The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Judiciary
BILL: SB 620
INTRODUCER: Senator Hutson
SUBJECT: Local Government
DATE: November 29, 2021
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Bond Cibula JU Favorable
2. RC
3. AP
I. Summary:
SB 620 creates a cause of action for an established business to recover loss of business damages
from a county or municipality whose regulatory action has caused a significant impact on the
business.
Currently, landowners have a cause of action under the Bert J. Harris Act to compensate them for
the lost value of their land caused by certain local government actions; landowners have a cause
of action for onerous local regulation in the form of exactions; and business landowners have a
cause of action under eminent domain law for business damages related to a taking of real
property. Similarly, this bill creates a cause of action for a business to sue a local government
when the enactment or amendment of an ordinance or charter provision causes at least a
15 percent loss of income or profits to the business. The business must have been in operation for
at least 3 years to qualify. Business damages recoverable are the probable damages to such
business which the application of the enactment or amendment of the ordinance or charter
provision may reasonably cause. Compliance with a 180-day presuit notice and settlement period
is required. A prevailing business may also be awarded costs and attorney fees payable by the
county or municipality. If the parties settle the matter pre-trial, attorney fees are limited to a
reasonable rate. If the business prevails after the presuit process, attorney fees are a percentage of
the difference between the county or municipality’s counteroffer and the final award.
The bill may have an indeterminate negative fiscal impact on local governments. The bill does
not appear to have a fiscal impact on state government.
The bill is effective July 1, 2022, and applies to enactment or amendment of an ordinance or
charter provision on or after July 1, 2022.
REVISED: BILL: SB 620 Page 2
II. Present Situation:
Home Rule Powers
The Florida Constitution
The Florida Constitution establishes and describes the duties, powers, structure, function, and
limitations of government in Florida. Article VIII, sections 1 and 2 of the Florida Constitution,
endows counties and municipalities the power of self-government or home rule power. Under the
home rule power, local governments have broad authority to exercise the state’s sovereign police
powers and legislate on any matter that is not inconsistent with federal law and the State
Constitution and state laws.
Counties
A county without a charter has such power of self-government as provided by general or special
law and may enact county ordinances not inconsistent with general law.
1
Counties operating
under county charters have all the powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general
law or with special law approved by a vote of the electors.
2
General law authorizes counties “the
power to carry on county government”
3
and to “perform any other acts not inconsistent with law,
which acts are in the common interest of the people of the county, and exercise all powers and
privileges not specifically prohibited by law.”
4
Municipalities
Municipalities may be established or abolished, and their charters amended by general or special
law. Municipalities have governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to conduct municipal
government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services. They may exercise any
of these powers for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law.
5
Chapter 166, F.S.,
also known as the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act,
6
acknowledges these constitutional grants
of police power and better defines municipal powers of self-government.
7
Chapter 166, F.S.,
provides municipalities with broad home rule powers to act in a manner not inconsistent with the
Florida Constitution, general and special law, and a charter for the county in which the
municipality is located.
8
1
FLA. CONST. art. VIII, s. 1(f).
2
FLA. CONST. art. VIII. s. (1)(g).
3
Section 125.01(1), F.S.
4
Section 125.01(1)(w), F.S.
5
FLA. CONST. art. VIII, s. 2.
6
Section 166.011, F.S.
7
Florida House of Representatives, Publications, The Local Government Formation Manual 2017-2018, p. 16, available at:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?PublicationType=Committees&CommitteeId=2911&Ses
sion=2017&DocumentType=General Publications&FileName=2017-2018 Local Government Formation Manual Final
Pub.pdf (last visited Nov. 23, 2021).
8
Section 166.021(4), F.S. BILL: SB 620 Page 3
Current Laws Providing Compensation for County and Municipality Governmental
Actions
Eminent Domain
Both the Federal Constitution and State Constitution guarantee that a person’s private property
may not be taken for public use without reimbursement. The Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution states that no private property shall “be taken for public use without just
compensation.” Similarly, the Florida Constitution provides that no private property shall be
taken except for a public purpose and that each owner must be fully compensated.
9
Florida
eminent domain law compensates a landowner for the value of real property taken for a public
purpose. If the taking impacts an ongoing business, the law also provides for payment of
business damages related to the eminent domain taking. The term business damages refers to
“the probable damages to such business which the denial of the use of the property so taken may
reasonably cause.”
10
State eminent domain law also provides an affected landowner the right to attorney fees.
11
Where
the parties settle, the state or local government must pay a reasonable attorney fee, but where the
issue is litigated the fee is based on benefit to the landowner. Examples of how this works in the
context of business damages payable to a landowner in an eminent domain case:
Business Damages in Eminent Domain Attorney Fee Examples
Description Attorney Fee Calculation
Business owner’s offer is $500,000. The
government accepts the offer.
Attorney’s fees would be based on a
reasonable amount of time at a reasonable
rate.
Business owner’s offer is $500,000. The
government’s counteroffer is $400,000,
which is accepted by the business owner.
Attorney’s fees would be based on a
reasonable amount of time at a reasonable
rate.
Business owner’s offer is $500,000. The
government’s counteroffer is $100,000.
Business owner rejects the counteroffer. At
trial, the jury awards $200,000. The
“benefit” is $100,000
Attorney’s fees, based on that benefit, would
be $100,000 x 33% = $33,000.
Business owner’s offer is $50,000. The
government’s counteroffer is $10,000. The
claim does not go to trial and is settled for
$20,000.
Attorney’s fees based on the $10,000 benefit
would be $10,000 x 33% = $3,300.
9
FLA. CONST. art. X, s. 6.
10
Section 73.071(2)(b), F.S.
11
Section 73.092, F.S. BILL: SB 620 Page 4
The Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act
The Legislature enacted the “Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act” in 1995.
The act provides relief to a property owner whose property is inordinately burdened by
government regulation. The act is limited in scope and applies only to:
Real, and not personal, property;
A property owner and not a leaseholder;
“As-applied” challenges for specific government actions, not to broad, facial challenges of
government regulations; and
Challenges that are not based on temporary impacts.
12
The Legislature recognized that some laws, regulations, and ordinances of the state and its
entities could inordinately burden, restrict, or limit private property rights without amounting to a
taking
13
under either the State Constitution or the United States Constitution. The Legislature
declared that there is “an important state interest in protecting the interests of private property
owners from those inordinate burdens.” Accordingly, the Legislature created a separate and
distinct cause of action for governmental actions that might not rise to the level of taking under
the State Constitution or United States Constitution. The Legislature provided a process for
private landowners to seek relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation,
or ordinance of the state or a political entity, as applied, unfairly affects real property.
14
The phrases “inordinate burden” and “inordinately burdened” mean that an action by one or
more governmental entities has directly restricted or limited the use of real property to the extent
that:
The property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed
expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the
real property with respect to the real property as a whole; or
The property owner is left with existing or vested uses that are unreasonable such that the
property owner bears a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public,
which in fairness should be borne by the public at large.
15
Before a property owner files an action for compensation under the Bert Harris Act, he or she
must present a written claim to the head of the government entity at least 90 days before filing an
action. In addition to the claim, the property owner must submit a valid appraisal that supports
the claim and demonstrates the loss in fair market value to the property.
16,17
If other parties are
12
W. Thomas Hawkins, Land Use Law in Florida, 17-3 (Routledge, 2021).
13
A “taking” is generally understood to mean a government action that deprives an owner of the use or enjoyment of his or
her property. A regulatory taking occurs when a government regulation seriously restricts a property owner’s rights. BLACK’S
LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014).
14
Section 70.001(1), F.S.
15
Section 70.001(3)(e)1., F.S. The definition further explains in s. 70.001(3)(e)2., F.S., what the terms do not include with
regard to other impacts.
16
Section 70.001(4)(a), F.S.
17
The appraisal should contain valuations of the property both before and after the government’s restriction was imposed.
This will enable the government to adequately evaluate the property owner’s potential claim for the purpose of developing a
settlement offer during the pre-suit period. Margaret L. Cooper, Ronald L. Weaver, and Joanne M. Connor, Statutory Private
Property Rights Protection, 6,The Florida Bar, 2018 Florida Real Property Litigation (2018),
https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0368929390&pubNum=0116933&originatingD BILL: SB 620 Page 5
involved, the governmental entity must notify them, including all owners of real property that is
contiguous to the owner’s property.
18
During the 90-day notice period, which may be extended by an agreement of the parties, the
government is required to make a written settlement offer to the claimant. The settlement may
contain an offer to:
Adjust land development, permit standards, or similar provisions controlling the development
or use of the land.
Increase or modify density, intensity, or use of areas of development.
Transfer development rights.
Entertain land swaps or exchanges.
Mitigate, including payments in lieu of onsite mitigation.
Locate on the least sensitive portion of the property.
Condition the amount of development or use permitted.
Require that issues be addressed on a more comprehensive basis.
Issue a development order, variance, special exception, or other extraordinary relief.
Purchase the property or an interest in it.
Make no changes to the proposed action.
19
If the property owner rejects the settlement offer with the allowable uses, the property owner
may file a claim in circuit court and the county where the real property is located.
20
A cause of
action may not be filed more than 1 year after a law or regulation is “first applied” by the
government to the property at issue. The 1-year time frame begins when the law or regulation is
clear and unequivocal in its terms and notice is provided by mail to the affected property owner
or registered agent. Otherwise, the law or regulation is considered first applied to the property
when there is a formal denial of a written request for a development order or variance, unless
under the terms of the regulation at issue, such requests would be a waste of resources.
21
The court then conducts a bench trial to determine whether an existing use of the real property or
a vested right to a specific use of the property existed and whether the government inordinately
burdened the owner’s property. If the court determines that an inordinate burden was imposed,
the court must also determine the percentage of responsibility each governmental entity must
bear.
22
The property owner may decide whether the amount of compensation is to be determined
by the court or jury.
23
The court, and not the jury, will determine what constitutes reasonable costs and attorney fees.
24
oc=N090388C02AB211E5823BE24E38CB0B04&refType=SA&originationContext=contextAnalysis&contextData=%28sc.
UserEnteredCitation%29&transitionType=ContextAnalysisItem.
18
Section 70.001(4)(b), F.S.
19
Section 70.001(4)(c), F.S.
20
Section 70.001(5)(b), F.S.
21
Section 70.001(11), F.S.
22
Section 70.001(6)(a), F.S.
23
Section 70.001(6)(b), F.S.
24
Section 70.001(6)(c)3., F.S. BILL: SB 620 Page 6
The property owner is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney fees from the government
from the date the action was filed in circuit court if:
The property owner prevails; and
The court determines that the government’s settlement offer did not constitute a bona fide
offer which reasonably would have resolved the claim during the 90-day notice period.
25
Similarly, the government is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred from
the date the action was filed in circuit court if:
The government prevails; and
The court determines that the property owner did not accept a bona fide settlement offer
which reasonably would have fairly resolved the claim if the offer had been accepted by the
property owner during the 90 day notice period.
26
Governmental Exactions
In response to a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case, Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management
District,
27
the Legislature enacted s. 70.45, F.S., in 2015, and created a cause of action for a
property owner to recover damages caused by a “prohibited exaction.”
28
Essential phrases from
the Koontz decision are embedded in the statute. A prohibited exaction is defined as any
condition imposed by a governmental entity on a property owner’s proposed use of real property
that does not have “an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly
proportionate to the impacts of the proposed use that the governmental entity” is seeking to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate.
29
The action may not be brought until a prohibited exaction is actually imposed or required in
writing as a final condition of approval for the requested use of real property. The right to bring
the action may not be waived.
30
The property owner must provide a written notice to the relevant governmental entity of his or
her proposed action at least 90 days before filing an action but no later than 180 days after
imposition of the prohibited exaction. The notice must identify the exaction that the property
owner believes is prohibited and briefly explain why he or she believes the action is prohibited
along with an estimate of the damages. The relevant governmental entity must review the notice
of the claim, respond in writing and identify the basis for the exaction, and explain why it
maintains that the exaction is proportionate to the harm created by the proposed use of real
property, or propose to remove all or a proportion of the exaction.
31
The government has the burden of proving that the exaction has an essential nexus to a legitimate
public purpose and that it is roughly proportionate to the impact the government seeks to avoid.
25
Section 70.001(6)(c)1., F.S.
26
Section 70.001(6)(c)2., F.S.
27
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013).
28
Chapter 2015-142, s. 2, Laws of Fla.
29
Section 70.45(1)(c), F.S.
30
Section 70.45(2), F.S.
31
Section 70.45(3), F.S. BILL: SB 620 Page 7
The burden of proving damages that result from the prohibited exaction rests upon the property
owner.
32
The court may award attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party. However, if the court finds
that the exaction lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose, the court must award
attorney fees and costs to the property owner.
33
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
SB 620 creates s. 70.91, F.S. to create a cause of action for a business that has been operating for
at least 3 years to recover business damages from a county or municipality who enacts or amends
an ordinance or charter provision that causes a 15 percent or greater loss of revenue or profit.
Unlike the three forms of recovery for government actions described above, this new cause of
action is not tied to real property ownership.
Legislative Statements of Need for the Bill
The bill provides the following statements:
WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that the continued economic
growth and economic prosperity of this state are tied to the protection of
private property rights and the stability of laws, ordinances, and charter
provisions, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that the protection of private
property rights and the stability of laws and local rules and regulations
affecting business activities encourage investments by businesses in their
real property, facilities, operations, and workforces, and
WHEREAS, investments by businesses drive the economic growth
of a community, and
WHEREAS, the economic costs of local rules and regulations that
are primarily for the benefit of a county or municipality as a whole should
be borne by the county or municipality as a whole, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature intends to require counties and
municipalities to compensate businesses for business damages when an
ordinance or a charter provision causes a business significant economic
harm.
Exceptions to Application of the Bill
A county or city is not liable for business damages for any enactment or amendment of an
ordinance or charter provision that is:
32
Section 70.45(4), F.S.
33
Section 70.45(5), F.S. BILL: SB 620 Page 8
Required to comply with state or federal law;
An emergency ordinance, declaration or order enacted pursuant to the State Emergency
Act;
34
A temporary emergency ordinance that remains in effect no more than 90 days; or
An ordinance or charter amendment that increases economic freedom.
Additionally, a business may not claim damages under the bill if:
The business has been in operation for fewer than 3 years;
The business may claim damages under eminent domain law; or
35
Recovery under another legal theory would lead to a double recovery by the business.
Presuit Requirements
Similar to eminent domain actions and claims under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Act or the law on
exactions, the bill requires the parties to engage in a presuit process before litigation ensues. The
presuit process starts with a demand letter from the business followed by an opportunity for
negotiation and settlement before a lawsuit may be filed. Specifically, the following procedures
are required:
An initial demand letter from the business must be presented to the county or city within 180
days after the effective date of the enactment or amendment to the ordinance or charter
provision. The initial demand letter must include a written offer to settle the claim. It must be
made in good faith, and must include an explanation or the nature, extent, and amount of
business damages. The initial demand letter must be prepared by the business owner, a certified
public accountant, or a business damages expert. Copies of relevant business records that
substantiate the claim must be attached to the demand. The county or city may request additional
information that the owner may agree to provide. The business records that may be attached
include, but are not limited to:
Federal income tax returns.
Federal income tax withholding statements.
Federal miscellaneous income tax statements.
State sales tax returns.
Balance sheets.
Profit and loss statements.
State corporate income tax returns for the 3 years preceding the enactment of or amendment
to an ordinance or a charter.
Other records relied upon by the business to substantiate a claim for business damages.
The county or city has 120 days to review the demand letter and furnish a response to it by
certified mail. The response must either be acceptance, rejection, or rejection with a counteroffer.
A failure to respond is considered a counteroffer of zero.
36
If the parties agree on the amount of
business damages, the business may in addition collect costs and attorney fees. Costs and
34
Sections 252.31-.60, F.S.
35
Chapter 73, F.S.
36
A counteroffer of zero is significant when calculating attorney fees based on the results of the litigation. BILL: SB 620 Page 9
attorney fees may be litigated separately even though the amount of business damages is agreed
upon.
If the parties cannot agree on the amount of business damages, and if 180 days has elapsed since
service of the initial demand letter, the business may file a lawsuit.
Calculation of Business Damages
The bill does not specify criteria calculating business damages. The term is used in eminent
domain litigation, is a familiar concept in that area of the law, and will likely be interpreted by
the courts in a similar fashion. Thus, business damages are the probable damages to such
business which application of the enacted or amended ordinance or charter provision may
reasonably cause.
37
Business damages include lost profits attributable to the reduced
profit-making capacity of the business caused by the enactment of amendment of an ordinance or
charter provision.
38
The business must state in its complaint the nature and extent of the business damages believed
to be owed. If contested, the amount is set by the jury, unless the business waives the right to a
jury and elects trial by a judge.
At trial, due to the similarities with the business damages under eminent domain law, each party
will likely be “entitled to approach the ‘inherently fact-intensive’ task of business-damage
valuation by presenting the opinions of qualified experts ‘based upon generally accepted
accounting principles as to what should be included in the jury’s calculation.’”
39
These experts in
calculating damages, depending upon the specific circumstances would seem to be authorized to
rely on various valuation methods including an:
income-based approach (i.e., value based on current and future revenue
stream discounted to a total present value), market-based approach (i.e.,
value based on comparison to comparable businesses existing in the
particular market adjusted for the individual characteristics and risks
associated with the specific business), or asset-based approach (i.e., value
based on total assets net liabilities; typically used when the business is not
profitable).
40
Costs and Attorney Fees
The initial offer only includes business damages, the issue of costs and attorney fees only arises
upon settlement of, or judgment for, the business damages. A business is entitled to an additional
award of costs and attorney fees if the parties reach a settlement on business damages or if the
37
See, s. 73.071(3)(b), F.S.
38
See, LeSuer v. State Rd. Dep’t, 231 So. 2d 265, 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
39
System Components Corp. V. Florida Dept. of Transp., 14 So. 3d 967, 980 (Fla. 2009).
40
Id. (citing s. 73.071(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); Jeffrey M. Risius, Business Valuation: A Primer For The Legal Professional
chs. 8, 10, 12 (2007); American Society of Appraisers, Business Valuation Standards Glossary, available at
www.bvappraisers. org/glossary/glossary.pdf). BILL: SB 620 Page 10
business prevails in court. The calculation of attorney fees differs based on when the business
damages matter was resolved. Prejudgment interest for costs and attorney fees is not allowed.
Calculation of Costs
In general, a statutory reference to costs is interpreted by the courts by reference to the Statewide
Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions, promulgated by the Florida Supreme
Court.
41
Those uniform guidelines include payment of the reasonable costs of experts and
professionals who assist the court. The bill provides procedural requirements and makes the
following changes or clarifications to the uniform guidelines:
Accountant fees are specifically named as a cost.
At least 30 days prior to the hearing on costs, the business must submit to the county or
municipality billing records of any expert witness. Billing records must include details of the
expert’s time and services by date, the nature of the services performed, the time spent
performing the services, and costs incurred. The business must also submit a copy of the fee
agreement.
The court must consider all factors relevant to the reasonableness of the costs, including, but
not limited to, the fees paid to similar experts retained in the case by the county or
municipality or other parties and the reasonable costs of similar services by similarly
qualified persons.
The court must consider the amount the business would ordinarily have been expected to pay
for the services rendered if the county or municipality was not responsible for the costs.
The court must make specific findings that justify each sum awarded as an expert witness
fee.
Attorney Fees when Business Damages are Settled in Pre-Suit Initial Phase
If the county or municipality accepts the initial offer from the business, or if the business accepts
the initial counteroffer of the county or municipality, the business is entitled to an award for
attorney fees.
The parties may negotiate the fee. If they cannot agree, the business has one year from the
effective date of the enactment or amendment to the ordinance or charter provision to file suit in
the circuit court to recover a reasonable attorney fee.
To make a claim for fees after agreement on the business damages amount, the attorney for the
business must submit a claim for fees to the county or municipality at least 30 days prior to any
hearing. The claim must include:
Complete time records.
A detailed statement of services rendered by date, the nature of the services rendered, and the
time spent performing the services.
A list of all costs incurred.
A copy of the fee agreement.
41
Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions, Fla.R.Civ.Pro., Appendix II. BILL: SB 620 Page 11
The court must be guided by the attorney fees the business would ordinarily be expected to pay
for these services if the county or municipality was not responsible for the payment of those fees,
and must be based on the following factors:
The novelty, difficulty, and importance of the questions involved.
The skill employed by the attorney in conducting the case.
The amount of money involved.
The responsibility incurred and fulfilled by the attorney.
The attorney’s time and labor reasonably required to adequately represent the client in
relation to the benefits resulting to the client.
The fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged for legal services of a comparable or similar
nature.
Evidence related to negotiations or mediation are admissible when determining the reasonable
costs or attorney fee. Attorney fees awarded by the court must be used to reduce the amount
owed or paid by the business.
Attorney Fees when Business Damages are not Determined in the Initial Phase
If the county or municipality does not accept the initial good faith demand, the business does not
accept the initial counteroffer of the county or municipality, and the business thereafter prevails
by settlement or judgment, the court must award the prevailing business an attorney fee in
addition to the business damage award. The attorney fee is based on the benefit to the business:
33 percent of the benefit up to $250,000; plus
25 percent of the benefit between $250,000 and $1 million; plus
20 percent of the benefit above $1 million.
The benefit to the business is calculated as follows:
The term “benefits” means the difference, exclusive of interest, between the final judgment
or settlement and the last written offer made by the county or municipality before the
business hires an attorney. If the county or municipality does not make a written settlement
offer before the business hires an attorney, benefits must be measured from the first written
offer after the attorney is hired.
If business records kept by the owner in the ordinary course of business were provided to the
county or municipality to substantiate the business damage offer made by the business,
benefits for amounts awarded for business damages are based upon the difference between
the final judgment or settlement and the written counteroffer made by the county or
municipality.
If existing business records kept by the owner in the ordinary course of business were not
provided to the county or municipality to substantiate the business damage offer made by the
business and those records that were not provided are later deemed material to the
determination of business damages, benefits for amounts awarded for business damages are
based upon the difference between the final judgment or settlement and the first written
counteroffer made by the county or municipality within 90 days after the receipt of the
business records previously not provided to the county or municipality.
The court may also consider nonmonetary benefits obtained for the business through the
efforts of the attorney, to the extent such nonmonetary benefits are specifically identified by
the court and can, within a reasonable degree of certainty, be quantified. BILL: SB 620 Page 12
Effective Date
The bill takes effect July 1, 2022, and applies to an enactment or amendment of a county or
municipal ordinance or charter provision that is enacted or amended on or after July 1, 2022.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
The bill does not require counties or municipalities to spend funds or limit their authority
to raise revenue or receive state-shared revenues as specified in Article VII, s. 18 of the
Florida Constitution.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None identified.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
Indeterminate. The private sector in general may be positively impacted by a more
favorable regulatory climate created by SB 620. Businesses harmed by certain county or
municipality actions may recover business damages to compensate them for losses.
C. Government Sector Impact:
Indeterminate. The bill does not appear to have a fiscal impact on those counties and
municipalities that refrain from substantially impacting businesses when enacting or
amending an ordinance or charter provision. The bill may have a fiscal impact on
counties and municipalities that elect to enact or amend ordinances or charter provisions
in a manner that negatively and significantly impacts established businesses. The extent BILL: SB 620 Page 13
to which counties or municipalities may elect in the future to be impacted by this bill
cannot be estimated.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill creates section 70.91, Florida Statutes.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.