor. It authorizes agencies to assume certain obligations relating to rail liability on the coastal link corridor, subject to specified limitations. It limits the agencies’ assumptions of liability and provides an insurance coverage limit of $323 million per occurrence, which may be adjusted in accordance with federal law. It requires the agencies to establish a self-insurance retention amount of $5 million. The bill provides that the assumption of liability, the purchase of insurance, or the establishment of a self-insurance retention fund is not a waiver of sovereign immunity, nor does it increase an agency’s limits on liability under sovereign immunity. It further provides that the Florida East Coast Railway and Brightline are not entitled to sovereign immunity. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Prearranged Transportation Services (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 1525 (Busatta) prohibits a person from willfully impersonating a transportation network company (TNC) driver. It clarifies that services purchased from a TNC do not qualify as privately owned or operated bus transit systems and that a TNC is not a transportation service provider. As such, a TNC is not subject to regulations relating to safety inspections and driver training that are applicable to privately owned bus transit systems or transportation service providers. The bill also authorizes the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged to expend funds to contract with alternative providers with dedicated vehicles and trained personnel specializing in paratransit services to support transportation services for persons with disabilities. (Wagoner)

Effective Date: July 1, 2025.

Transportation (Monitored)

CS/CS/CS/SB 462 (DiCeglie) addresses the duties and authority of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and includes several provisions affecting local governments. The bill requires counties to report transportation project data annually to the Office of Economic and Demographic Research relating to the charter county and regional transportation system surtax. The report must include information on the amounts allocated or expended on road and bridge projects, the unexpended balances of funds allocated to road and bridge projects by category, a list of current road and bridge projects, and the amount allocated by the county to all other permissible uses of the proceeds from the surtax.

The bill also revises requirements relating to school bus infraction detection systems. It extends the timeframe in which a vehicle owner must respond to a notice of violation from 30 days to 60 days. It provides that a local hearing officer appointed by the school district or county shall administer an administrative hearing process for a contested violation and specifies the qualifications of hearing officers used for this purpose. It establishes procedures and timeframes to the administrative hearing, including the issuance of a final order by the hearing officer that may be appealed pursuant to section 162.11, Florida Statutes. It provides for the imposition of civil penalties and, if the violation is contested, for the payment of administrative

hearing costs if an alleged offender is determined to have committed a violation.

The bill prohibits a person from operating a vehicle or vessel at a speed that creates excessive wake on a flooded street.

A municipality, county, or authority that owns a public-use airport may participate in the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Investment Partnership Program under federal law by contracting with a private partner to operate the airport under lease or agreement. FDOT may also provide for improvements to a municipality, a county, or an authority that has a private partner under the Airport Investment Partnership Program for the capital cost of a discretionary improvement project at a public-use airport. The bill further provides that a publicly owned airport is prohibited from charging a landing fee established on or after January 1, 2025, for aircraft operations conducted by an accredited nonprofit institution located within the state that offers a four-year collegiate aviation program when such aircraft operations are necessary for flight training.

The bill also specifies that a local government may adopt an ordinance providing one or more minimum age requirements to operate an electric bicycle, motorized scooter, or micromobility device, and may adopt an ordinance requiring an operator of such a vehicle to possess a government-issued photo identification while operating it. Local governments may also provide training on the safe operation of such vehicles and compliance with traffic laws that apply to such vehicles.

The bill revises provisions of law relating to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). It refocuses the purpose of MPOs to the development of multimodal transportation systems in accordance with FDOT’s mission statement. It prohibits the designation of new MPOs after July 2025, except in urban areas, and deletes requirements for MPOs to consult with each other to ensure consistency of data used in planning and forecasting. It revises required strategies for Long Range Transportation Plans to replace “promote energy conservation” with “conserve natural resources” and adds a requirement to reduce traffic congestion. It directs FDOT to convene MPOs of similar size annually to exchange best practices. It adds the following as proposed transportation enhancement activities to

be included in a Long Range Transportation Plan: integration of advanced air mobility; integration of autonomous and electric vehicles, electric bicycles, and motorized scooters used for freight, commuter, or micromobility purposes. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025, except as otherwise provided.

Transportation (Monitored)

CS/CS/CS/SB 1662 (Collins) is a comprehensive bill addressing the authority and operation of the Department of Transportation (DOT), transportation policy, and rights-of-way. It specifies a municipality may not prohibit or require a permit for the installation of a public sewer transmission line placed and maintained within and under publicly dedicated rights-of-way as part of a septic-to-sewer conversion where the work is being performed under permits issued by the DOT, or the Department of Environmental Protection.

The bill also makes several changes to statutes regulating airports. It requires each airport to establish and maintain a comprehensive airport infrastructure program to ensure the preservation of infrastructure and facilities and to certify to DOT, beginning November 1, 2025, its compliance with this requirement. The bill further specifies the minimum components that must be addressed in the program. It redefines the term “commercial airport” to include those large, medium, small, and non-hub airports as classified by the Federal Aviation Administration. The bill revises requirements for commercial service airports to post specified information on their websites, including the provision of airport master plans, meeting notices, and contract and budget information. The governing body of a commercial service airport must submit to DOT the most recent copies of its strategic plan and contracts related to any federal grants awarded the preceding year. It also requires commercial service airports to notify DOT within 48 hours of a federal directive regarding public health testing or the transfer of unauthorized aliens, and to notify DOT no later than 48 hours after incidents related to public safety, cybersecurity breaches or security risks, or an incident occurring on airport property that requires coordination with multiple local, state, or federal agencies. The bill introduces a requirement during a state of emergency for airports to provide DOT the opportunity to use any property that is not within the air navigation facility or subject to a

lease agreement with a third party for the staging of equipment and personnel at no cost; however, after 60 days of such use a written contract must be executed between DOT and the airport. Further, the bill specifies that a publicly owned airport may not charge a landing fee established after January 2025 for aircraft operations conducted by an accredited nonprofit institution that offers a 4-year collegiate aviation program, if such aircraft operations are for pilot training and certification.

The bill directs DOT to address the need for vertiports, advanced air mobility, and other aviation technology advancements in the statewide aviation system plan, conduct a review of airport hazard zone regulations, and to coordinate with the Department of Commerce in the development of a viable advanced air mobility system plan. It directs DOT to designate an expert on advanced air mobility within the agency to serve as a resource for local jurisdictions.

The bill authorizes a parking authority created by special act to operate and control parking facilities in contiguous counties, municipalities, and other local governmental entities through interlocal agreement.

The bill expands the information that DOT must include in its annual legislative budget request to include a report identifying whether specified entities have adopted or promoted energy policy goals inconsistent with the energy policy of the state as set forth in section 377.601, Florida Statutes. The specified entities are as follows: a public transit provider; regional transportation authority; an expressway and bridge authority, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, a public-use airport, or a port.

The bill deletes section 339.287, Florida Statutes, relating to EV charging stations and associated infrastructure planning by DOT for the state highway system. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Unmanned Aircraft or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 1121 (Canady) revises the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act, section 330.41, Florida Statutes. It increases the criminal penalties if a person operates a drone over or near a critical infrastructure facility or if the system is

operated with an attached weapon or firearm. In addition, the bill prohibits a person from altering an unmanned aircraft to purposefully frustrate specified remote identification requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and prohibits a person from possessing or operating such an altered aircraft. It prohibits a person from possessing or operating an unmanned aircraft carrying a weapon of mass destruction or a hoax weapon of mass destruction. It authorizes a law enforcement agency to use a drone to provide or maintain the public safety of a crowd of 50 people or more and to provide security to elected officials pursuant to section 943.68, Florida Statutes. It provides for a criminal penalty if a person unlawfully uses a drone to conduct surveillance of a person or private property, and provides for an enhanced penalty if a person intentionally distributes surveillance obtained in violation of this prohibition. (Singer)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

UTILITIES

Municipal Water and Sewer Rates (Monitored)

HB 11 (Robinson, F.) applies only to municipalities located in Miami-Dade County. The bill requires a municipality that operates a water or sewer utility providing services to customers in another recipient municipality, which also has a facility in that recipient municipality, to charge consumers in the recipient municipality the same rates, fees, and charges it imposes on customers within its own municipal boundaries. The bill defines the terms “facility,” “wastewater treatment facility,” and “water treatment facility.” (O’Hara)

VETOED

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Utility Relocation (Opposed)

CS/HB 703 (Robinson, W.) revises the process by which communications service providers must relocate facilities located in a right-of-way. The bill creates the Utility Relocation Reimbursement Grant Program within the Department of Commerce to assist communications service providers with the cost of relocating utility infrastructure when required by local governments. Under current law, when a municipality or county instructs a communications service provider subject to Chapter 202, Florida Statutes, to relocate

infrastructure from the public right-of-way, the provider must begin the work upon notice, and local governments are not responsible for the relocation costs. The bill maintains that framework but establishes the grant program to reimburse providers for actual, documented costs directly attributable to the physical relocation of facilities required by the local government. The provider may apply for reimbursement of relocation expenses, subject to the availability of funds. If funds are not available, the county or municipal authority is not responsible for paying the expense of such work, except as otherwise provided in subsection 337.403(1), Florida Statutes. The bill appropriates $50 million annually from the communications services tax to fund the program. This money is redirected from the Local Government Half-Cent Sales Tax Clearing Trust Fund, thereby reducing the amount of revenue distributed to local governments. This redirection represents a $50 million recurring loss in shared revenue to cities and counties. The legislation directs the Department of Commerce to adopt rules specifying: the criteria and process for applying for reimbursement; the minimum documentation needed to verify eligible relocation costs; and the timeline for review and disbursement, which may not exceed 90 days from submission. The bill explicitly prohibits reimbursement for indirect or administrative costs, ensuring that only direct expenses related to relocation are eligible. (Singer)

Effective date: October 1, 2025.

WATER QUALITY/WASTEWATER

General Permits for Distributed Wastewater Treatment Systems (Monitored)

SB 796 (Bradley) grants a general permit for the replacement of an existing onsite sewage treatment and disposal system with a distributed wastewater treatment system (DWTS) if the DWTS and each unit within the DWTS is commonly owned and operated by the permittee and the DWTS and the

permittee meet specified conditions. A DWTS is an integrated system approach to treating wastewater consisting of one or more distributed wastewater treatment units. Each unit within the DWTS consists of an advanced onsite closed-tank wastewater treatment system that is remotely operated and controlled by the permittee using an electronic control system and designed to achieve secondary treatment standards and a minimum of 80 percent total nitrogen removal before discharge to a subsurface application system. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Resilient Florida Trust Fund (Monitored)

CS/HB 1313 (Mooney) re-creates the Resilient Florida Trust Fund within the Department of Environmental Protection. The trust fund is a source of funding for the Resilient Florida Grant Program and the Statewide Flooding and Sea Level Rise Resilience Plan. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Sewer Collection Systems (Supported)

HB 1123 (Cassel) authorizes a municipality to use revenue generated by the municipality from operation of the municipality’s central sewer system for expansion of the central sewer system. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

Spring Restoration (Supported)

SB 1228 (McClain) authorizes a domestic wastewater facility with a plan approved by the Department of Environmental Protection for eliminating nonbeneficial wastewater surface water discharges to request an amendment to the plan to incorporate a reclaimed water project identified in an Outstanding Florida Springs recovery or prevention strategy. The request must be approved within 60 days if specified conditions are met. (Singer)

Effective date: July 1, 2025.

BILLS THAT FAILED

CYBERSECURITY

Cybersecurity (Monitored)

SB 770 (Harrell), SB 1536 (Collins), and HB 1293 (Giallombardo) would have expanded and clarified roles for the Florida Digital Service while creating new requirements for the state chief technology officer. The bills would have tightened incident reporting requirements for local governments, reducing the reporting timeline for cybersecurity incidents from 48 to 12 hours and for ransomware incidents from 12 to six hours. (Wagoner)

Cybersecurity Incident Liability (Supported)

CS/CS/HB 1183 (Giallombardo) and SB 1576 (DiCeglie) would have exempted cities, counties, and political subdivisions of the state from liability in connection with a cybersecurity incident if the local entity has substantially complied with current training and cybersecurity standards required by section 282.3185, Florida Statutes. CS/CS/HB 1183 would have defined the terms “disaster recovery” and “personal information.” The amendment removed the provision relating to the Local Government Cybersecurity Grant and participating in the grant to obtain liability protections. CS/CS/ HB 1183 would have expanded the bill’s liability protections related to cybersecurity incidents to include all political subdivisions of the state, which include cities. (Wagoner)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Construction Disruption Assistance (Monitored)

HB 215 (Eskamani) and CS/CS/SB 324 (Smith) would have established the “Construction Disruption Assistance Act” to support small businesses directly impacted by government construction projects. An eligible small business was defined as a business with 50 or fewer employees whose primary access points are obstructed by state or local government construction activities. HB 215 would have provided grants that could have been awarded up to $25,000 per construction phase when there were verifiable reductions in revenue, operation costs, or property damage. The bills would have also provided access to lowinterest loans of up to $100,000 at a 3% interest rate to cover operational costs. CS/CS/SB 324

provided more details on the application process, eligibility criteria, the timeline and procedures for review, approval, and disbursement of funds, and contact information for additional information and assistance. (Wagoner)

Contracting with Foreign Countries of Concern (Monitored)

HB 977 (Greco) and SB 1538 (Collins) would have prohibited governmental entities from entering into a contract to purchase computers, printers, or videoconferencing devices if the foreign country of concern has ownership in the manufacturer or its affiliates. The bills also would have required governmental entities to require each entity that submits a bid or proposal to provide goods or services to sign an affidavit that testified that there was no ownership interest by a government of a foreign country of concern in the entity, subsidiary, or parent company of the entity. (Wagoner)

Manufacturing (Monitor)

CS/CS/HB 561 (Cobb) and CS/SB 600 (Truenow) would have created the “Chief Manufacturing Officer” within the Department of Commerce to support manufacturing efforts statewide. The bills would have required all state and local governmental entities to assist the Chief Manufacturing Officer to the extent the law and budgetary constraints provide. The bills would have required the Department of Commerce to prepare an initial report to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate by December 15, 2026, and then every two years after. The bills would have created the “Florida Manufacturers’ Workforce Development Grant Program” within the Department of Commerce. The grant program was intended to fund proposed projects that support small manufacturers with the deployment of new technologies or cybersecurity infrastructure and to provide training support to the workforce. (Wagoner)

Rural Communities (Monitored)

CS/SB 110 (Simon) focused on rural health needs. CS/SB 110 would have modernized support for fiscally constrained counties (FCC) by updating definitions and increasing the FCC threshold from $5 million to $10 million in property tax revenue.

The bill would have boosted FCC funding to $50 million annually by shifting from direct-to-home satellite service tax to sales tax and establishing new spending requirements for public safety, infrastructure, and other public purposes.

CS/SB 110 would have created the Office of Rural Prosperity within the Department of Commerce to assist rural communities with economic development and grant access. It also would have introduced a Rural Resource Directory to help local governments navigate funding opportunities. To address population declines, counties losing residents over the past decade would have received $1 million block grants for growth initiatives. A competitive grant program would have supported local organizations driving economic development, site preparedness, and workforce training.

Other key provisions included:

▸ Increased infrastructure and business development funding, including $45 million for the Rural Infrastructure Fund and an expansion of the Rural Revolving Loan Program

▸ Broadband expansion efforts through improved coordination and funding for rural connectivity

▸ Transportation investments, including $50 million annually for arterial rural roads and increased funding for small county road assistance

▸ Education funding enhancements, such as tripling consortia grants for small school districts and a new Rural Incentive for Professional Educators program offering up to $15,000 in loan repayment assistance

▸ Healthcare access improvements, including grants for rural hospitals, startup medical practices, and enhanced Medicaid reimbursements

CS/SB 110 would have directed over $25 million in nonrecurring funds to improve rural healthcare, telemedicine, and emergency response services while expanding Medicaid reimbursements for rural hospitals. (Wagoner)

Threats from Foreign Nations (Monitored)

CS/HB 925 (Redondo) and SB 912 (Collins) would have provided that governmental entities and entities that construct, repair, operate, or have significant access to critical infrastructure would not have been able to enter into a contract or other agreement relating to critical infrastructure within

the state with a foreign principal if the contract or agreement authorized the foreign principal to directly or remotely access or control such infrastructure. CS/HB 925 would have provided that a person or entity in violation of this provision committed a misdemeanor of the second degree. SB 912 would have strengthened Florida’s security by regulating foreign agents and protecting critical infrastructure. It would have required agents representing adversarial nations or terrorist groups to register with the Attorney General and disclose detailed information about their activities and finances. It would have set penalties for non-compliance, exempted certain officials, and enforced transparency in communications. The bill would have also banned certain foreign entities from accessing critical infrastructure, secured state communications systems, and introduced a Pacific Conflict Stress Test to assess and prepare for risks to Florida’s infrastructure and supply chains. (Wagoner)

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Emergencies (Opposed)

CS/CS/CS/HB 1535 (McFarland) would have introduced changes to emergency management laws, imposed new restrictions on local governments regarding floodplain management, impact fees, disaster recovery processes, and emergency response coordination. The bill would have limited the duration of a cumulative substantial improvement (CSI) program under the National Flood Insurance Program to just one year, which would have restricted how local governments tracked and aggregated repair or improvement costs over time to comply with federal floodplain regulations. Additionally, the bill would have prohibited local governments, school districts, and special districts from charging impact fees for the reconstruction or replacement of a previously existing structure if the replacement maintained the same land use and did not increase the impact on public facilities beyond that of the original structure. However, if the replacement structure increased the demand on public facilities due to a significant increase in size, intensity, or capacity of use, a local government, school district, or special district would have been authorized to assess an impact fee in an amount proportional to the difference in demand between the replacement structure and the original structure. The fee would

have been required to be reasonably connected to the need for additional capital facilities and the increased impact generated by the reconstruction or replacement of a previously existing structure.

The bill would also have required counties and municipalities to enhance public access to emergency information by posting specific resources on their websites. These resources would have been required to include evacuation procedures, safety guidelines, disaster preparedness lists, information about accessing federal and state assistance, and post-disaster recovery steps. Furthermore, local governments would have been required to establish an online system allowing property owners to digitally receive, review, and access substantial damage and improvement letters. To facilitate rebuilding after disasters, any local government directly impacted by a natural emergency would have been required to open a permitting office as soon as reasonably possible, ensuring that residents had access to necessary services for at least 40 hours per week. The bill also would have mandated that specific county and municipal personnel complete emergency management training every two years beginning October 1, 2025.

The Division of Emergency Management (DEM) would also have been directed to coordinate with fiscally constrained counties and the Florida Department of Transportation to provide assistance in removing debris from public roadways, including those that were publicly accessible but not maintained by local governments.

A key provision of the bill would have restricted the ability of local governments to regulate land use and development following a hurricane. For one year after a hurricane makes landfall, local governments located within 100 miles of the storm’s track would not have been permitted to impose construction moratoriums, enact more restrictive comprehensive plan amendments or land development regulations, or implement new procedures that would have made development approvals more burdensome. However, the bill would have made several exceptions to provide that an impacted local government could have enforced such provisions if:

▸ The associated application was initiated by a private party other than the impacted local government, and the property that was the subject of the application was owned by the initiating private party

▸ The proposed comprehensive plan amendment was submitted to reviewing agencies before landfall

▸ The proposed comprehensive plan amendment or land development regulation was approved by the state land planning agency

CS/CS/CS/HB 1535 would have limited regulatory authority by applying these restrictions to counties listed in federal disaster declarations for Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, as well as the municipalities within those counties. These affected jurisdictions would not have been permitted to impose construction moratoriums or adopt restrictive land development policies before October 1, 2027. However, an exception would have allowed such amendments if initiated by a private party who owned the property in question. The bill also would have ensured that any local regulations violating these provisions were considered void from the outset. Additionally, the bill would have created a legal cause of action for residents and businesses to challenge unlawful regulations or moratoriums, allowing successful plaintiffs to obtain injunctive relief and recover attorneys’ fees unless the local government withdrew the contested regulation within 14 days of receiving notice. This provision would have been intended to apply retroactively to August 1, 2024, and would have rendered null and void any restrictive land development ordinance or regulation adopted by a city on or after that date.

The bill also would have introduced new requirements related to post-storm recovery and emergency preparedness. Local governments would have been required to develop special permitting procedures to expedite rebuilding efforts following a hurricane or tropical storm. Every political subdivision would have been required to designate an emergency contact and an alternate, with these appointments reported to DEM by May 1 each year. DEM would have been further tasked with administering the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and would have been required to distribute at least 75% of received funds directly to local governments in disaster-declared areas.

Other changes would have included a temporary freeze on building permit and inspection fee increases for 180 days after a state of emergency declaration. The bill also would have strengthened

contract enforcement for emergency response services by requiring vendors who breach contracts during the one-year emergency recovery period to pay actual damages and a $5,000 penalty. Additionally, the bill would have imposed new safety requirements for construction equipment during hurricanes, requiring that hoisting equipment be secured at least 24 hours before expected storm impacts.

CS/CS/CS/HB 1535 would have provided that when a homestead property is elevated above the base flood elevation within a special flood hazard area, the square footage underneath the homestead property that was used only for parking, storage, or access would not be included when determining the total square footage of the property as changed or improved.

CS/CS/CS/HB 1535 would have provided that local law enforcement must have cooperated with DEM to ensure the availability of essentials.

CS/CS/CS/HB 1535 would have also updated the definition of “renovated building” in the building constructions standards statute to provide that if an alteration was a result of a natural disaster that was the subject of a declaration of a state of emergency by the Governor, the estimated cost of renovation must have exceeded 75% of the fair market value of the building prior to the natural disaster.

CS/CS/CS/HB 1535 would have addressed inspections of stormwater management systems. The bill provided that by September 1, 2026, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would have been required to submit a Flood Inventory and Restoration Report to DEM. DEP would have been required to work with water management districts, local governments, and operators of public and private stormwater management systems to compile the necessary information for the report. Furthermore, DEP would have been required to review and update the report on a biannual basis. The report would have been required to provide information regarding compliance with the inspection and maintenance schedules, include any additional revisions based on storm event experience, and revise the list of facilities as new flooding events took place and new projects were implemented to alleviate

infrastructure deficiencies that led to flood events. DEP would have been required to submit an updated report to DEM by September 1 of each year in which the report was due.

Overall, the bill would have significantly curtailed local government authority in emergency response and recovery efforts, increasing state oversight while limiting the ability of cities and counties to regulate post-disaster reconstruction and manage their own permitting processes. The bill would have further extended these restrictions to additional counties and provided additional legal avenues for residents and businesses to challenge local regulations, creating financial and administrative burdens for cities responding to natural disasters. (Singer)

Emergencies (Monitored)

HB 1337 (Giallombardo) and SB 1566 (Simon) were comprehensive bills that would have revised provisions related to emergency management and services in Florida. Of note to municipalities, the bills would have revised the powers of the Division of Emergency Management (DEM) by:

▸ Expanding coordination responsibility between the federal government and Florida’s political subdivisions to command and control the state’s departments, cabinet agencies, and municipal governments

▸ Expanding existing role in monitoring mutual aid agreements to also coordinate them

▸ Addressing the need for coordinated and expeditious deployment of state resources by facilitating annual training initiatives supporting the education of emergency management officials, elected and appointed officials, and stakeholders

▸ Requiring DEM to include in its state comprehensive emergency management plan an update on the status of the emergency management capabilities of the state and its political subdivisions

▸ Directing DEM to develop a template for comprehensive emergency management plans, including natural disasters and cyberattacks

▸ Subject to available funding, requiring DEM to implement annual training programs AND facilitate coordination between all emergency management stakeholders

▸ Requiring DEM to standardize and streamline the FEMA Public Assistance Program application process to expedite and maximize the amount

of federal assistance available, which includes assisting applicants in identifying risks in their organizations and developing an action plan to abate those risks

▸ Directing that during a natural disaster declared by the Governor or POTUS, DEM must authorize new debris management sites in accordance with section 403.7071, Florida Statutes (counties)

The bills would have revised the storm-generated debris management statute by:

▸ Removing the exemption that a contract or franchise agreement between a local government and a private solid waste or debris management service provider does not require the provider to collect storm-generated yard trash to only during the first 90 days after an emergency order is issued

▸ Authorizing and encouraging local governments to add an addendum to existing contracts or franchise agreements to perform the collection of storm-generated debris

▸ Requiring a county, municipality, community development district (CDD), and political subdivision to authorize at least one debris management site and annually complete preauthorization for previously approved sites through the department

• The bills would have allowed a municipality, CDD, or political subdivision with a population less than 5,000 to jointly preauthorize at least one debris management site with at least one adjacent municipality if the parties developed and annually approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) clearly outlining the capacity and location of the site relative to each party.

The bills would have revised the post-disaster duties of political subdivisions by imposing the requirements below following the declaration of a state of emergency issued by the Governor for a natural emergency:

▸ Within five days after the declaration, political subdivisions would have been required to publish on a publicly available website all applicable local, state, and federal laws related to building and housing codes, including all limitations, definitions, guidelines, and statutory emergency management expectations, which would have been required to remain available for at least three years after such declaration, unless recovery was completed earlier

▸ Counties that experienced a direct impact from a natural disaster would have been required to provide their legislative delegation with emergency office space, information on the county’s emergency response, and a direct point of contact trained in disaster recovery to be available to answer residents’ questions and listen to concerns

The bills also would have added individuals with functional limitations to the special needs shelter plan and would have mandated that a person with special needs or functional limitations be allowed to bring their service animal into a special needs and functional limitations shelter.

The bills also would have revised DEM’s role in transporting or distributing essentials in commerce to ensure availability of emergency supplies by allowing DEM to provide for pre- or postemergency transportation of essentials. The bills would have clarified that the authorized person could have bypassed any curfew, restriction, roadblock, quarantine, or other limitation on access to an area and that local law enforcement would have been required to cooperate with DEM to ensure the availability of essentials under this section. The bills would have specified that this did not prohibit a law enforcement officer from specifying the permissible route of ingress or egress and that all state roadways would have been determined by the Florida Highway Patrol in coordination with the Department of Transportation. (Singer)

ETHICS AND ELECTIONS

Elections (Monitored)

SB 394 (Garcia) would have revised requirements relating to security measures for electronic and electromechanical voting and other election systems. Among other things, the bill would have prohibited governing bodies from purchasing elections systems that are not certified by the Florida Department of State and provided criminal penalties for members of governing bodies who purchase or sell election systems in violation of state requirements. The bill would have broadly defined “election systems” and included technology used for voter data, mail sorters, and election night reporting, as well as “future technologies integrated into the election process.” It would

have directed the Department of State to adopt rules to establish minimum standards for voting and election system security measures, including a prohibition on system technology that uses wireless data communications. (O’Hara)

Elections Affected by Disasters (Monitored)

HB 1317 (Cross) and SB 1486 (Polsky) would have revised section 101.733, Florida Statutes, relating to Election Emergency, and section 101.62, Florida Statutes, relating to Request for Vote-by-Mail Ballots. The bills would have required notice of a rescheduled election due to an emergency to be posted on an affected municipality’s website (current law requires only posting on the affected county’s website). The bills would have also revised criteria and procedures the Secretary of State must consider in assessing the impacts of a declared emergency on jurisdictions and the ability of all voters to participate in elections. The bills would have directed counties and municipalities affected by an emergency for which the Secretary of State has revised or rescheduled voting dates, procedures, or locations to prominently display such information on their respective websites. The bills would have revised vote-by-mail requirements by specifying that the use of the uniform statewide ballot application may not be required for vote-by-mail ballot requests from a county affected by an emergency. (O’Hara)

Employee Protections (Monitored)

SB 352 (Gaetz) and HB 495 (Benarroch) would have prohibited public employers or independent contractors from taking retaliatory personnel action against an employee who reports to the Florida Commission on Ethics a violation of the state ethics code or violation of Article II, section 8(f) of the Florida Constitution (prohibiting lobbying for compensation by current public officers and former public officers for six years following service in a public position). In addition, the bills would have prohibited public employers and independent contractors from taking retaliatory personal action against any employee who discloses information to the Florida Commission on Ethics relating to an alleged breach of the public trust or alleged violation of Article II, section 8(f). (O’Hara)

Political Activities on School Grounds (Monitored)

SB 1250 (Martin) and HB 1233 (Gossett-Seidman) would have authorized specified political activities and prohibited other political activities on the grounds of a K-12 school. (O’Hara)

FINANCE AND TAXATION

Ad Valorem Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouses of Quadriplegics (Monitored)

HJR 163 (Tant) and SJR 748 (Simon) would have proposed an amendment to Section 6, Article VII of the Florida Constitution to permit the homestead property tax exemption of a deceased quadriplegic to pass on to the quadriplegic’s surviving spouse. The joint resolutions would have specified that the proposal would appear on the ballot at the next general election or an earlier special election. The tax exemption would have applied only to those surviving spouses who owned the property in question as a homestead at the time of death of the quadriplegic spouse. (Chapman)

Ad Valorem Tax (Monitored)

SB 1308 (Ingoglia) would have allowed counties and municipalities to establish an ad valorem tax rebate program for property owners by ordinance. (Chapman)

Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (Monitored)

CS/HJR 1215 (Alvarez, D.) and CS/SJR 318 (Truenow) would have proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize tax exemptions for certain tangible personal property. If it had passed with 60% voter approval, tangible personal property on agricultural land used in the production of agricultural products and/or owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the agricultural land would have been exempted from ad valorem taxes. CS/SJR 318 was amended to clarify the language that it would have pertained to was equipment habitually located or typically present on agricultural land. Additionally, the amendment clarified the exemption would have been subject to conditions and limitations and reasonable definitions as specified by the Legislature in general law. (Chapman)

Ad Valorem Tax Exemption for Nonprofit Homes for the Aged (Monitored)

SB 298 (Wright) and HB 321 (Smith) would have amended Florida’s ad valorem tax exemption requirements for nonprofit homes for the aged. The bills would have clarified the qualifications for the tax exemption; the bills would have required an organization to be a not-for-profit organization under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, or an entity not licensed under Chapter 429, Florida Statutes, and wholly owned by a corporation not-for-profit formed under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes. (Chapman)

Ad Valorem Taxation (Monitored)

HB 227 (Caruso) and SB 378 (Harrell) would have sought to allow a property owner who has applied for a homestead exemption to rescind their application between August 1 and September 15 of the same taxable year if they meet certain criteria. The bills would have authorized the Department of Revenue to adopt emergency rules to implement these changes. The bills would also have changed the definition of an exempt organization to include the property used for charitable, religious, scientific, or literary activities. The bills would have provided further clarification as to what is meant by “religious activities.” (Chapman)

Affordable

Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption on Leased Land (Monitored)

CS/HB 411 (Chaney) and SB 488 (DiCeglie) were identical bills that would have proposed an amendment to existing property tax exemption statutes to allow land leased from a Housing Finance Authority under specific conditions to qualify for ad valorem tax exemptions. The bills would have required the lands be leased for a minimum of 99 years and predominantly used for qualifying housing purposes. CS/HB 411 was amended to provide emergency rules to implement the act and specified that the bill would have first applied to the 2026 tax roll. (Chapman)

Assessments Levied on Recreational Vehicle Parks (Monitored)

SB 530 (Burgess) would have amended existing statutes to change how non-ad valorem special assessments are levied on recreation vehicle parks. RV parks were to be treated in the same manner as commercial entities like hotels or motels, not residential units. Further, the bill would have prohibited levying special assessments on portions of RV parking spaces or campsites exceeding certain maximum square footage standards. Lastly, the bill would have required local governments to consider occupancy rates of RV parks to ensure assessments are fairly apportioned. (Chapman)

Assessment of Homestead Property (Monitored)

CS/HB 1041 (Berfield) and CS/SB 176 (DiCeglie) were the implementing bills for HJR 1039 (Berfield) and SJR 174 (DiCeglie), respectively. The bills would have provided for various definitions relating to elevation or elevated improvement to properties consistent with the National Flood Insurance

Program or local building codes. The bills would have mandated that changes or improvements made through elevating a property be assessed for property tax purposes using the pre-elevation assessed value, considering certain limitations for square footage exceeding 110% of the original size of the property. CS/HB 1041 was amended, adding a definition for a previous flood event and revised eligibility for qualifying under the mandate. SB 1192 (Ingoglia) was the implementing bill for SJR 1190 (Ingoglia). SB 1192 would have provided definitions for elevation and elevated improvement to properties consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program or Florida Building Code. The bills would have mandated that changes or improvements made through elevating a property be assessed for property tax purposes using the pre-elevation assessed value, considering certain limitations for square footage exceeding 130% of the original size of the property. The bills had set forth specific timeframes and conditions for when this methodology is applicable. CS/ SB 176 was amended to clarify that homestead property owners who elevate their homes in flood zones were to be required to meet National Flood Insurance Program standards and Florida Building Code elevation requirements. (Chapman)

Assessment of Property Used for Residential Purposes (Monitored)

CS/HB 1339 (Overdorf) and SB 1176 (Leek) would have sought to prohibit the assessment of improvements to residential properties for enhancing wind resistance from being included in the property’s annual taxable value assessment. (Chapman)

Child Care and Early Learning Providers (Monitored)

CS/CS/CS/HB 47 (McFarland) and CS/SB 738 (Burton) would have sought to exempt public and private preschools from certain special assessments by municipalities. The bill also included elementary and middle schools affiliated with religious institutions in the exemption criteria. CS/ CS/CS/HB 47 was amended to include additional criteria related to licensing, including provisions and requirements for county licensing boards, and revised childcare facility regulations. CS/SB 738 was amended to address provisions related to childcare facility operations and personnel training requirements. (Chapman)

Communication Services Tax

(Monitored)

SB 1352 (Trumbull) would have prohibited increasing local Communication Service Tax (CST) rates until January 1, 2031. The bill would have included specific exemptions for CST if the equipment is being used in recovery efforts following a disaster or to provide services in unserved areas of the state. The bill would have established the Communication Services Tax Working Group in the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR), which would have consisted of nine members (four communications industry representatives, two county government representatives, two municipal government representatives, and the Executive Director of FDOR or their designee). The working group was to review national trends and best practices and compare them to Florida’s model. A report identifying areas for improvement was to be provided to the Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the House by December 1, 2025. The working group was set to be repealed by October 1, 2028. (Chapman)

Community Redevelopment Agencies (Opposed)

CS/CS/HB 991 (Giallombardo) and CS/SB 1242 (McClain) would have significantly restricted the authority and long-term viability of Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs). The original versions of the bills required all CRAs in existence as of July 1, 2025, to sunset by the earlier of their charter expiration or September 30, 2045. They also prohibited the creation of new CRAs and barred CRAs from initiating new projects or issuing new debt after October 1, 2025. CS/SB 1242 was substantially amended to remove the mandatory sunset, allow new CRAs to be created, and permit the funding of new projects. The amended Senate version required newly created CRAs to be governed by municipal elected officials, while allowing up to two additional members to serve on a sevenmember board. It also prohibited changes to existing CRA boundaries and restricted CRA expenditures for activities such as festivals, concerts, and parades. In contrast, CS/CS/HB 991 maintained strict limitations on CRAs and was amended to include provisions from CS/SB 110 (Simon), establishing the Rural Renaissance Program, and CS/HB 1461 (Yarkosky), a Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) deregulation package. These additions expanded the bill to cover topics such as permitting restrictions, postdisaster reconstruction rules, and rural economic development initiatives. (Cruz)

Deferred and Unpaid Taxes (Monitored)

HB 761 (Casello) would have modified the Florida tax codes by adjusting the procedures and qualifications for homestead tax deferral and the sale of tax certificates. Tax deferral eligibility on homestead property is limited to a just value of $1 million or less. The minimum value of a tax certificate was proposed to be increased from $250 to $500. SB 882 (Berman) was similar to HB 761. The major difference was SB 882 would have required a person who has waived their homestead tax exemption (but was still eligible) to furnish a certificate of eligibility prepared by the county property appraiser to qualify for the provisions of this bill. (Chapman)

Exemption from Ad Valorem Taxes of Child Care Facilities (Monitored)

SB 1306 (Calatayud) would have provided an ad valorem tax exemption for any portion of a property used as a Gold Seal Quality childcare facility, regardless of whether the facility is owned or leased. The bill would have also clarified that a lessee childcare facility operator responsible for ad valorem taxes under their lease would have been eligible for the exemption upon demonstrating compliance with the requirements. (Chapman)

Homestead Assessment Limitation (Monitored)

HB 1027 (Borrero) and SB 1178 (Rodriguez) were implementing bills for HJR 1025 (Borrero) and SJR 326 (Rodriguez), which would have sought to modify homestead exemptions for certain lowincome seniors. The bills would have frozen a home’s assessed value at the amount recorded when the homeowner turns 65. (Chapman)

Homestead Exemptions (Opposed)

SB 1018 (Ingoglia) was the implementing bill for SJR 1016 (Ingoglia), which would have proposed to delete the school district property tax levy homestead exemption and increase the non-school property tax levy exemption from $25,000 to $75,000. (Chapman)

Homestead Property (Monitored)

SJR 326 (Rodriguez) and HJR 1025 (Borrero) would have proposed a constitutional amendment to modify homestead exemptions for certain lowincome seniors. The bills would have frozen a home’s assessed value at the amount recorded when the homeowner turns 65. (Chapman)

Homestead Property Assessed Value Determination (Monitored)

HJR 1039 (Berfield) and SJR 174 (DiCeglie) would have proposed a constitutional amendment that would have excluded flood mitigation improvements from the assessment of homestead properties for ad valorem taxes. (Chapman)

Homestead Property Assessment Limitation (Monitored)

SJR 1190 (Ingoglia) would have proposed to amend the state constitution to exclude improvements made on homestead properties to mitigate flooding from the assessment value of the property for ad valorem taxes. (Chapman)

Improvement to Structures on Agricultural Lands

(Monitored)

HB 589 (Brackett) and SB 786 (Truenow) would have provided an exemption from property tax valuation assessments for any improvements for agricultural purposes on lands classified as agricultural. (Chapman)

Increased Homestead Property Exemptions (Opposed)

SJR 1016 (Ingoglia) was a proposed constitutional amendment increasing the non-school property tax exemption for homestead properties from $25,000 to $75,000. The proposal was inclusive of current law, which established an annual adjustment to this exemption by the Consumer Price Index. Additionally, the homestead exemption for school district levies was deleted. (Chapman)

Legal Tender (Monitored)

CS/CS/SB 132 (Rodriguez) and CS/HB 999 (Bankson) would have sought to establish legal tender status for different forms of currency. CS/ CS/SB 132 identified the status of specie and electronic currency. Specie is money in the form of coins rather than notes. CS/HB 999 would have identified gold and silver specie as legal tender. Both bills would have provided that specie may not be characterized as personal property for taxation or regulatory purposes and provided exemptions from tax liability. The bills would have authorized the recognition of specie legal tender for the payment of private debts, taxes, and state or local government fees. CS/CS/SB 132 and CS/HB 999 were amended to add clarity to the regulation of the use of the new forms of legal tender. (Chapman)

Local Business Taxes (Opposed)

HB 503 (Botana) and SB 1196 (Truenow) would have proposed to include the collection of local business taxes in the audit review process of the State Auditor General. The bills set a base Local Business Tax revenue year for Fiscal Year 2024. There was a requirement for the reduction of fees and refunds to be issued to businesses if local government revenues exceed the revenue base year annually. The local government would be required to provide an affidavit stating compliance with these provisions in each annual audit. The bills would have provided an exemption for fiscally constrained counties and the municipalities within them. (Chapman)

Local Government Assessments (Monitored)

HB 771 (Steele) would have amended the current law to stop counties from using special assessments to fund certain municipal services and facilities through municipal service taxing units and municipal service benefit units. (Chapman)

Local Option Taxes (Opposed)

CS/CS/HB 1221 (Miller) and CS/CS/SB 1664 (Trumbull) would have proposed significant changes to the process for adopting and renewing local option taxes and surtaxes, requiring voter approval via referendum rather than adoption by ordinance, with limited exceptions for previously authorized bond indebtedness.

Key provisions included:

▸ Tourism Development Taxes in effect as of June 30, 2025, must have been renewed by a referendum-approved ordinance by January 1, 2033, to remain in effect for another eight years. Future renewals would also have required voter approval in eight-year increments.

▸ Local Option Food and Beverage Taxes would have expired eight years after enactment and could have only been renewed in eight-year increments by referendum.

▸ Discretionary Sales Surtaxes in effect as of June 30, 2025, must have been renewed by referendum-approved ordinance by January 1, 2033, to remain in effect for another eight years, with future renewals also requiring voter approval in eight-year increments.

These changes would have limited local government flexibility in implementing and maintaining revenue sources essential for community services and infrastructure. Both bills were amended to specify

that the new referendum requirement for a surtax to remain in effect would have only applied to those discretionary sales surtaxes required under existing law to be approved by referendum. The amendment added content to be included in ordinances and referendum ballot questions and made technical corrections. CS/CS/SB 1664 was further amended to grandfather in existing sales tax levies that contain expiration dates that exceed the eightyear duration. Additionally, local governments may set their own expiration dates for future levies that exceed the eight-year time frame. All new or renewal levies would have been required to be placed on the ballot for voter consideration.

CS/CS/HB 1221 would have provided an expiration date of July 1, 2025, for existing projects, contracts, and bonds funded using TDT and authorized counties to use tourism development tax for any public purpose after that date. The House bill would have required counties that use revenues from tourism development tax to reduce the county property tax levies proportionately and would have provided formulas for calculating the necessary reduction. CS/CS/HB 1221 would have also provided a sunset date of July 1, 2025, for Tourism Development Councils and allowed the same councils to be re-established after December 31, 2025, subject to approval by resolution by the council’s respective board of county commissioners. The House bill would have also allowed county elected boards to reduce or repeal local discretionary sales surtaxes after October 1 of the fourth year of the sales tax levy. (Chapman)

Property Tax Benefits for Certain Residential Properties Subject to a Long-term Lease (Opposed)

CS/CS/HJR 1257 (Busatta) and CS/SJR 1510 (Avila) would have proposed a constitutional amendment to extend homestead exemption benefits and assessment limitations to additional properties owned by homestead property owners that are leased for terms of six months or more to other persons. This change would have allowed leased properties to receive similar tax benefits as owneroccupied homestead properties, effectively reducing their taxable value. If it had been approved by the voters, this proposal would have further eroded a primary local government revenue source. CS/CS/ HJR 1257 was amended to make the amendment to the Florida Constitution apply to Article VII, Sections 3 and 4. CS/SJR 1510 was amended to conform with the House bill but included additional

provisions limiting the exemption to apply to only one separately located property. CS/CS/HJR 1257 was further amended, proposing the “first time Florida homesteaders program,” which would have established a 50% reduction in the taxable value of a newly purchased homestead property if the property owner has not owned any property in the previous four calendar years. The reduction would have been for the first five years of the homestead property ownership, and would have reduced by 20% each year beginning in year six.

CS/CS/HB 1259 (Busatta) and CS/SB 1512 (Avila) would have implemented CS/CS/HJR 1257 and CS/ SJR 1510, and would have extended homestead-like tax benefits to certain leased residential properties. These bills would have capped annual property assessment increases at the lower of 3% or the Consumer Price Index (CPI). They also would have outlined conditions for adjusting assessed values due to property improvements, physical changes, or damage from calamities. CS/CS/HB 1259 was amended to make technical clarifications and corrections to the applicability of the rental properties that would have qualified for the exemption and assessment limitation. Additionally, CS/CS/HB 1259 was amended to introduce an “Additional Homestead Exemption for First-Time Homesteader,” providing that persons establishing a homestead within one year of purchasing a home, and have not owned homestead property within the previous four years, would have qualified to receive an additional homestead exemption equal to 50% of the homestead property’s just value as of January 1 of the year the homestead is established. This additional exemption would have applied to the earlier of five years or until the property is sold. The additional exemption would have reduced each year by 20%. The amendment also would have provided that erroneous assessments of property may be corrected, prescribed the manner of correction, and provided for administrative procedures for property appraisers. (Chapman)

Property Tax Exemptions (Opposed)

HJR 357 (Chamberlin) was a proposed constitutional amendment to establish a new $100,000 property tax exemption applicable to all properties in Florida, including those currently not eligible for homestead exemptions. This new exemption would have been in addition to the existing homestead property exemptions ($50,000) on homestead properties. If HJR 357 had passed through the Legislature, it would have

been presented on the November 2026 ballot. To pass, the measure would have been required to be approved by 60% or more of the voters. (Chapman)

Property Tax Exemptions (Opposed)

HB 359 (Chamberlin) was the implementing bill for HJR 357, which would have established a new $100,000 exemption on all property tax levies effective January 1, 2027. (Chapman)

Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouses of Veterans (Monitored)

HB 217 (Mayfield) and SB 290 (Wright) would have authorized the surviving spouses of veterans who die before the issuance of a disability letter from the U.S. Government or Department of Veterans Affairs to produce this letter to the property appraiser as evidence for entitlement to the tax exemption for surviving spouses of veterans. (Chapman)

Refund of Taxes for Residential Improvements Rendered Uninhabitable by a Catastrophic Event (Monitored)

SB 1598 (Polsky) would have changed the date for when a refund may be reviewed and applicable from April 1 of the year following a catastrophic event to June 1. (Chapman)

Revenue Administration (Monitored)

SB 192 (Gruters) and HB 1303 (Mooney) would have sought to amend multiple Florida Statutes addressing specific tax terms and assessment procedures by repealing redundant sections and updating terminology. The bills would have replaced the term “tax assessor” with “property appraiser,” granted revised powers to county legislative bodies regarding tax levies and municipal service assessments and included a special assessment exemption for agricultural property. The bills would have also adjusted the definitions related to property valuation and classifications. (Chapman)

Revenues from Ad Valorem Taxes (Opposed)

HB 787 (Chamberlin) and SB 996 (Collins) would have changed the calculation of the rolled-back rate to include new construction property values and set limits on how much the millage may exceed the rolled-back rate. If a local jurisdiction desired to set a millage rate above the rolled-back rate, it may have only exceeded the rolled-back rate by 102%. Local governments were not to be allowed to exceed the 102% cap. Any revenues collected above the amount set by the 102% cap would have been required to be

returned to the taxpayers on a pro-rated basis or used to pay down local government debt. (Chapman)

Revising How Homestead Property is Assessed (Opposed)

HJR 773 (Steele) would have proposed an amendment to the Florida Constitution that would have changed how homestead property is assessed for property tax purposes. The amendment would have eliminated the annual assessment based on the property’s current just value and instead assessed properties at their most recent purchase price or, for new construction, the construction cost. This change, which would have taken effect on January 1, 2027, could have led to much lower property tax assessments for homeowners, particularly those who have owned their homes for a long time.

HB 775 (Steele) and SB 1092 (Martin) served as the implementing bills for HJR 773. Definitions were included relating to changes, additions, or improvements to be assessed at documented costs rather than just value. Provisions in these bills would have adjusted the assessment process for property owners replacing damaged or destroyed features on properties impacted by calamity, including specific assessments based on the extent of reconstruction. The bills would have provided authority for the Florida Department of Revenue to establish a grant program for local governments experiencing shortfalls in revenue due to the new assessment criteria and procedures. (Chapman)

Sales Tax Exemption for Disabled Veterans (Monitored)

HB 111 (Daniels) and SB 990 (Truenow) would have established a sales tax exemption for disabled veterans with a 100% service-connected disability rating. The bills would have required eligible veterans to apply and submit documentation required by the Department of Revenue. (Chapman)

Study on the Elimination of Property Taxes (Opposed)

SB 852 (Martin) was a proposal to require the Office of Economic and Demographic Research to study the elimination and replacement of property taxes. The study would have included an analysis of how the elimination of property taxes would affect public services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety. The study would have also included an assessment of the potential influence of the elimination of property taxes on the housing market. The study was to be required to consider

the attractiveness of a move to a consumptionbased (sales) tax for businesses related to other states. The study would have also determined the overall economic stability, consumer behavior, and long-term economic growth of Florida. The report was to be required to be submitted by October 1, 2025, if the bill passed. (Chapman)

Tax Exemption for Disabled Ex-servicemembers (Monitored)

HB 39 (Daley) and CS/SB 218 (Arrington) would have sought to increase the property tax exemption for certain disabled ex-servicemembers in Florida from $5,000 to $10,000. The dollar amount of the exemption was the only change proposed to this existing homestead property tax exemption. CS/SB 218 was amended to provide that the exemption would have applied beginning with the 2026 tax roll. (Chapman)

Tax Exemptions for Surviving Spouses of Quadriplegics (Monitored)

HB 165 (Tant) was the implementing bill of HJR 163 (Tant), and CS/SB 750 (Simon) was the implementing bill for SJR 748 (Simon). The bills would have allowed for the surviving spouse of a deceased quadriplegic to inherit the tax exemption benefits, provided the surviving spouse is still residing in the same homestead property. The bills would have permitted the transfer of a tax discount to a new homestead property unless the surviving spouse remarries, sells, or otherwise disposes of the original homestead property. HB 165 would have given the Department of Revenue emergency rulemaking authority to administer the bill’s provisions. CS/SB 750 was amended to make technical changes, replacing the word “discount” with the word “exemption.” (Chapman)

Tax Package (Monitored)

SB 7034 (Finance and Tax Committee) would have addressed several areas of taxation as a part of the negotiations process with the House of Representatives. Included in the Senate package of note was:

▸ Tourism Development Taxes limit of $50 million to fund marketing and promotional activities.

▸ Property Tax exemption on:

• Citrus Packing Houses impacted by Citrus Greening

• Childcare Facilities that achieve Gold Seal Certification

▸ Property Tax Study on Homestead Property

▸ Communication Services Tax local sales tax rate freeze until 2031

▸ Various Sales Tax Holidays

▸ Motor Vehicle Registration Fee credit

▸ Sales Tax Exemption on Clothing items under $75 (Chapman)

Taxation on Hemp Consumable THC Products (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 7029 (Salzman) would have imposed a 15% excise tax on consumable hemp THC products and created new registration, compliance, and enforcement requirements for dealers. The first $6 million would have gone to the General Inspection Trust Fund to be used for enforcement and testing. The remaining funds would have been deposited in the General Fund. CS/CS/HB 7029 was amended to make technical corrections. (Chapman)

Taxes on the Rental of Real Property (Monitored)

HB 817 (Partington) would have sought to repeal the transaction taxes on the rental of commercial properties. The bill would have also provided for exemptions on tangible personal property for educational institutions performing qualified production (motion picture) services. (Chapman)

Tourist Development Tax (Supported)

SB 1116 (Smith) would have amended the use of Tourist Development Tax, allowing these funds to be spent on public safety improvement, affordable and workforce housing development, and construction if those improvements are needed to increase tourism-related activities in the county or special district. (Chapman)

Tourist Development Taxes (Supported)

HB 6031 (Eskamani) and SB 1114 (Smith) would have limited the use of Tourist Development Tax (TDT) funds for advertising and promotional purposes, ensuring more funds can be allocated for local infrastructure improvements supporting tourism. HB 6031 would have removed the current requirement that at least 40% of TDT funds must be spent on tourism advertising and promotion. SB 1114 would have retained the 40% requirement but would have capped spending on advertising and promotion at $50 million. Both bills would have maintained existing provisions allowing funds to be used for tourism-related infrastructure improvements. These measures would have promoted greater flexibility in the use of TDT funds, allowing for investments in local infrastructure that support sustainable tourism growth. (Chapman)

HOUSING

Adaptive Reuse of Land (Opposed)

HB 409 (Caruso) and SB 1572 (Collins) would have created a statewide advisory body, the Adaptive Reuse Public-Private Partnership Council (Council), to review and approve adaptive reuse projects. The bills did not define “adaptive reuse,” but the term is generally understood to refer to the process of repurposing existing buildings or sites in commercial, industrial, or mixed-use areas to create new housing. Once a project is approved by the Council, a municipality or county would have been mandated to authorize multifamily or mixed-use residential development in any area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed-use. In addition, the bills would have required counties and municipalities to authorize hotels or motels to operate unencumbered as a transitional housing use. The bills would have required local governments to streamline approvals for adaptive reuse projects by prohibiting land use changes, zoning deviations, or comp plan amendments, reducing parking requirements, and cutting impact fees by one-third for affordable housing components. They also would have allowed tax exemptions for affordable units and prohibited local sales or tourism taxes on such projects, while ensuring compliance with all applicable laws. (O’Hara)

Affordable Housing (Opposed)

CS/CS/CS/SB 184 (Gaetz) and CS/CS/CS/HB 247 (Conerly) would have required local governments to adopt an ordinance by December 1, 2025, to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by-right in any area zoned for single-family residential use. The bills would have authorized local governments to regulate the permitting, construction, and use of an ADU, but specified that a local government may not:

▸ Require the parcel owner to reside on the property;

▸ Increase parking requirements on any parcel that can accommodate an additional motor vehicle on a driveway without impeding access to the primary dwelling unit; and

▸ Require replacement parking if a garage or covered parking structure is converted to an ADU

The bills also would have required the ADU to be assessed separately for ad valorem tax purposes if the primary residence is homesteaded property. The bills would have authorized local governments to provide density bonus incentives to any landowner

who voluntarily donates real property to the local government for the purpose of providing housing that is affordable for military families receiving the basic allowance for housing. In addition to the ADU provisions, the bill authorized, but did not require, a landlord to accept a reusable tenant screening report from a prospective tenant. The bills also provided that the use or conversion of single-family or two-family dwellings into certain mental health support residences does not constitute a change of occupancy under the Florida Building Code, nor may such residences be reclassified for the purpose of enforcing the Florida Fire Prevention Code solely due to such use or conversion. (O’Hara)

Affordable Housing and Supportive Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (Monitored)

SB 1004 (Rodriguez) and HB 1131 (Weinberger) would have established various tax exemptions, tax credits, and other incentives and programs relating to housing and services for persons with developmental disabilities. The bills would have exempted from property taxes the portions of a property that provide housing to persons with developmental disabilities, and required local governments to waive non-school impact fees associated with units that provide housing for such persons. The bills would have created a process for obtaining refunds from taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 112 for building materials used in residential units for such persons and provided tax credits for eligible businesses that employ such persons. The bills would have directed the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) to prioritize funding under the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program for the development of rental housing for such persons and directed FHFC to establish loan guarantees for qualified developers that construct housing for such persons. The bills would have directed the Department of Children and Families, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, the Department of Education, and the Department of Transportation to provide funding and support services to such persons. (O’Hara)

Conversion of Hotels into Residential Housing (Monitored)

HB 685 (Alvarez, J.) and SB 1036 (Rodriguez) would have created section 220.1851, Florida Statutes, to establish a program to provide corporate tax credits to be awarded by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation to eligible projects that convert hotels into residential housing. (O’Hara)

Housing (Opposed)

HB 923 (Lopez, V.) and SB 1594 (McClain) would have revised current laws relating to the various ad valorem tax exemptions for projects providing affordable housing. The bills would have substantially revised sections 196.1978 and 196.1979, Florida Statutes, which establish five property tax exemptions available to certain affordable housing developments. The bills would have added a third tier of property tax exemptions for newly constructed multifamily projects for all affordable units within a qualified development approved pursuant to the Live Local Act administrative approval processes. The bills would have revised provisions of current law that authorize a county or municipal taxing authority to opt out of the property tax exemption established by section 196.1978(3)(o), Florida Statutes. The bills would have also revised requirements relating to the 99year affordability property tax exemption for FHFCfunded properties by removing the requirement that an eligible property contain more than 70 affordable units. Instead, the bills would have required eligible properties to contain at least one affordable unit, or, for an adaptive reuse project, at least 20% of the project’s residential units must be affordable. The bills would have included adaptive reuse projects within the scope of the county and municipal affordable housing property tax exemption established by section 196.1979, Florida Statutes. (O’Hara)

Housing for Legally Verified Agricultural Workers (Monitored)

SB 84 (Collins) would have prohibited governmental entities from adopting or enforcing any legislation that inhibits the construction of housing for legally verified agricultural workers on land operated as a bona fide farm. The bill would have defined the terms “housing site” and “legally verified agricultural worker.” It would have provided that housing units for legally verified agricultural workers must meet specified criteria, including separation, maximum square footage, setback, and screening requirements. The bill would have also specified provisions for removal of housing that fails to satisfy minimum criteria and grandfathered housing sites constructed before July 2025, unless the housing site is modified. Similar provisions were amended to CS/CS/CS/SB 700 (Truenow), which passed. (O’Hara)

Local Housing Assistance Plans (Monitored)

CS/HB 701 (Stark) and CS/SB 1714 (Burton) would have expanded the list of persons eligible to receive assistance under a local housing assistance plan to include persons who own mobile homes in mobile home parks and authorized local housing assistance plans to allocate funds for rental assistance to such persons. The bills would have directed counties and SHIP-eligible municipalities to include in their local housing assistance plans the provision of funds for lot rental assistance to persons who own mobile homes in mobile home parks and revised the criteria for awards made to eligible sponsors or persons to include mobile home lot rental assistance and the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of mobile homes. The bills would have prohibited counties and SHIP-eligible cities from discriminating between types of housing when awarding funds from the local housing distribution pursuant to section 420.9075, Florida Statutes. (O’Hara)

Mental Health Support Residences (Monitored)

SB 610 (Gruters) would have amended current law relating to group homes for persons with mental health issues and certified recovery residences. It would have provided that a single and two-family dwelling does not have a change of occupancy as defined in the Florida Building Code and may not be reclassified for purposes of enforcing the Florida Fire Prevention Code solely due to the dwelling’s use as or conversion to a certified recovery residence or a residence owned by a charitable organization and used for housing no more than six adults suffering from mental health issues. (O’Hara)

Ownership of Single-family Residential Property by Business Entities (Monitored)

HB 1593 (Joseph) and SB 1810 (Smith) would have provided that a business entity that has an interest in more than 100 single-family residential properties in this state may not purchase, acquire, or otherwise obtain an ownership interest in another single-family residential property and subsequently lease or rent such property. (O’Hara)

Resale-restricted Affordable Housing (Monitored)

SB 556 (Wright) and HB 1425 (Gerwig) would have created section 193.0181 relating to “resalerestricted affordable housing for home ownership.” The bills would have defined “resale-restricted” as a legally enforceable deed restriction lasting

15 years or longer, which limits the property’s resale to an income-eligible buyer. Such property may include housing purchased with government assistance and housing purchased from a not-forprofit housing organization. The bills would have required that resale-restricted affordable housing be assessed under section 193.011, Florida Statutes. They would have specified that resale-restricted affordable housing is a land development regulation and a limitation on the highest and best use of the property. The bills would have also amended section 193.011, which specifies the factors property appraisers must consider in deriving a just valuation. They would have required owners of resale-restricted affordable housing, as defined in the bills, to submit an application to the property appraiser that specifies the legal limitation on the property and includes an affidavit affirming the owner’s obligation to abide by the resale restriction. (O’Hara)

Residential Land Use Development Regulations (Monitored)

HB 401 (Jacques) and SB 634 (Martin) would have authorized municipalities and counties to zone or designate parcels for single-family residential use or “single-family hybrid housing use” (also known as “build-to-rent” subdivisions). The bills would have also authorized municipalities and counties to allow the use of land for single-family residential use while prohibiting the use of land for single-family hybrid housing use. The bills would have exempted a builder or developer from any land development regulations governing single-family residential use if the builder or developer owns the unoccupied home under permitting and construction. (O’Hara)

Taxation/Missing Middle Property Tax Exemption (Opposed)

CS/HB 7033 (Ways and Means Committee) included provisions that would have reduced Florida’s sales tax rates by 0.75% and provided for an array of tax reductions. The bill would have repealed the authority for municipalities and counties to opt out of the “Missing Middle” property tax exemption in section 196.1978(3) (o). The “Missing Middle” property tax exemption was created by the Live Local Act in 2023 and is available to properties with more than 70 units that are “affordable.”

▸ Units that serve households from 80-120% AMI would get a 75% tax exemption

▸ Units that serve households that are less than 80% AMI would get a 100% exemption

The bill said that a local government that elected to opt out before July 2025 may continue the opt-out for the original term of the election, but it may not renew the opt-out. In addition, the bill changed the authorized use of tourist development taxes from uses specified by statute to use for general revenue purposes. The use of such taxes for general revenue purposes must be offset by a reduction in county property taxes in 2026. (O’Hara)

LAND USE, BUILDING, AND DEVELOPMENT

Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Monitored)

HB 1561 (Sapp) would have modified the expedited state review process for comprehensive plan amendments. The bill required local governments to transmit adopted amendments and supporting documentation to state reviewing agencies within 10 working days of adoption. It also mandated a second public hearing within 180 days of receiving comments from reviewing agencies. If the amendment was not transmitted within the 10-day window, and no extension was agreed upon, the amendment would have been considered withdrawn. (Cruz)

Building and Plumbing Permits for the Use of Onsite Sewage Treatment

and Disposal Systems (Monitored)

HB 287 (Conerly) would have revised current law relating to the issuance of local government building and plumbing permits for buildings that use onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS). Current law prohibits a city or county from issuing a building or plumbing permit for a building that requires an OSTDS unless the owner or builder “has received” a construction permit for the OSTDS from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The bill revised this statement to prohibit the local government from issuing such permits unless the owner or builder has “applied for” the OSTDS permit from DEP. SB 1120 (Ingoglia) would have prohibited a city or county from requiring, as a condition of issuing a building permit for a single-family dwelling, that an applicant first obtain a construction permit from DEP for the OSTDS. SB 1120 would have also specified that a construction permit for an OSTDS for a singlefamily dwelling is valid in perpetuity from the date of issuance, except for work seaward of the coastal construction control line. (O’Hara)

Building Permits for a Single-family Dwelling (Opposed)

CS/SB 1128 (Ingoglia) and CS/HB 1035 (Esposito) would have provided that a building permit issued by a local government pursuant to section 553.79, Florida Statutes, for a single-family dwelling may not expire before the effective date of the next edition of the Florida Building Code, which is updated every three years. The bills would have also specified that a permit application for the construction of a single-family dwelling in a jurisdiction for which a state of emergency was issued within 24 months before the application and which is signed and sealed by a licensed architect or engineer that the plans comply with the Florida Building Code is deemed approved. The bills would have required the applicable local government to issue the building permit within two days after such approval. CS/HB 1035 would have prohibited local governments from requiring a building permit for any work on a single-family dwelling valued at less than $7,500, except for electrical, plumbing, or structural work (excluding doors and windows). In addition, if an applicant is using a local government plans reviewer, CS/HB 1035 would have required a local government to approve, approve with conditions, or deny within five business days of receiving a complete and sufficient application the following building permits for an existing singlefamily dwelling if the work is valued at less than $15,000: structural, accessory structure, alarm, electrical, irrigation, landscaping, mechanical, plumbing, or roofing. (O’Hara)

Building Regulation (Monitored)

HB 707 (Franklin) and SB 1298 (Simon) would have revised various statutes relating to building code administrators and inspectors. The bills would have removed licensed building code administrators and inspectors from being eligible for an exemption from certain continuing education requirements. The bills would have exempted owners of property acting as their own contractors from certain requirements in Chapter 489, Part II, relating to construction contracting and authorized the owner (excluding a corporate entity) to sign a building permit application and disclosure statement. SB 1298 also included procedures for a business organization to designate a new qualifying agent and for such agent to apply to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for a change in contractor, and procedures for the local building official to address the change in

contractor to designate a new qualifying agent. SB 740 (Harrell) did not include any of the foregoing provisions, but it included a provision that would have removed licensed building code administrators and inspectors from being eligible for an exemption from certain continuing education requirements. (O’Hara)

Construction Contracting (Monitored)

HB 755 (Daley) and CS/SB 1262 (Burgess) would have revised various laws relating to construction contracting. Of relevance to municipalities are provisions that would have directed the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to develop a standardized disciplinary form to be used by local construction regulation boards to uniformly report violations of state law relating to construction contracting and required local construction regulation boards to search the Department’s automated system for any recorded disciplinary forms before issuing a license or registration. (O’Hara)

Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Opposed)

CS/HB 1461 (Yarkosky) and SB 1452 (Truenow) were bills that would have revised the powers and authority of the Department of Professional Regulation (DBPR) and the divisions and professional boards administered by the agency. CS/HB 1461 would have imposed new restrictions on the regulation and issuance of building permits by local governments. The bill would have prohibited a local enforcement agency from denying the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to a property owner based on noncompliance with a Florida-friendly landscaping ordinance if the owner was issued a permit for the property within one year of the declaration of a natural disaster. In addition, the bill would have also prohibited a local enforcement agency from denying the issuance of a building permit for the alteration, modification, or repair of a single-family residential structure if specific criteria were met. The bill also specified that a building permit is not required for the construction of playground equipment, a fence, or a landscape irrigation system on singlefamily residential property. Lastly, the bill would have directed DBPR to conduct a study and make recommendations regarding the following: a uniform process for permit inspections, including a uniform process for virtual inspections; how building officials can most efficiently perform the most

common building inspections and how to reduce the number of inspections performed; and the creation of a uniform permitting process for common building permits. (O’Hara)

Florida Building Code (Monitored)

SB 1548 (Leek) and HB 1477 (Partington) would have directed a local government that has any excess funds from building code enforcement that it is prohibited from carrying forward to first use such funds for performing necessary services and repairs on its stormwater management system. The bills would have prohibited state funds from being used for such stormwater improvements if the local government has excess funds from building code enforcement and would have prohibited the local government from receiving state funds through a local budget request to its legislative delegation unless it has no excess funds for stormwater improvements. If a local government determines its stormwater management system does not require services or repairs, the bills would have directed that such funds must be used to rebate and reduce fees and for other purposes specified under current law section 553.80(7)(a)2., Florida Statutes. In addition, the bills would have provided that a local government is not eligible for state funds if the local government has been subject to a legislative committee’s audit within one year of the local government’s budget request or if such local government does not submit its local funding initiative request to its legislative delegation. (O’Hara)

Florida Building Code (Monitored)

SB 838 (DiCeglie) would have amended the Florida Building Code to prohibit a local government from adopting a local lookback ordinance for substantial improvements or repairs to a structure that is more stringent than the Florida Building Code. Similar provisions were included in CS/CS/CS/SB 180 (DiCeglie), which passed. (O’Hara)

Food Insecure Areas (Supported)

HB 89 (Rayner, McFarland) would have empowered local governments to revise land development regulations to support the siting of small-footprint grocery stores in areas designated as foodinsecure. The bill also granted local governments the authority to impose mandatory reporting requirements on such stores to monitor access and availability of food in underserved communities. (Cruz)

Historic Cemeteries Program (Monitored)

SB 310 (Sharief) would have required local governments to approve rezonings for vacant excess land sold by historic African American cemeteries. The bill mandated that the new zoning designation match the most permissive land use category and zoning district of adjacent properties. (Cruz)

Land Use and Development Regulations (Opposed)

CS/SB 1118 (McClain) and HB 1209 (Steele) were comprehensive growth management bills that would have significantly reduced municipal authority over land use and development decisions. The bills mandated administrative approval of certain developments within agricultural enclaves, even when inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan, and removed public input from those decisions. The bills would have prohibited optional comprehensive plan elements from limiting development density or intensity and required a supermajority vote to increase development restrictions. The bills would have established a new cause of action for property owners if comprehensive plan amendments were denied or delayed, shifting the burden of proof onto local governments. The legislation would have also revised standards for impact fee increases, limiting the definition of “extraordinary circumstances” and requiring detailed justification studies. By January 1, 2026, local governments would have been required to establish minimum lot sizes and allow administrative approval for certain residential infill developments. CS/SB 1118 would have expanded development rights for agricultural enclaves, revised annexation procedures, and retroactively voided some voluntary annexations. It would have also specified that land development regulations are not subject to referenda and prohibited charter provisions that restrict height or density. (Cruz)

Local Government Impact Fees (Opposed)

CS/SB 482 (DiCeglie) and CS/HB 665 (Steele) would have limited local governments’ ability to increase impact fees beyond statutory limits. The bills defined “extraordinary circumstances” narrowly and required local governments to meet specific population, permitting, and cost growth thresholds before adopting increases. Initially, the bills prohibited requiring art installations as a condition of permitting, though that language was later removed. The bills also created detailed criteria for adopting both transportation and non-

transportation impact fee increases, requiring the demonstration of multiple growth indicators in a “demonstrated-need study.” (Cruz)

Panelized Construction (Monitored)

SB 902 (Martin) and HB 1511 (Greco) would have defined the term “panelized construction” as any building with non-concealed mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components created by the off-site fabrication of structural components or panels, which are then transported to the construction site for assembly. The bills would have provided that panelized construction is not required to have state approval but must comply with all local requirements of the governmental agency having jurisdiction at the installation site. HB 1511 also would have authorized a county or a municipality to use panelized construction for immediate and temporary shelter purposes on property designated by a county for camping and sleeping by homeless persons. (O’Hara)

Preemption of the Regulation of Hoisting Equipment (Supported)

HB 6009 (Cross) and SB 346 (Rouson) would have removed provisions of current law that preempt the regulation of hoisting equipment to the state. (O’Hara)

Private Provider Building Inspection Services (Opposed)

HB 695 (Gentry) and SB 1474 (DiCeglie) would have substantially revised current laws relating to private provider building inspectors to grant additional authority and autonomy to private providers and to remove authority from local building officials. The bills would have added private providers to the list of persons required to be appointed to the Florida Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board and the Florida Building Commission. The bills purported to “clarify” that local building officials may only review private provider submissions for “completeness,” would have prohibited local building officials from re-doing or duplicating private provider services, and would have prohibited local building officials from conducting site visits when the owner or builder is using a private provider. The bills would have prohibited a local government from charging additional fees (including an administrative fee) for building inspections if the owner or contractor hires a private provider to perform such services. They would have revised provisions relating to a private provider’s notice of required inspections. The

bills would have prohibited local governments from requiring private providers to use electronic portals or submission systems to submit documents. They would have provided that a local building official is not responsible for the regulatory administration or supervision of building code inspection services performed by a private provider and that private providers are vested with the authority of, and must serve as, the local building official with respect to certain services, including the issuance of building permits. The bills would have required that building permits issued by a private provider be available on the private provider association’s website, accessible to the public only by payment of a fee. In addition, they provide that a private provider is solely responsible for securing the review and approval of other local, regional, or state entities and utilities. The bills would have required private providers to use forms provided by the Florida Building Commission rather than forms acceptable to the local building official. The bills would have created a cause of action for damages and injunctive relief by private providers against local building officials or local governments for violating provisions of laws applicable to private providers, for “disparaging” private providers, or for “interfering” with private providers. (O’Hara)

Private Providers/Alternative Plans Review and Inspections (Monitored)

CS/SB 1134 (Calatayud) and CS/CS/HB 1071 (Benarroch) would have revised current law relating to alternative plans review and inspections pursuant to section 553.791, Florida Statutes. The bills would have revised the definition of “single-trade inspection” and added “single-trade plans review” within the definition to include any inspection or plans review focused on a single construction trade. The bills would have added “solar energy and energy storage installations or alterations” within this definition. These provisions were amended to CS/CS/CS/SB 683 (Griffitts), which passed. (O’Hara)

School Facilities (Opposed)

CS/HB 569 (Kendall) and SB 1188 (McClain) would have preempted local zoning and permitting authority over charter schools. The bills required local governments to treat charter schools the same as traditional public schools and prohibited the enforcement of vehicular stacking regulations that could limit school enrollment. They also required developers to offset education impact fees

through contributions to charter schools or school districts within three miles. SB 1188 prohibited enforcement of local building codes more stringent than state codes if they would reduce student capacity in conversion charter schools. CS/HB 569 clarified that charter schools are considered public facilities for concurrency purposes. (Cruz)

Transportation Concurrency (Monitored)

CS/HB 203 (Grow), SB 1074 (McClain), and SB 1738 (Ingoglia) would have amended the capital improvements element of local government comprehensive plans. The bills would have required plans to identify needed facilities to either achieve adopted levels of service or maintain current levels of service within five years. (Cruz)

Underground Utility and Excavation Contractors (Monitored)

SB 808 (Yarborough) and CS/HB 869 (Sapp) would have revised the current law definition of “underground utility and excavation contractor” in Chapters 489 and 633, Florida Statutes, to specify that an underground utility and excavation contractor may install piping that is an integral part of a fire protection system up to a specified distance from a building. (O’Hara)

NATURAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC LAND

Nature-based Methods for Improving Coastal Resilience (Monitored)

CS/HB 371 (Mooney) and CS/SB 50 (Garcia) would have directed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to adopt rules governing nature-based methods to improve coastal resilience. The bills would have required DEP to include provisions in the rules encouraging local governments to develop or participate in coastal resilience and ecosystem restoration projects. DEP would also have been required to identify vulnerable properties along the coastline and encourage partnerships with local governments to create protection and restoration zone programs, including eligible opportunities through the Resilient Florida Grant Program. CS/SB 50 would have appropriated $250,000 in non-recurring funds from the Resilient Florida Trust Fund to DEP for the fiscal year 2025–2026 and specified that the funds must have been used to conduct the feasibility study for coastal flood risk reduction. CS/HB 371 would have required DEP to post on its website, rather than establish by rule, guidelines governing

nature-based methods for improving coastal resilience by July 1, 2027. CS/HB 371 would have imposed additional requirements for the Florida Flood Hub for Applied Research and Innovation that included:

▸ Identifying areas of significant erosion

▸ Identifying strategies and methods to minimize impacts to mangroves and other native species

Submitting a report summarizing the design guidelines and standards and the modeled effects of conceptual designs to the Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2026 (Singer)

OTHER

Availability of Marijuana for Adult Use (Monitored)

SB 1390 (Smith) and HB 1501 (Nixon) would have updated the regulations on marijuana sales and use, highlighting the role of medical marijuana treatment centers and expanding adult access for medical and recreational use. The bills would have preempted all matters regarding permitting, regulation, and location of cultivation and processing facilities to the state. (Wagoner)

County Price Controls for the Removal and Storage of Electric Vehicles (Monitor)

CS/CS/SB 872 (Ingoglia) and CS/CS/CS/HB 577 (Nix) would have addressed the regulation of costs associated with the removal and storage of electric vehicles. The bills specifically would have set requirements for maximum rates for removal and storage to be no more than three times the rate of what a wrecker charges for accident cleanup and towing. The bills would have required cities to establish maximum rates for the removal and storage of electric vehicles that may be up to three times the amount charged for those vehicles that operate solely on gasoline or diesel fuels. Additionally, the bills would have allowed a wrecker operator to charge the actual cost of services plus an additional 15%. (Wagoner)

Department of Financial Services (Monitored)

SB 1522 (McClain) and HB 1281 (Berfield) would have implemented a comprehensive package for the Department of Financial Services. The bills would have required local government deferred compensation plans to accept both pre-tax and Roth contributions and specified that Roth contributions are not to be included in state or

federal tax withholdings. The bills also would have created a state-funded firefighter recruitment and retention bonus program, authorizing one-time payments of up to $5,000 for new hires. (Cruz)

Display of Flags by Governmental Entities (Monitored)

HB 75 (Borrero) and SB 100 (Fine) would have prohibited governmental entities from erecting or displaying flags representing political viewpoints or ideologies. The bills would have clarified that they do not limit the ability of private individuals to express private speech or exercise their First Amendment rights, nor the ability of governmental entities to display or erect flags that are authorized by general law. The bills would have further required that when a governmental entity is displaying the United States flag, the flag must be in a prominent position superior to other flags that are displayed. The bills would have permitted active or retired members of the National Guard or armed forces to use reasonable force at any time to prevent the desecration, destruction, or removal of the United States flag or to replace the United States flag in a position of prominence unless ordered not to by law enforcement acting within the scope of their duties. (Wagoner)

Election Dates for Municipal Office (Opposed)

SB 1416 (DiCeglie) would have preempted to the state the authority to establish the dates of elections for municipal office. The bill would have required elections for municipal office to be held on the same date as the November general election. If a municipality required a runoff election, the bill would have required the municipality to hold its initial election on the same date as the primary election on the Tuesday 11 weeks before the general election. The runoff then must have been held on the same date as the general election. It would have authorized municipalities to provide by ordinance for the orderly transition of office resulting from election date changes. It would have preempted to the state the authority to establish election dates for municipal elections and required that municipal recall elections be held concurrently with municipal elections under certain conditions. It would have repealed section 101.75, Florida Statutes, relating to a change in dates for cause in municipal elections. The bill would have extended the term of incumbent elected municipal officers until the next municipal election held in accordance with the new election dates required by the bill. (Wagoner)

First Responders (Monitored)

SB 1682 (Grall) and HB 483 (Weinberger) would have broadened the definition of “first responder” in state emergency communications statutes. The revised definition included part-time and unpaid volunteers in positions such as correctional officers, paramedics, and 911 telecommunicators. (Cruz)

Gambling (Monitored)

HB 953 (Barnaby), CS/HB 1467 (Snyder), and CS/ CS/SB 1404 (Simon) were comprehensive bills dealing with gaming. Of concern to cities, the bills would have preempted local governments from enacting or enforcing ordinances or local rules relating to gaming, gambling, lotteries, or any other skill-based amusement game. (Wagoner)

Government Administration (Monitored)

HB 5009 (Budget Committee) was a conforming bill to this year’s House budget that would have significantly strengthened and increased the Legislature’s authority to investigate the operations, performance, and financial management of all governmental entities in the state. The bill would have created the Florida Accountability Office (FAO) within the Legislature, consolidating several existing audit and oversight functions into four divisions: the Auditor General (financial audits), General Accountability (operational audits), Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) (performance audits and policy research), and a new Public Integrity division (investigating fraud, waste, abuse, and misconduct involving public funds). The Auditor General, who would have been appointed for two-year terms by the Legislature, would have retained exclusive authority over financial audits, while the other divisions shared responsibilities. The Public Integrity division would receive complaints from key officials or whistleblowers and determine whether to investigate, refer, or close the matter. It would have had broad investigative powers over state and local agencies and entities receiving public funds, including access to confidential records and subpoena authority. Starting in FY 2026–2027, the FAO was to be tasked with reviewing and potentially auditing previously funded appropriations projects and financial activities of local governments and public entities to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. (Wagoner)

Government Efficiency (Monitored)

CS/HJR 1325 (Sirois) proposed a constitutional amendment eliminating the Office of Lieutenant Governor and creating a new Cabinet-level Commissioner of Government Efficiency. The new office would have been empowered to audit and investigate state and local governments, including municipalities and special districts, for fraud, waste, and abuse. (Cruz)

Homelessness (Monitored)

SB 1040 (Smith) and HB 951 (Rosenwald) would have established legal protections for individuals experiencing homelessness, ensuring they have equal access to public services, drinking water, electricity, and spaces without discrimination. The bills would have prohibited any local ordinances restricting access to certain public spaces as applied to homeless individuals. The bills would have created a cause of action exposing cities to possible litigation and attorney fees. (Wagoner)

Licensing and Regulating Locksmith Services Businesses (Monitored)

HB 1311 (Yeager) was a comprehensive bill that would have established regulations and licensing requirements for locksmith services in Florida. The oversight for these new requirements would have been assigned to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The bill would have preempted any local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance related to locksmith services or similar businesses to the state. Lastly, the bill would have prohibited a local government from issuing or renewing a business tax receipt for a locksmith business unless the business could have exhibited a valid license issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (Wagoner)

Local Government Code Enforcement (Supported)

HB 281 (Partington) and SB 1104 (Rodriguez) would have proposed several changes to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, the Local Government Code Enforcement Act. The bills would have authorized cities and counties to designate a special magistrate to impose fines and penalties relating to state laws or local ordinances, land development regulations, or other technical codes adopted by a county or city. The bills would have defined “Special Magistrate” as a member of the Florida Bar in good standing with a minimum of five years of experience as an attorney, appointed by a local government to oversee quasijudicial proceedings. The bills would have updated

the enforcement procedures requiring a code inspector to schedule a hearing and issue a notice of violation, which states the violation, provides correction instructions, and includes the date and time of the hearing. The bills would have updated the subpoena powers of an enforcement board to allow designated persons to serve subpoenas, provided the subpoena is hand-delivered with an affidavit of service that includes the date and time of service and the name of the person served. Additionally, the bills would have created a new statute allowing code inspectors to use body cameras and providing guidelines for their use and data storage. Lastly, the bills would have increased the criminal penalties for assault and battery on code inspectors. (Wagoner)

Municipal Job Engine Charter Schools (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 123 (Andrade) and CS/CS/SB 140 (Gaetz) would have allowed municipalities in lowperforming school districts to create “job engine charter schools” aimed at supporting economic development. The bills would have required these municipalities to report on business recruitment efforts and permitted existing public schools to convert to charter status without paying rental or lease fees. CS/CS/SB 140 would have expanded enrollment preferences to children of employees of job-producing businesses identified in municipal reports. (Cruz)

Official Actions of Local Governments (Monitored)

CS/SB 420 (Yarborough) and HB 1571 (Black) would have prohibited local governments from adopting or maintaining policies promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The bills defined DEI broadly and imposed penalties for violations, including civil lawsuits, personal liability for elected officials, and the elimination of attorney’s fee recovery for local governments. CS/SB 420 would have voided existing DEI policies and prohibited expenditures to staff DEI offices or engage DEI officers. (Cruz)

Protection of Historic Monuments and Memorials (Monitored)

HB 1599 (Black) and SB 1816 (McClain) would have voided any local government ordinances, rules, regulations, or executive actions that have been enacted regarding the removal, damage, or destruction of historic Florida monuments or memorials. The bills would have provided a definition for “historic Florida monuments or memorials,” specifying that such monuments or memorials must have been displayed for at least

25 years. The bills aimed to provide statewide uniformity through the Division of Historical Resources within the Department of State to protect, preserve, and ensure that historic Florida monuments and memorials are not removed, damaged, or destroyed. The bills would have created a cause of action against local government officials, elected or appointed, who enact or enforce any ordinance that impacts or affects the regulation of historical monuments. If a local government official was found to be in violation of this law, the bills would have directed the court to assess a civil fine of up to $1,000 for those who knowingly and willingly violate the law. Lastly, the bills would have provided a person the right to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with filing suit for a violation of the new law. (Wagoner)

Residential Utility Disconnections (Opposed)

HB 419 (Tendrich) and SB 330 (Berman) would have prohibited an electric utility, a public utility, or a water utility from disconnecting service to residential customers for nonpayment of bills or fees if the forecasted heat index was at or above 90 degrees or at or below 32 degrees within 48 hours after the scheduled disconnection or a state of emergency was declared for an extreme weather event or public health emergency 24 hours before or after the scheduled disconnection, until 24 hours after the state of emergency is lifted. The bills would have required such utilities to waive reconnection fees and late fees for customers attempting to reestablish service if disconnected for nonpayment if the heat index is at or above 90 degrees or at or below 32 degrees on the day of disconnection. The bills would have prohibited a utility from disconnecting service to any residential customer for nonpayment of bills or fees on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday, state holiday, or any day immediately preceding a state holiday. In addition, the bills would have prohibited utilities from recovering from customers any fee or expense incurred in complying with the bills’ requirements. The bills would have required utilities to provide residential customers with a copy of the utility’s disconnection policy when a new account was established or when any disconnection for nonpayment was scheduled and to publish a copy of the policy on the utility’s website. Utilities would have been required to publish alerts informing residential customers of the suspension of disconnection services due to a forecasted heat

index above 90 degrees, below 32 degrees, or an extreme weather event. The bills would have specified that notices must be in English, Spanish, and any other language spoken by more than 2% of the utility’s customers and would have required the notices to contain information about payment plans and government energy assistance programs. The bills would have required utilities to deliver notice of nonpayment of bills or fees to residential customers after each missed payment and 10 days. The bills specified the contents of the notice of nonpayment and prohibit disconnection until an account was at least 60 days past due. The bills would have imposed liability for actual and consequential damages, attorney fees, and court costs on a utility for violations of its requirements. (Singer)

School Buses (Monitored)

SB 52 (Garcia) would have expanded the definition of “school bus” to include transportation of students to and from charter and private schools throughout statute. (Wagoner)

Service Lateral Assessment and Rehabilitation (Opposed)

HB 1187 (Nix) and SB 1208 (Truenow) would have imposed significant and costly obligations on municipal utilities, requiring them to inspect, document, and repair sewer laterals. The bills would have required all utility systems to establish and maintain a comprehensive condition assessment program for sanitary sewer lateral lines under their jurisdiction. The purpose of the program would have been to mitigate the potential for inflow and infiltration that cause sanitary sewer overflows. The bills would have required every service lateral within the utility system to be inspected using CCTV lateral launch camera systems every seven years. The bills would have required each utility system to establish and maintain a lateral monolithic repair program. After inspection, each lateral line would have been required to be given a pipeline severity score. Lines exceeding a specified score would have been required to be flagged for immediate consideration under the repair program. The utility would have been required to execute timely rehabilitation of flagged lines using technologies specified in the bills. Rehabilitation of flagged lines would have been required to be completed within 12 months from the date issues are discovered. Utilities that failed to comply with these requirements would have been subject to

enforcement and penalties from the Department of Environmental Protection. The bills provided no source of funding for utilities to implement the requirements, but they authorized the state to establish incentives, grants, or matching funds and authorize any funds allocated for environmental preservation or protection of water quality to be applied to the lateral line assessment and rehabilitation programs. (Singer)

Smoking in Public Places (Supported)

SB 226 (Gruters) would have created a state prohibition on smoking or vaping in “public places.” “Public place” would have been defined as a place where the public has access, including but not limited to streets, sidewalks, public parks, beaches, and government buildings. The bill would have expanded the definition of “smoking” to include marijuana products. However, the prohibition would not have applied to smoking cigars in public places. (Wagoner)

PERSONNEL AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

County Officers (Monitored)

SB 732 (Martin) would have proposed an update to the compensation methods and amounts for the following County Constitutional Officers: County Tax Collectors, Property Appraisers, Supervisors of Elections, Clerks of the Courts, and County Comptrollers. (Chapman)

Deferred Compensation Plans for Public Employees (Supported)

HB 985 (Porras) and SB 1068 (Rodriguez) would have authorized automatic enrollment for public employees in employer-sponsored deferred compensation plans, making it easier for employees to save for retirement. (Chapman)

Employee Wages and Salary (Monitored)

HB 1619 (Joseph) would have created the Wage Fairness Act and imposed new wage and salary transparency requirements on public and private employers with 10 or more employees. It would have prohibited salary history inquiries, mandated salary range disclosures in job postings, and required employers to provide wage range information to current employees upon hiring, promotion, transfer, and annually thereafter. Employers were to be required to retain wage records for two years and may face civil actions and penalties for non-compliance. (Chapman)

Firefighter Benefits (Monitored)

SB 66 (Garcia) and HB 87 (Casello) would have sought to expand the Florida firefighters’ cancer treatment benefits by adding Acute Myeloid Leukemia to the list of “cancers” presumed to have been incurred in the line of duty. The adjustment to the definition was the only change being proposed to Section 112.1816, Florida Statutes, in this bill. Additionally, language was added to the bill to state that the Legislature determined and declared that this act fulfills an important state interest. (Chapman)

Heat Illness Prevention (Monitored)

HB 35 (Gottlieb) and SB 510 (Rouson) would have implemented mandatory outdoor heat exposure safety programs for employers defined in Section 121.021(10), Florida Statutes, which identified municipalities as subject to this bill. The safety programs would have applied to employers with outdoor workers in industries like agriculture, construction, and landscaping, but would have exempted employees working outdoors for less than 15 minutes per hour through the workday. The bill would have also mandated the development and administration of training programs, drinking water, and shade provisions. Further, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Department of Health were directed to adopt rules to implement the program, including training and certification compliance. (Chapman)

Identification Cards for Public Works Employees (Monitored)

HB 341 (Woodson) would have sought to have the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability study the feasibility of implementing a state-issued identification card for public works employees that would have identified them as first responders. (Chapman)

Labor Negotiations (Supported)

HB 997 (Temple) and SB 1066 (Ingoglia) would have prohibited individuals who participate in closed labor negotiation meetings from knowingly and intentionally disclosing confidential information discussed in such meetings unless specifically authorized by the chief executive officer or legislative body of the public employer. The bills would have also barred the unauthorized disclosure of confidential work products related to labor negotiations. Individuals who receive such improperly disclosed information would have been required to report the violation to the Commission on Ethics. (Chapman)

Labor Regulations (Monitored)

HB 1177 (Gottlieb) would have made several changes to labor regulations, beginning with requirements for automatic deductions of union dues from employee salaries and the thresholds for re-certification of a union. The bill would have established heat illness prevention measures for outdoor workers in industries like agriculture, construction, and landscaping. The bill would have mandated employers to implement heat safety programs, provide cooling breaks, water access, and shade, and conduct annual training on heatrelated illnesses. The bill would have required qualified benefit providers to manage health insurance, paid time off, and retirement benefits for independent contractors facilitated by contracting agents. The bill would have also repealed Florida’s noncompete statute, section 542.335, Florida Statutes. (Chapman)

Local Government Official Salaries

(Monitored)

SB 272 (Burgess) and HB 639 (Rizo) would have revised the base salary for certain county constitutional officers based on county population sizes for County Clerk of the Courts and Comptrollers, Supervisors of Elections, and Property Appraisers. (Chapman)

Local Government Salaries and Benefits (Opposed)

CS/CS/HB 1581 (Buchanan) and SB 1762 (Gruters) would have established new requirements for salary increases for local government officials. The bills would have modified the salary formulas for county commissioners in non-charter counties. Of concern to cities, the bills would have required a voterapproved referendum before increasing the salary, retirement benefits, or other compensation for county commissioners, elected municipal officials, and special district governing board members. The referendum would have been required to occur during a general election in a presidential election year, with election costs covered by the respective local government entity. (Chapman)

Peer Support for First Responders (Monitored)

CS/SB 86 (Burgess) and CS/HB 421 (Maggard) would have expanded the definition of “first responder” for the purpose of qualifying for peer support benefits. Currently, Florida law provides a confidential peer support program offering emotional, physical, or moral support to first responders, including firefighters, police officers, emergency medical service workers, and 911

telecommunicators. CS/SB 86 would have extended eligibility for this program to include all nonofficer employees of law enforcement agencies. Both bills were amended to clarify and include certain “support personnel” in the definition of first responders for the purpose of qualifying for peer support benefits. (Chapman)

Prohibition of Guaranteed Income Programs (Monitored)

CS/HB 1193 (Borrero) and SB 1772 (Martin) would have sought to prohibit local governments in Florida from establishing guaranteed income programs and empower the Attorney General to issue cease and desist orders for existing programs. The bill would have defined a guaranteed income program as providing unconditional cash payments to a person without any work or training requirements. (Chapman)

Protections for Public Employees Who Use Medical Marijuana as Qualified Patients (Monitored)

HB 83 (Rosenwald) and SB 142 (Polsky) would have sought to establish protections for public employees who use medical marijuana (and are qualified patients) from adverse personnel action. This bill would have also required accommodations be made unless it presented an undue hardship to the employer. An employee who tested positive for marijuana use would have been required to be notified in writing by the employer and may explain or contest the positive result within five business days of the notice being given. Adverse personnel action included discriminatory employment actions such as refusal to hire, suspension of current position, or demotion due to the patient’s status for medical marijuana use. This bill would have allowed public employers to take adverse personnel action if an employee’s job performance is impaired by medical marijuana and provides exceptions. (Chapman)

Public Employee Collective Bargaining (Supported)

HB 1217 (Black) and SB 1328 (Fine) would have revised and clarified multiple collective bargaining rights and procedures. The bills would have provided definitions related to bargaining units and detailed actors’ roles within public employment structures. The bills would have established the processes for certification, recertification, and decertification of collective bargaining units. Additionally, the bills would have introduced a provision for public employees to participate in

union activities, including paid time off, compensation, and use of public resources. Exceptions were made for law enforcement and emergency services collective personnel from certain general provisions. (Chapman)

Public Officers and Employees (Monitored)

CS/HB 1445 (Mayfield) and CS/CS/SB 1760 (Grall) would have set residency and citizenship requirements for certain public officials and state department heads. The bills would have also defined “office” under the State Constitution’s dual office-holding prohibition, including city elected officials, managers, attorneys, and emergency management directors. Of concern to cities, the bills may have restricted city attorneys from holding multiple positions, potentially limiting smaller cities’ ability to hire outside legal counsel who serve multiple municipalities. To address concerns raised by city attorneys, CS/HB 1445 and CS/CS/SB 1760 were amended to remove the prohibition against dual-officeholding for municipal or county attorneys. Additionally, CS/HB 1445 and CS/CS/SB 1760 included language that would have prohibited certain political activities by state employees. (Chapman)

PUBLIC RECORDS

Public Records (Opposed)

SB 1434 (Rouson) would have updated public records access rules, covering fees, response times, and penalties for noncompliance. It would have expanded the “actual cost of duplication” to include clerical, supervisory, and IT costs, excluding overhead. The bill would have required agencies to promptly acknowledge requests and respond within three business days with records, a timeline, or a denial citing legal exemptions. It would have prohibited fees if agencies failed to act within three days and banned charges for requests taking under 30 minutes or for redacted record inspections. The bill would have required written explanations for delays over 15 days or exemption claims. The bill would have also established fines and misdemeanor penalties for violations, including outof-state offenses. Lastly, SB 1434 would have allowed courts to impose fees on non-compliant agencies and reimburse attorney costs in some cases. (Wagoner)

Public Records/Body Camera Recordings (Supported)

SB 1106 (Rodriguez) and HB 1475 (Partington) would have created a public records exemption for body camera recordings worn by code enforcement officers. (Wagoner)

Public Records/County and City Administrators and Managers (Supported)

HB 623 (Gerwig) and SB 842 (Arrington) would have created a public records exemption for the personal information of current county and city administrative officials, and their spouses and children. (Wagoner)

Public Records/Municipal Clerks and Staff (Supported)

HB 517 (Casello) and SB 840 (Rodriguez) would have created a public records exemption for the personal information of municipal clerks and staff, and their spouses and children. (Wagoner)

PUBLIC SAFETY

Cold Case Murders (Monitored)

SB 694 (Osgood) would have addressed cold case murders by establishing a process for reviewing and reinvestigating such cases. The bill would have mandated that law enforcement agencies review cold cases upon receiving a written application from a designated person and would have outlined the criteria for conducting a full reinvestigation. The bill would have required law enforcement agencies to develop a written application for cold case reviews and mandate training for employees on the procedures and requirements outlined in the bill. The bill would have also required law enforcement agencies to report quarterly all relevant data to the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University. The bill would have directed the Center to establish a case tracking system and a searchable public website. (Wagoner)

Public Nuisances (Supported)

CS/SB 1022 (Wright) and CS/HB 1343 (Booth) would have allowed counties or municipalities to adopt ordinances supplementing state laws on public nuisances. CS/HB 1343 would have provided that when certain activities are declared to be a public nuisance, a county or city may impose a fine exceeding $15,000. CS/SB 1022 would have provided that if a nuisance was not abated within one year, fines would increase to $500 a day from $250 a day. Additionally, CS/SB 1022 would have also had language specific to permitting the award of attorneys’ fees and costs if requested by the local government. (Wagoner)

Public Safety (Monitored)

CS/HB 1211 (Abbott) and SB 1554 (Collins) were bills with a focus on public safety. The bills would have ended in two very different postures. SB 1554 consolidated all 911 call centers under the sheriff in every county in the state by July 1, 2029. The bill would have prohibited cities from opting out of the unified call center consolidation. The bill would have further mandated that all county-level first responders and other jurisdictions must participate in the unified call center in their service area. Although a sheriff may have opted out of those requirements, a county would have been required to establish the unified call center, and cities would have been required to pay for the use and service of the unified call center on a pro rata basis based on population. CS/HB 1211 had language that required law enforcement agencies to write policies that specify procedures used in missing persons investigations. The bill would have also required state, county, and municipal law enforcement to submit any information regarding missing persons to a clearinghouse database. Further, the bill would have made other various changes to law enforcement, such as creating a counterterrorism/ counterintelligence unit, creating basic training exemptions for qualified new law enforcement, and expanding the first responder definition and eligibility for first responders with amputations. (Wagoner)

Services to Noncitizens (Monitored)

HB 1279 (Michael) and SB 1498 (Ingoglia) were bills that restricted financial and employment services for unauthorized aliens, including penalties and verification requirements. The bills would have prohibited governmental entities from providing any form of down payment assistance for the purchase of residential property to a person who is not lawfully present in the United States. If a noncitizen was discovered to have received down payment assistance, the governmental entity was required to initiate foreclosure proceedings if the noncitizen did not repay the down payment assistance. (Wagoner)

Victims of Domestic Violence and Dating Violence

(Opposed)

CS/HB 19 (Hinson) and CS/SB 240 (Berman) would have created the “Helping Abuse Victims Escape Now (HAVEN) Act,” providing a coordinating council created under the Department of Law Enforcement,

which would oversee the development of a dynamic website for domestic and dating violence victims. Of concern to cities, the bills would have included a provision that preempted local governments from enacting or enforcing regulations that conflict with the creation and implementation of the HAVEN Act. The bills would have specified that any local laws, rules, or regulations related to matters covered by the HAVEN Act, such as the operation of the dynamic website and related victim services, were superseded by this state law. CS/HB 19 would have directed municipalities that provide public safety services to conduct a feasibility study regarding the creation of a web-based 911 alert system for use by victims of domestic and dating violence. (Wagoner)

Violation of State Immigration Law (Monitored)

HB 1491 (Jacques) would have required the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to impose a $10,000 fine against local governments and law enforcement agencies that failed to comply with state immigration enforcement requirements. The funds collected from the fines would have compensated victims of crimes committed by unauthorized aliens. The bill would have created a cause of action for a wrongful death caused by an unauthorized alien if the local government entity or law enforcement agency’s sanctuary policy in violation of state law contributed to the death. Lastly, the bill would have waived all sovereign immunity for tort cases brought under the law. (Wagoner)

RESILIENCY

Resilience Districts (Monitored)

SB 1316 (Grall) would have created a process for establishing infrastructure and condominium resilience districts in Florida to support local governments’ efforts to mitigate the risk of sealevel rise and increased flooding. The bill defined several relevant terms to support the formation of these citizen-initiated financing districts that are intended to address infrastructure and resilience problems. The bill set boundaries for resilience districts, defined their acceptable uses, and included provisions for project management fees. While the bill created a framework for a condominium resilience district to be established, it would have required counties to develop a process to receive their petition and provided counties the sole authority to approve or deny such petitions.

If a local government acted as project manager for an infrastructure resilience district, the bill would have authorized the local government to receive a project management fee of up to 5% of the total cost of design and construction. The bill established conditions for local government review and approval of a resilience district. The bill would have imposed additional obligations on local governments that deny a petition to establish a district based on specific factors that require the local government to work with the petitioner to remedy and fail to do so. Additional obligations included but were not limited to a requirement that the local government fund and implement a proposed resiliency project instead of the district. If a proposed district was identical to or shared more than 90% of the geography of any existing special taxing district that serves a similar function, the bill required dissolution of the special taxing district and reconstitution as a resilience district, with all existing funds serving the special taxing district transferred to the resilience district. Additionally, the bill prescribed the composition and responsibilities of district boards and establishes financial transparency measures. (Singer)

RETIREMENT/PENSIONS ISSUES

Cost-of-living Adjustment of Retirement Benefits (Monitored)

HB 945 (Blanco) and SB 1126 (Rodriguez) would have proposed to adjust the calculation of costof-living adjustments (COLA) for retirees in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The bills would have provided for persons to receive a 2% minimum COLA if they retire on or before July 1, 2025. A new methodology was also included for persons who have never received a COLA, as well as those retirees who have previously received a COLA. (Chapman)

REVENUES AND BUDGETING

Red Light Camera Fines – First Responders (Monitored)

HB 1591 (Daley) and SB 1750 (Arrington) would have increased red light camera violation fines from $158 to $168 and redirected a larger portion of the revenue to the renamed First Responders Emergency Medical Services Trust Fund to support first responder mental health programs. Local

government revenue from each red light camera ticket would have been reduced from $75 to $45. The First Responders Emergency Medical Services Trust Fund would have received $20 per ticket, doubling the current allocation of $10, and State General Revenue would have received $100 per ticket, an increase from $70. (Chapman)

Unrated Bonds (Monitored)

CS/CS/HB 669 (Gossett-Seidman) and CS/ SB 1674 (Calatayud) would have amended local government investment policies not to prohibit a minimum bond rating for bonds when considering financing options. CS/CS/HB 669 and CS/SB 1674 were both amended to clarify that the bills would have only applied to Israeli unrated bonds explicitly authorized by law. (Chapman)

SOLID WASTE

Auxiliary Containers, Wrappings, and Disposable Plastic Bags (Supported)

HB 6023 (Bartleman) and SB 836 (Smith) would have repealed the state preemption on local regulation of auxiliary containers, wrapping, or disposable plastic bags. (Singer)

Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy Program (Monitored)

SB 962 (Davis) would have made several changes to the Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy Program, which included transferring oversight of the program from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Beginning on July 1, 2025, the bill would have mandated that DEP perform air quality and particulate matter measurements before providing financial assistance grant funding. Beginning on July 1, 2026, the bill would have mandated that DEP conduct an environmental justice evaluation process before providing incentive grant funding. (Singer)

Regulation of Auxiliary Containers (Opposed)

HB 565 (Blanco) and CS/CS/SB 1822 (Martin) would have expanded the existing preemption to expressly preempt the regulation of auxiliary containers (reusable or single-use bags, cans, cups, bottles, or other packaging) and would have deleted a current law provision that requires the Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) to review and update its 2010 report on retail bags and auxiliary containers. CS/CS/SB 1822 contained a provision that applied only to Miami-Dade County, which provided that a local government may not issue a construction permit for a new solid waste disposal facility that uses an ash-producing incinerator or for a waste-to-energy facility if the facility’s proposed location is sited within a one-mile radius of a school or any property zoned for residential use that has a density of one or more dwelling units per acre. CS/CS/SB 1822 created an exemption that would have allowed for the adoption of rules, regulations, or ordinances restricting the use of glass auxiliary containers within the boundaries of any public beach. CS/CS/ SB 1822 also would have granted DEP the authority to regulate auxiliary containers within state parks. (Singer)

Storage and Disposal of Prescription Drugs and Sharps (Monitored)

HB 283 (Grow) and SB 668 (Burgess) would have mandated that the Department of Health and Department of Environmental Protection partner to study the safe collection and proper disposal of sharps used for self-administering prescription drugs at home. Of interest to municipalities, the bills would have authorized the departments to work or contract with local governments that wish to participate in the study. (Singer)

Waste Facilities (Monitored)

CS/SB 946 (Rodriguez) and HB 1199 (Gentry) would have prohibited local governments from permitting the following facility types or specific water storage/conveyance structures to be located within a specified area: solid waste, municipal solid waste-to-energy, pyrolysis, solid waste disposal, and solid waste management facilities, as well as any incinerator. HB 1199 would have specified that the aforementioned facility or structures may not be located within two miles of the Everglades Protection Area or Everglades Construction Project. CS/HB 946 provided that a local governmental entity may not approve any specified permits within one mile of the C-9 impoundment. CS/HB 946 further provided that this provision would not have applied to a facility that was constructed before July 1, 2025, that has an operating permit authorizing incineration. The bills would have preempted the permitting of such facilities to the state, expressly superseding any local government regulation on these matters. (Singer)

Waste Incineration (Monitored)

SB 1008 (Avila) and CS/HB 1609 (Weinberger) would have prohibited local governments from issuing a construction permit for a new waste-to-energy facility or a solid waste disposal facility using an ash-producing incinerator if the proposed location was sited within a one-half-mile radius of any residential property, commercial property, or school.

CS/HB 1609 clarified that the prohibition would not have applied to any existing construction, current operation, or modification to structures or operations in existence as of July 1, 2025.

CS/HB 1609 contained the substance of CS/CS/ SB 1822 (Martin) that would have expanded the existing preemption to expressly preempt the regulation of auxiliary containers (such as reusable or single-use bags, cans, cups, bottles, or other packaging). It provided specific exceptions like the use of glass on public beaches and certain state park regulations. (Singer)

STORMWATER

Sanitary and Storm Water System Standards (Opposed)

HB 739 (Grow) and SB 1436 (McClain) would have required all sanitation and stormwater systems, including infrastructure like lateral and sewer pipes, to adhere to the state Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, specifically the sections on “Pipe Culverts” and “Pipe Liner.” The bills also would have mandated that final inspections for such infrastructure be conducted by a licensed engineer, a general contractor, or an independent third party. The bills clarified that the standards prescribed superseded all existing and local standards in municipalities. (Singer)

Stormwater Management Systems (Opposed)

CS/CS/SB 810 (Burgess) would have imposed new mandates on municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) entities by requiring them to conduct annual operation and maintenance inspections of all permitted stormwater management systems they own or operate. The bill specified that the initial inspection and submission would have been required to be completed by September 1, 2026, with annual submissions due by June 1 in subsequent years. As part of the inspection

process, MS4 entities would have been required to identify any infrastructure or components that exhibit significant vulnerability to obstruction, blockage, deterioration, failure, or other deficiencies and that, if failed, would result in flooding and property damage. The bill would have required MS4 entities to complete a stormwater facility inspection checklist developed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for each inspection. This checklist would have been required to be submitted to both DEP and the Division of Emergency Management and would have been required to include any vulnerable infrastructure identified during the inspection. The bill may have had an indeterminate but negative fiscal impact on local governments, as it imposed a recurring inspection and reporting obligation without providing funding. (Singer)

TORT LIABILITY

Personal Mobility Device Battery Safety Standards (Monitored)

SB 410 (Rodriguez) would have established mandatory battery safety standards for personal mobility devices. Of interest to municipalities, the bill would have instructed the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to coordinate with local governments to ensure compliance, including imposing fines and seizing non-compliant personal mobility devices. The companion bill, CS/HB 291 (Blanco), was amended to remove these provisions impacting municipal operation and would have shifted compliance responsibility to the Department of Environmental Protection. (Singer)

Suits

Against the Government (Opposed)

CS/HB 301 (McFarland) and SB 1570 (DiCeglie) would have increased the statutory caps on tort claims against government entities from $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident to $1 million and $3 million, respectively, for claims arising between 2025 and 2030. After 2030, the caps would have increased again. The bills also narrowed the statute of limitations for negligence claims from four years to two and shortened the presuit notice period to 18 months. CS/HB 301 was amended to reduce the cap increases to $500,000 per person and $1 million per incident for claims through 2030, and $600,000 and $1.1 million thereafter. (Cruz)

Traffic Infraction Enforcement (Supported) HB 1275 (Michael) and SB 812 (Calatayud) defined a “railroad traffic infraction detector” as a system that detects vehicle movements at railroad crossings using radar or LiDAR to capture photographic or video evidence. The bills would have allowed counties and municipalities to install these detectors with proper signage on roadways adjacent to at-grade railroad crossings with the owner’s permission after enacting an ordinance authorizing their placement after considering safety risk assessments. The bills also would have allowed the Florida Department of Transportation to install these when authorized by the local government having jurisdiction over or maintenance responsibility for the state road, street, or highway. The bills provided procedures for issuing, disputing, and dismissing traffic citations related to detected infractions, including the provision of evidence to vehicle owners and the process for submitting an affidavit to contest citations.

The bills specified the penalty amounts to be assessed for violations and the distribution formula for collected funds. Distributions would have been required to be made weekly as follows: 60% would have been remitted to the Department of Revenue (DOR) for deposit into the General Revenue Fund, 30% would have been remitted to DOR for deposit into the Department of Transportation for Florida Operation Lifesaver, and 10% would have been distributed to the municipality in which the violation occurred. (Singer)

UTILITIES

Utility Services (Opposed)

SB 1704 (Calatayud) and CS/CS/HB 1523 (Busatta) would have provided that a municipality that provides extraterritorial electric, gas, water, or wastewater utility services may not use more than 10% of the gross revenues generated from such services for general government functions. If any utility revenues generated from extraterritorial service remain after payment of the utility’s costs to provide the services, these excess revenues must be either reinvested in the utility or returned to the extraterritorial customers. The bills would have eliminated current law authorization for a municipal water or wastewater utility to impose a surcharge of up to 25% on extraterritorial service. The bills would have retained current law authority for a municipal

water or wastewater utility to charge the same rates, fees, and charges for extraterritorial services as consumers inside the municipal boundaries. If the municipal water or wastewater utility provides extraterritorial service to a separate municipality through use of a treatment plant located within the boundaries of that separate municipality, the rates, fees, and charges for consumers in the separate municipality cannot exceed the rates, fees, and charges imposed on consumers within its own municipal boundaries. The bills would have required a new agreement, renewal, or material amendment of an existing agreement between a municipal utility (gas, electric, water, sewer) and another government for the provision of extraterritorial service by utility to be written. Such an agreement would not have been effective until a public meeting is organized and held within each municipality and unincorporated areas served or to be served. The bills would have required a municipal utility that provides extraterritorial service to provide an annual report to the Florida Public Service Commission that identifies the number and percentage of extraterritorial customers, the volume and percentage of sales to such customers and the gross revenues generated from such sales, and the difference between rates, fees, and charges for extraterritorial customers versus customers within the municipality’s corporate limits. Finally, the bills would have expanded a current law preemption over the regulation of the types or fuel sources of energy production to include a preemption over any other board, agency, commission, authority, or political subdivision. (O’Hara)

WATER QUALITY/WASTEWATER

Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Supported)

HB 861 (Cross) and CS/SB 978 (Berman) would have directed the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to collaborate with water management districts and wastewater facilities to submit a comprehensive report to the Legislature and Governor by December 31, 2025, detailing the condition, capacity, treatment levels, pollutant discharge, and environmental impact of sewage disposal facilities with a permitted capacity exceeding 1 million gallons per day. The report would have been required to include details on facility age, wastewater volume, pollutant concentrations, disposal methods, flood risk, and past spills to help prioritize upgrades and mitigation efforts.

The bills would have directed DEP to submit a second report by December 31, 2026, establishing a priority ranking system for upgrading all sewage disposal facilities to advanced waste treatment by 2036. The report would have been required to evaluate projects based on environmental benefits, including water quality, algal blooms, fish and wildlife impacts, and spill risks. It also would have been required to assess potential pollutant reductions, necessary additional projects, costeffectiveness, funding availability, and project readiness.

The bills also would have required DEP to submit a progress report by June 30, 2027, detailing the status of sewage facility upgrades identified in the priority ranking report. The report would have been required to list facilities required to upgrade to advanced wastewater treatment, provide preliminary cost estimates, outline projected timelines for construction and completion, and specify the expected start date for upgraded facility operations. CS/SB 978 clarified that the reporting requirements specified by the bill would only have pertained to sewage disposal facilities with a permitted capacity of greater than 1 million gallons per day. (Singer)

Safe Waterways Act (Monitored)

HB 73 (Gossett-Seidman) and SB 156 (Rodriguez) would have established the Safe Waterways Act, which would have required municipalities and counties to “immediately notify” the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of any incidents affecting the quality of beach waters or public bathing places. Public boat docks, marinas, and piers would also have been required to immediately notify the jurisdictional municipality or county of any such incidents that may affect the quality of beach waters. The bills also would have required DEP to “immediately notify” the municipality or county where the affected beach waters or public bathing places are located upon issuing a health advisory. The bills specified that municipalities and counties would have been responsible for posting and maintaining signage around the beaches and public bathing places they own, in accordance with DEP specifications, which must be placed at access points during health advisories until water quality standards were restored. The bills would have expanded a current preemption, giving the state exclusive authority over health advisories related to bacteriological sampling of beach waters and

public bathing places. The bills also would have transferred responsibilities for bacteriological sampling of beach waters and public bathing places from the Department of Health to the DEP. DEP would have been required to adopt and enforce rules and issue health advisories for beach waters and public bathing places when bacteriological water sampling results failed to meet health standards. (Singer)

WATER SUPPLY/POLICY

One Water Approach Toward the State’s Water Supply (Supported)

CS/HB 661 (Albert) and SB 1846 (Truenow) were resolutions expressing the State of Florida’s support of a One Water approach toward this state’s water supply. This concept is supported by the Florida League of Cities’ 2025 Legislative Platform. One Water is an emerging initiative seeking to manage all water in a collaborative, integrated, inclusive, and holistic manner to support the future growth of this state’s water supply and avoid any projected shortages. (Singer)

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Disability Presumptions for First Responders (Opposed)

SB 366 (Rodriguez) and HB 269 (Black) would have expanded workers’ compensation presumptions for first responders to include additional heart conditions such as aneurysms. The bills also would have extended the presumption to part-time and auxiliary law enforcement officers, significantly increasing potential liability exposure for municipalities. (Cruz)

FLC LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS TEAM

CASEY COOK Chief of Legislative Affairs ccook@flcities.com

CHARLES CHAPMAN

Legislative Consultant cchapman@flcities.com

REBECCA O’HARA

Deputy General Counsel rohara@flcities.com

SAM WAGONER

Legislative Advocate swagoner@flcities.com

WADE BURKLEY Research and Programs Administrator wburkley@flcities.com

BRENDA JONES Legislative Coordinator bjones@flcities.com

JON MWAKYANJALA

Legislative Policy Analyst jmwakyanjala@flcities.com

TEAGAN MILHOUS

Legislative Intern tmilhous@flcities.com

JEFF BRANCH Director of Field Advocacy & Emergency Management jbranch@flcities.com

DAVID CRUZ

Legislative Counsel dcruz@flcities.com

MATT SINGER

Legislative Advocate msinger@flcities.com

ALLISON PAYNE Manager, Advocacy Programs and Federal Affairs apayne@flcities.com

MARY EDENFIELD

Legislative Administrative Supervisor medenfield@flcities.com

LAUREN BUSH

Legislative Policy Analyst lbush@flcities.com

LEXI RANDO

Legislative Policy Analyst lrando@flcities.com

LEGISLATIVE GLOSSARY

ACT – A bill that has passed both houses of the Legislature.

ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE – Motion to adjourn sine die concludes a legislative session.

ADOPTION – Refers to favorable action by a chamber on an amendment, motion, resolution, or memorial.

AMENDMENT – Makes a change to a bill after the bill has been filed. This change can happen in committee or on the floor of the House or Senate.

BILL – Legislation, including joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, memorials or other measures upon which a council or committee may be required to report.

BILL NUMBER – Bills are issued a number based on the order they are filed and received by bill drafting. House bills receive odd numbers, while Senate bills receive even numbers.

CHAIR – The presiding officer for a floor session or committee meeting.

CLAIMS BILL – Presents a claim for compensation for an individual or entity for injuries caused by negligence or error on the part of a public office, local government, or agency.

COMMITTEE – A panel of legislators appointed by the Senate President or Speaker of the House to perform specific duties such as considering legislation and conducting hearings and/or investigations.

COMMITTEES OF REFERENCE – Each bill is assigned to committees after it is filed. Often, the more committees a bill is assigned indicates its chances to pass or fail.

COMPANION BILL – Bills introduced in the House and Senate that are identical or substantially similar in wording.

“DIED IN COMMITTEE” – Refers to when a bill is not heard on the floor of the respective chamber in which it was introduced. A bill must pass all committees of reference or be pulled from the remaining committees to pass. A bill that dies in committee fails to pass each of its committee references during committee weeks and session.

ENGROSSED BILL – The version of a bill that incorporates adopted floor amendments, which were added subsequently to the bill passing its committees of reference. The revision is done in the house of origin and engrossed under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House.

ENROLLED BILL – Once a bill has passed, it is enrolled in the house of origin. After that piece of legislation is enrolled and signed by officers of both houses (President and Speaker), it is sent to the Governor for action and transmittal to the Secretary of State. An enrolled bill may be signed by the Governor and enacted into law or vetoed.

FLORIDA STATUTES – An edited compilation of general laws of the state.

GENERAL BILL – A bill of general or statewide interest or whose provisions apply to the entire state.

HOUSE RESOLUTION – A measure expressing the will of a legislative house on a matter confined to that house dealing with organizational issues or conveying the good wishes of that chamber. Often used to congratulate Floridians or recognize significant achievements.

INTERIM – Refers to the period between the adjournment sine die of a regular session and the convening of the next regular session.

JOINT RESOLUTION – Used to propose amendments to the Florida Constitution. It is also the form of legislation used for redistricting a state legislative seat.

LAW – An act becomes a law after it has been approved and signed by the Governor or, without the Governor’s signature, after their option to veto the act within seven days of presentation or after the Legislature overrides the Governor’s veto by a vote of two-thirds in each house.

LOCAL BILL – A bill that applies to an area or group that is less than the total population of the state.

MEMORIAL – A type of concurrent resolution addressed to an executive agency or another legislative body, usually Congress, which expresses the sentiment of the Florida Legislature on a matter outside its legislative jurisdiction.

MESSAGE – The houses of the Legislature send formal communications to each other regarding action taken on bills. This measure is usually reserved for the last couple of weeks of a legislative session. If a bill “dies in messages,” it has passed each chamber in form; however, one of the two chambers has made a change or amended the bill so that the two versions are no longer identical.

PROPOSED COMMITTEE BILL (PCB) – A draft legislative measure taken up by a committee to consider whether or not to introduce it in the name of the committee.

PROVISO – Language used in a general appropriations bill to qualify or restrict how a specific appropriation is to be expended.

REFERENDUM – A vote by the citizens upon a measure that has been presented to them for approval or rejection.

REPEAL – The deletion by law of an entire section, subsection or paragraph of language from the Florida Statutes.

SESSION – Regular Session: The annual session that begins on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd-numbered year and on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, or another date that may be fixed by law, of each even-numbered year, for a period not to exceed 60 consecutive days. There is no limit on the

subject matter that may be introduced in a regular session.

SPECIAL SESSION – Special sessions may be called by proclamation of the Governor, by joint proclamation of the House Speaker and the Senate President or by the members of the Legislature to consider specific legislation. It will not exceed 20 consecutive days unless extended by a threefifths vote of each house. For members of the Legislature to call a special session, three-fifths of the members of both houses must vote in favor of calling a special session.

SPECIAL ORDER CALENDAR – A list of bills determined by the Rules Chair considered to be of high importance and priority scheduled for consideration in a specific order during a floor session on a particular day.

SPONSOR – The legislator or committee that files a bill for introduction.

TEMPORARILY POSTPONED – A motion can be made in the chamber or in committee to temporarily defer consideration of a measure.

VETO – An objection by the Governor to an act passed by the Legislature. Vetoes can be overridden by a vote of two-thirds of the membership of each chamber. The Governor may perform a lineitem veto of specific measures in the general appropriations bill (the budget).

For more information on the League’s legislative initiatives, please contact:

FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES

P.O. Box 1757

Tallahassee, FL 32302-1757

Phone: 850.222.9684

Fax: 850.222.3806

flcities.com