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 Regulated Industries
BILL: SB 496
INTRODUCER: Senator Perry
SUBJECT: Low-voltage Alarm System Projects
DATE: January 9, 2024
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Kraemer Imhof RI Favorable
2. CA
3. RC
I. Summary:
SB 496 revises s. 553.793, F.S., concerning streamlined low-voltage alarm system installation
permitting. The bill provides that a nonelectric fence or wall must completely enclose the outside
perimeter of a low-voltage electric fence. Current law provides that a nonelectric fence or wall
must completely enclose a low-voltage electric fence, but it is unclear whether the enclosing
nonelectric fence or wall must be located on each side of the low-voltage electric fence, or solely
on the outside perimeter.
The bill specifies that an area that is within more than one zoning category is not considered to
be zoned exclusively for single-family or multifamily residential use. Under the bill, low-voltage
electric fences will be allowed in areas within multiple zoning categories. Current law prohibits
installation of a low-voltage electric fence in an area zoned exclusively for single-family or
multifamily use.
The bill clarifies that additional requirements for the installation or maintenance of low-voltage
alarm system projects, beyond those set out in s. 553.793, F.S., may not be adopted or
maintained by local governments. Under current law, local governments are prohibited from
adopting or maintaining low-voltage alarm system project ordinances or rules that are
inconsistent with s. 553.793, F.S.
The bill takes effect July 1, 2024.
REVISED: BILL: SB 496 Page 2
II. Present Situation:
Under current law, when a low-voltage electric fence meets the specified requirements for a low-
voltage alarm system project,
1
no further permit may be required for the project.
2
A low-voltage electric fence is composed of an alarm system, as defined in s. 489.505, F.S.,
3
that
operates in conjunction with a fence structure and an energizer powered by a commercial storage
battery not exceeding 12 volts which produces an electric charge upon contact with the fence
structure.
4
Section 553.793(3), F.S., specifies that a low-voltage electric fence meeting all of the following
requirements must be permitted as a low-voltage alarm system project, and no further permit
may be required. A low-voltage electric fence:
Must produce an electric charge upon contact that may not exceed certain energizer
characteristics that are set forth in International Electrotechnical Commission Standard
No. 60335-2-76;
5
Must be completely enclosed by a nonelectric fence or wall;
May be up to two feet higher than the perimeter nonelectric fence or wall;
Must be identified with attached warning signs at intervals that may not exceed 60 feet;
May not be installed in areas zoned exclusively for single-family or multifamily residential
use; and
May not enclose portions of a property which are used for residential purposes.
Section 553.793(10), F.S., prohibits a municipality, county, district, or other entity of local
government from adopting or maintaining in effect any ordinance or rule regarding a low-voltage
alarm system project which is inconsistent with s. 553.793, F.S. The interpretation of whether an
ordinance or rule relating to a low-voltage alarm system project is inconsistent with Florida law
as set forth in s. 553.793, F.S., was addressed in two Florida trial courts, with differing results.
1
Section 553.793(1)(b), F.S., defines a “low-voltage alarm system project” as “a project related to the installation,
maintenance, inspection, replacement, or service of a new or existing alarm system, as defined in s. 489.505, [F.S.,] including
video cameras and closed-circuit television systems used to signal or detect a burglary, fire, robbery, or medical emergency,
that is hardwired and operating at low voltage, as defined in the National Electrical Code Standard 70, Current Edition, or a
new or existing low-voltage electric fence. The term also includes ancillary components or equipment attached to a low-
voltage alarm system or low-voltage electric fence, including, but not limited to, home-automation equipment, thermostats,
closed-circuit television systems, access controls, battery recharging devices, and video cameras.
2
See s. 553.793(3), F.S.
3
Section 489.505, F.S., defines an alarm system as “any electrical device, signaling device, or combination of electrical
devices used to signal or detect a burglary, fire, robbery, or medical emergency.”
4
See s. 553.793(1)(c), F.S.
5
The limits on energizer characteristics are those set forth in paragraph 22.108 and depicted in Figure 102 of International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard No. 60335-2-76, Current Edition (the Energizer Standard); however, the
Energizer Standard does not appear to be incorporated as a reference in the Florida Administrative Code, and use of the
Energizer Standard document is subject to copyright protection. See https://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec60335-2-
76%7Bed2.0%7Den.pdf (last visited Jan. 4, 2024). The Energizer Standard is not published on the Internet and must be
purchased from the IEC. BILL: SB 496 Page 3
In a case filed in Hillsborough County,
6
the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff fence
company because the court held that the county “is attempting to prohibit Plaintiff’s low-voltage
electric fence that complies with s. 553.793, [F.S.,] and is located in an area not zoned
exclusively for single- or multiple-family residential use,” as the fence at issue is located in a
planned development zoning district which is a mixed use district. (Footnote omitted.)
The court held that s. 553.793, F.S., preempted the local ordinance “to the extent that this
ordinance prohibits or imposes additional requirements for low-voltage electric fences.
7
In a case addressing a requirement in the City of Orlando’s zoning code which prohibited the
installation of electric fences in a certain heritage zoning district,
8
the trial court determined that
the case before it was unlike the Hillsborough County case where there had been a finding that
additional requirements had been imposed on electric fences. The court held that the standard is
not whether the city’s code imposes additional requirements, but whether:
Those requirements conflict with [s. 553.793, F.S.]; and
The code and the statute cannot coexist, or if the Plaintiff must violate one to comply with
the other.
9
As to the prohibition that a municipality, county, district, or other entity of local government may
not adopt or maintain in effect any ordinance or rule regarding a low-voltage alarm system
project which is inconsistent with the requirements in s. 553.793, F.S, the court held that “as long
as the ordinance is not inconsistent with [that section], a municipality is not prevented from
enacting regulations regarding electric fences.”
10
The court also found that the city’s ordinance was not preempted by s. 553.793, F.S, as the
ordinance at issue:
Does not require an additional permit for an electric fence--it only regulates where the
electric fences can be installed. It is within Orlando’s police powers to maintain its
communities, and the city has a legitimate interest in maintaining the appearance of the
[heritage zoning] district with importance to the community.
11
Accordingly, the City of Orlando’s regulation prohibiting low-voltage electric fences in certain
locations did not constitute an additional requirement for installing such fences, and the court
found in favor of the City of Orlando and against the fence company.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
Section 1 revises s. 553.793, F.S., concerning streamlined low-voltage alarm system installation
permitting. The bill provides that a nonelectric fence or wall must completely enclose the outside
6
See Electric Guard Dog, LLC v. Hillsborough Co., Fla., (Case No. 17-CA-010362, Fla.13th Jud. Cir. 2019), at pp. 1-2 (on
file with the Senate Regulated Industries Committee).
7
Id. at p. 1.
8
See Amarok Security, LLC v. City of Orlando, Fla., (Case No. 2022-CA-011454-0, Div. 35, Fla. 9th Jud. Cir. 2023), (on file
with the Senate Regulated Industries Committee).
9
Id. at p. 8.
10
Id. at p. 9.
11
Id. BILL: SB 496 Page 4
perimeter of a low-voltage electric fence. Current law provides that a nonelectric fence or wall
must completely enclose a low-voltage electric fence, but it is unclear whether the enclosing
nonelectric fence or wall must be located on each side of the low-voltage electric fence, or solely
on the outside perimeter.
The bill specifies that an area that is within more than one zoning category is not considered to
be zoned exclusively for single-family or multifamily residential use. Under the bill, low-voltage
electric fences will be allowed in areas that are within multiple zoning categories. Current law
prohibits installation of a low-voltage electric fence in an area zoned exclusively for single-
family or multifamily use.
The bill clarifies that additional requirements for the installation or maintenance of low-voltage
alarm system projects, beyond those set out in s. 553.793, F.S., relating to streamlined permitting
of such projects, may not be adopted or maintained by a municipality, county, district, or other
entity of local government (local governments). Under current law, local governments may adopt
or maintain low-voltage alarm system project ordinances or rules that are consistent with
s. 553.793, F.S. Under the bill, the adoption or maintenance of supplemental requirements, other
than those set forth in s. 553.793, F.S., is prohibited. The bill appears to seek a resolution of
court decisions addressing this issue with differing results, by revising current law to provide that
requirements not set out in s. 553.793, F.S., may not be adopted or maintained by a municipality,
county, district, or other entity of local government.
Section 2 provides that the bill takes effect July 1, 2024.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None. BILL: SB 496 Page 5
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
None.
C. Government Sector Impact:
None.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends section 553.793 of the 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.