It is that time of the year again, and the Florida Legislature is gearing up for the start of the 2025 session, which begins on March 25. Over 360 bills have been filed but there are few bills that merit special attention as it relates to the potential impact it will have on Public-Private Partnerships or general development within the state. These bills aim at modifying state park management, addressing affordable housing challenges, and streamlining local entitlement processes.
CS/SB 80: The State Park Preservation Act
CS/SB 80, titled the State Park Preservation Act, is designed to ensure that Florida's state parks are managed primarily for conservation-based public outdoor recreational uses, public access, and scientific research. The bill defines “conservation-based public outdoor recreational uses” to include fishing, camping, bicycling, hiking, nature study, swimming, boating, canoeing, horseback riding, diving, birding, sailing, jogging, and similar, conservation-based public recreational uses. However, the bill excludes sports requiring facilities like golf courses and tennis courts from being considered conservation-based recreational uses. The bill emphasizes the importance of preserving natural resources while allowing for public enjoyment and educational opportunities. The bill further creates a process by which land management plans can be updated in order to fall within the restrictions of the bill. It requires public hearings for plan updates, adds a deadline for publication of a land management plan before a public hearing, requires plans for state parks to be published by that deadline, directs plans for state parks to be developed with input from an advisory group, and adds a notice deadline for advisory group public hearings.
The State Park Preservation Act would potentially restrict what kinds of developments take place on state owned parkland. Although projects such as golf courses are explicitly prohibited, this bill could also have an impact on the ability of the government to use P3’s in order to finance other improvements or maintenance of parklands. Given that outside private investors would not be allowed to build other revenue generating assets to offset improvement costs, this bill could close off parks to any sorts of P3 deals in the future, across the state.
SB 184: Affordable Housing Development
SB 184 addresses the pressing issue of affordable housing in Florida. The bill proposes measures to increase the availability of affordable rentals and owner-occupied housing, particularly for low- and moderate-income individuals. It does so by requiring local governments to allow accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) in single-family residential areas, aiming to increase affordable rental options. Florida Statutes defines ADU as “an ancillary or secondary living unit that has a separate kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area existing either within the same structure, or on the same lot, as the primary dwelling unit.” Section 163.31771 (2)(a), F.S. The bill further directs the Florida Housing Finance Corporation to create a model program using mezzanine financing to boost the supply of owner-occupied affordable housing. By mandating the inclusion of ADUs, SB 184 could significantly increase the availability of affordable rental units, with the introduction of mezzanine financing expected to stimulate investment in affordable housing. These investments could potentially lead to more homeownership opportunities, or reduced housing costs across the state due to the increased supply. Local municipalities will have to tackle the day-to-day implementation of these additional ADUs into their zoning and entitlement process, which may cause some delays, especially if developers are enticed to build more of these types of units.
SB 482: Local Government Regulation
SB 482 focuses on local government regulations concerning development permits and impact fees. The bill aims to regulate the conditions under which counties and municipalities can process development permits and orders. Primarily, it prohibits counties and municipalities from requiring applicants to install or pay for works of art as a condition for processing or issuing development permits or orders. The bill also outlines the conditions under which local governments can increase impact fees beyond established phase-in limitations. This includes conducting a demonstrated-need study, holding public workshops, and obtaining a two-thirds vote from the governing body.
By removing the requirement for art-related conditions, also known as “Art in Public Places” requirements, the cost for developers could be reduced, but municipalities with public art programs would need to find alternative funding sources for those efforts. Many local jurisdictions have such requirements, and so this bill certainly has statewide impacts that will force local governments to reevaluate their budgets and project parameters, while at the same time, attempting to balance funding for cultural activities.
