This docum ent does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives.
STORAGE NAME: h0941a.LFS
DATE: 3/15/2023
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: HB 941 Authorization of Restriction Concerning Dogs
SPONSOR(S): Busatta Cabrera
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SB 942
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
1) Local Administration, Federal Affairs & Special
Districts Subcommittee
18 Y, 0 N Burgess Darden
2) Regulatory Reform & Economic Development
Subcommittee
3) State Affairs Committee
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Public housing authorities (PHAs) are created pursuant to Florida law at municipal, county, and regional levels,
and become active through resolution by the applicable governing body. Among other powers, PHAs may
administer fair housing ordinances and other ordinances as adopted by municipalities, counties, or other
authorities contracting for administrative services.
PHAs must file annual agency plans with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development which must
include their policies on public housing occupancy, including pet ownership. These policies may include
reasonable requirements such as prohibitions on types of animals that are classified as dangerous and
restrictions on individual animals based on certain factors including size and weight. Currently, the policies of
some PHAs prohibit pets based on the breed, behavior, or training of the pet.
However, some regulations
based on breed do not depend on a finding that the pet is vicious or dangerous. Additionally, the definition of
“dangerous dog” under Florida law is not uniformly applied in all PHA policies.
Local governments may adopt ordinances addressing the safety and welfare concerns stemming from dog
attacks on people or domestic animals, placing restrictions and additional requirements on owners of
dangerous dogs, provided that no such regulations may be breed specific. However, ordinances adopted prior
to October 1, 1990 are exempt from these statutory requirements.
The bill authorizes PHAs to adopt policies imposing restrictions or additional requirements on owners of dogs
deemed dangerous, as defined by Florida law. The bill further allows PHAs to develop procedures or criteria to
aid in the implementation of these policies. Additionally, the bill expands the restriction on breed-specific
regulations to include regulations based on size or weight and removes the current exception for local
ordinances adopted prior to October 1, 1990, bringing such ordinances under the requirements of the statute.
This bill is projected to have no fiscal impact.
STORAGE NAME: h0941a.LFS PAGE: 2
DATE: 3/15/2023
FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Present Situation
Creation of Housing Authorities
Public housing authorities (PHA) are created at municipal, county
1
, and regional levels.
2
While
authorized by statute, housing authorities may not transact any business or exercise their statutory
powers until such time as the governing body of the municipality or county declares by resolution that
there is a need for a housing authority to function in the jurisdiction. This determination may be made
by the governing body of the municipality or county on its own motion or upon the filing of a petition
signed by 25 residents of the jurisdiction asserting that there exists a need for such an authority and
requesting that the governing body so declare.
3
The governing body may adopt such a resolution if it
finds the following:
Insanitary or unsafe inhabited dwelling accommodations exist in the city or county; or
There is a shortage of safe or sanitary dwelling accommodations in the city or county available
to persons of low income at rentals they can afford.
4
Upon notification of the adoption of such a resolution, the mayor of a city, or the Governor, shall appoint
commissioners of the housing authority for the city or county, respectively.
5
Additionally, if the governing body of two or more contiguous counties each declares by resolution the
need for one housing authority to exercise powers and other functions for all such counties, a regional
housing authority will be created; and any housing authorities created, for each individual county, shall
cease to exist except for the purpose of winding up their respective affairs and executing a deed to the
regional housing authority. The governing body of a county shall not adopt a resolution of this kind if its
current county housing authority has any outstanding obligations, unless:
All obligees of such county housing authority and any parties to any contracts, bonds, notes, or
other obligations of such county housing authority agree to substitute the regional housing
authority in lieu of the county housing authority on all such contracts, bonds, notes, or other
obligations; and
The commissioners of each county housing authority adopt a resolution consenting to the
transfer of all the rights, contracts, obligations, and property, real and personal, of the county
housing authority to the regional housing authority.
6
Furthermore, the governing body of each of two or more contiguous counties must declare by
resolution that:
Insanitary or unsafe inhabited dwelling accommodations exist in such county or there is a
shortage of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations in such county available to persons of
low income at rentals they can afford; and
1
A county housing authority shall operate in all areas of the county except those portions that lie within the territorial boundaries of any
city (defined as any city or town having a population of more than 2,500 according to the last state or federal census). Ss. 421.27(3)
and 421.03(2), F.S.
2
Ss. 421.04, 421.27, and 421.28, F.S.; A regional housing authority shall operate in all counties for which the regional housing authority
was created except the portions of the counties that lie within the territorial boundaries of cities. Ss. 421.29(1) and 421.03(2), F.S.
3
Ss. 421.04(1) and 421.27(1), F.S.
4
S. 421.04(2), F.S.; In determining whether dwelling accommodations are unsafe or insanitary the governing body may take into
consideration the following: the degree of overcrowding, the percentage of land coverage, the light, air, space and access available to
the inhabitants, the size and arrangements of the rooms, the sanitary facilities, and the extent to which conditions exist in such buildings
which endanger life or property by fire or other causes. S. 421.04(2)(b), F.S.
5
S. 421.27(2), F.S.
6
S. 421.28(1), F.S. STORAGE NAME: h0941a.LFS PAGE: 3
DATE: 3/15/2023
A regional housing authority would be a more efficient or economical administrative unit than
the housing authority of such county to carry out the purposes of this Housing Authorities Law in
such county.
7
Powers of Housing Authorities
PHAs are authorized to administer fair housing ordinances and other ordinances adopted by
municipalities, counties, or other authorities contracting for administrative services.
8
Public Housing Authority Agency Plans
PHAs must submit annual plans to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
approval. These plans must include a statement of the PHA’s policies and rules regarding ownership of
pets in public housing.
9
PHAs may impose reasonable requirements on residents of public housing regarding pet ownership,
which may include prohibitions against types of animals that are classified as dangerous
10
and
individual animals based on certain factors, such as the size and weight of the animal.
Currently, some PHAs include provisions in their policies prohibiting pets based on breed, behavior, or
training of the pet.
11
However, some regulations based on breed do not depend on a finding that the pet
is vicious or dangerous.
Additionally, the definition of “dangerous dog” under Florida law is not uniformly
applied in all PHA policies.
12
Local Restrictions Regarding Dangerous Dogs
Local governments may adopt ordinances to address safety and welfare concerns stemming from dog
attacks on people or domestic animals, placing restrictions and additional requirements on owners of
dangerous dogs, provided that no regulations may be breed specific.
13
Ordinances adopted prior to
October 1, 1990, are exempt from these statutory requirements.
14
Florida law defines a “dangerous dog” as any dog that according to the records of the appropriate
authority:
15
Has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or inflicted severe injury
16
on a human being
on public or private property;
Has more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off the owner’s property;
or
7
S. 421.28(3), F.S.; No governing body shall adopt a resolution of this kind unless a public hearing has first been held. S. 421.29(7),
F.S.
8
S. 421.08(6), F.S.
9
42 U.S.C.A. s.1437c-1; See also 24 C.F.R. s. 903.7(n) (The policies must be in accordance with section 31 of the 1937 Act (42
U.S.C. s. 1437z-3)).
10
Classifications must comply with state and local law. 24 C.F.R. s. 960.707(b)(3).
11
See e.g., Tampa Housing Authority, https://www.thafl.com/Departments/Real-Estate-Development/library/PHA-PLAN.pdf (last visited
Mar. 8, 2023) (forbidding “Pets of a known vicious or dangerous disposition, i.e. Pit bulls, Doberman pinchers”); St. Petersburg Housing
Authority, https://www.stpeteha.org/plugins/show_image.php?id=1912 (last visited Mar. 8, 2023) (prohibiting “any animal deemed to be
potentially harmful to the health or safety of others, including attack or fight trained dogs . . . certain breeds may be prohibited at the
discretion of [St. Petersburg Housing Authority]”); Key West Housing Authority,
https://www.kwha.org/egov/documents/1614973714_73249.pdf (last visited Mar. 8, 2023) (prohibiting “vicious or intimidating pets. Dog
breeds including pitbull, rottweiler, Doberman, are considered vicious or intimidating breeds”).
12
See S. 767.11(1), F.S.
13
A local government may only enact additional restrictions or requirements on the owners of dogs who have already been declared
“dangerous” as defined in s. 767.11, F.S. This section does not authorize or prohibit additional restrictions or requirements on owners of
dogs who have not been declared “dangerous.” Hoesch v. Broward County, 53 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
14
S. 767.14, F.S.
15
Local governments may not alter the statutory definition of “dangerous dog.” See Hoesch, 53 So. 3d at 1180-1181.
16
“Severe injury” is defined as any physical injury resulting in broken bones, multiple bites, or disfiguring lacerations requiring sutures or
reconstructive surgery. S. 767.11(3), F.S. STORAGE NAME: h0941a.LFS PAGE: 4
DATE: 3/15/2023
Has, when unprovoked
17
, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any
public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, provided that such actions
are attested to in a sworn statement by one or more persons and dutifully investigated by the
appropriate authority.
18
Effect of Proposed Changes
The bill adds size and weight to the prohibited topics which a local government may not use to regulate
dogs in their jurisdiction. The bill removes the exemption for local ordinances adopted prior to October
1, 1990, requiring those ordinances must now comply with these statutory restrictions.
The bill authorizes PHAs to adopt policies imposing restrictions or additional requirements on owners of
dogs as long as such requirements are not specific to breed, weight, or size. The bill authorizes PHAs
to develop procedures or criteria to aid in the implementation of these policies.
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1: Amends s. 767.14, F.S., concerning the authorization of additional local restrictions
related to dangerous dogs.
Section 2: Provides an effective date of October 1, 2023.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
B. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
C. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR:
None.
D. FISCAL COMMENTS:
None.
17
“Unprovoked” is defined as a victim who conducted himself or herself peacefully and lawfully was bitten or chased in a menacing
fashion or attacked by a dog. S. 767.11(2), F.S.
18
S. 767.11(1), F.S. STORAGE NAME: h0941a.LFS PAGE: 5
DATE: 3/15/2023
III. COMMENTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
1. Applicability of Municipality/County Mandates Provision:
Not Applicable. This bill does not appear to require counties or municipalities to spend funds or take
action requiring the expenditures of funds; reduce the authority that counties or municipalities have
to raise revenues in the aggregate; or reduce the percentage of state tax shared with counties or
municipalities.
2. Other:
None.
B. RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY:
The bill neither requires nor authorizes administrative rulemaking by executive agencies.
C. DRAFTING ISSUES OR OTHER COMMENTS:
None.
IV. AMENDMENTS/COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE CHANGES
None.