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 Appropriations
BILL: CS/CS/SB 818
INTRODUCER: Rules Committee, Transportation Committee, and Senator McClain
SUBJECT: Utility Relocation
DATE: April 21, 2025
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Scharader Imhof RI Favorable
2. Johson Vickers TR Fav/CS
3. Shrader Yeatman RC Fav/CS
4. Sanders Sadberry AP Pre-meeting
Please see Section IX. for Additional Information:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE - Substantial Changes
I. Summary:
CS/CS/SB 818 amends the process under which utilities located within the right-of-way of a
public road or publicly-owned rail corridor must be relocated when such utility is found by an
authority (Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and local government entities) to be
unreasonably interfering in any way with the convenient, safe, or continuous use, or the
maintenance, improvement, extension, or expansion, of such public road or publicly-owned rail
corridor. The general requirement is that utility owners must pay for such relocation.
The bill creates a grant program within the Department of Commerce (DCM), funded by a
portion of local communications services tax revenue, to reimburse providers of communications
services which are subject to the state’s communications services tax provisions (ch. 202, F.S.),
for relocation expenses directly attributable to the physical relocation of facilities required by a
county or municipal authority. The bill provides that 7.5 percent of the communications services
tax levied by municipalities or counties must be distributed to the DCM to fund the Utility
Relocation Reimbursement Grant Program established by the bill. If this grant program lacks the
funds to pay for such relocation, the burden to pay for such relocation is shifted to the county or
municipal authority.
The bill also revises the process for communications services providers that have permitted
infrastructure within a planned or existing public right-of-way within 90 days after a project is
added to the department’s project schedule which may require the provider to relocate its
REVISED: BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 2
infrastructure for roadway improvements to increase safety or reduce congestion. In addition to
revising notification requirements, the bill requires, for certain relocations, that the department
incur at least 50 percent of the cost of the relocation. The department is defined as FDOT and the
Greater Miami, Tampa, and Central Florida Expressway Authorities and the Jacksonville
Transportation Authority.
The bill provides a legislative finding and declaration that the bill fulfills an important state
interest.
The bill has an indeterminate significant impact to state and local municipalities and
governments. See Section V, Fiscal Statement below.
The bill is effective July 1, 2025.
II. Present Situation:
Utility Use of Right of Way
Florida law authorizes an authority, defined as the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
and local governmental entities,
1
with jurisdiction and control of public roads or publicly-owned
rail corridors to prescribe and enforce reasonable rules or regulations regarding the placement
and maintenance of utilities within their rights-of-way.
2
For the purposes of this provision, the
term “utility” is defined to mean electric transmission, voice, telegraph, data, or other
communications services lines or wireless facilities; pole lines; poles; railways; ditches; sewers;
water, heat, or gas mains; pipelines; fences; gasoline tanks and pumps; or other structures.
3
An authority may grant such a utility the use of its right-of-way in accordance with its rules or
regulations. A utility may not be installed, located, or relocated unless authorized by an
authority-issued permit. However, for roads or rail corridors under FDOT’s jurisdiction, in lieu
of a written permit, a utility relocation schedule and relocation agreement may be executed. A
utility permit must require that the permitholder is responsible for any damage resulting from the
issuance of such permit.
4
Payment for Moving or Removing Utilities and Exceptions
Section 337.403(1), F.S., requires utilities to bear the cost of relocating utilities placed upon,
under, over, or within the right-of-way limits of any public road or publicly-owned rail corridor
which is found by the authority to be unreasonably interfering in any way with the convenient,
1
Section 334.03(13), F.S., defines the term “local governmental entity” to mean a unit of government with less than
statewide jurisdiction, or any officially designated public agency or authority of such a unit of government, that has the
responsibility for planning, construction, operation, or maintenance of, or jurisdiction over, a transportation facility; the term
includes, but is not limited to, a county, an incorporated municipality, a metropolitan planning organization, an expressway or
transportation authority, a road and bridge district, a special road and bridge district, and a regional governmental unit.
2
Section 337.401(1)(a), F.S. Section 334.03(21), F.S., defines the term “right-of-way” to mean land in which the state, the
department, a county, or a municipality owns the fee or has an easement devoted to or required for use as a transportation
facility.
3
Id.
4
Section 337.401(2), F.S. BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 3
safe, or continuous use, or the maintenance, improvement, extension, or expansion, of such
public road or publicly-owned rail corridor. The requirements of s. 337.403(1), F.S., apply even
if the utility is within a public utility easement and the utility owner has a franchise agreement
with the authority, absent some other agreement to the contrary regarding costs of relocation.
5
Utility owners, upon 30 days’ written notice, must eliminate the unreasonable interference within
a reasonable time or an agreed time, at their own expense. Numerous exceptions are provided to
this provision, and are located in s. 337.403(1)(a)-(j), F.S.
Communications Services Tax
Chapter 202, F.S., is the Communications Services Tax (CST) Simplification Law. The term
“communications services” means the transmission, conveyance, or routing of voice, data, audio,
video, or any other information or signals, including video services, to a point, or between or
among points, by or through any electronic, radio, satellite, cable, optical, microwave, or other
medium or method, regardless of the protocol used for such transmission or conveyance.
6
Section 202.105, F.S., provides the legislative findings and intent related to enactment of
the CST simplification law. The law simplified an extremely complicated state and local tax and
fee system, by restructuring separate taxes and fees into a revenue-neutral CST centrally
administered by the Department of Revenue (DOR), i.e. a single tax to replace multiple taxes and
fees previously imposed. Among the Legislature’s stated intentions in creating the CST was that
it not reduce the authority that municipalities or counties had to raise revenue in the aggregate, as
such authority existed on February 1, 1989.
The state CST rate, except for direct-to-home satellite service, is 4.92 percent.
7
Local
governments may also levy a discretionary CST:
• Charter counties and municipalities may levy the CST at a rate of up to 5.1 percent for
municipalities and charter counties that have not chosen to levy permit fees, and at a rate of
up to 4.98 percent for municipalities and charter counties that have chosen to levy permit
fees; and
• Noncharter counties may levy the CST at a rate of up to 1.6 percent.
8
These maximum rates do not include the add-ons, pursuant to s. 337.401, F.S., of up to
0.12 percent for municipalities and charter counties or of up to 0.24 percent for noncharter
counties, if those local governments have elected not to require right-of-way permit fees.
9
The local discretionary CST and add-on rates, if applicable, constitute the total local adopted
rate.
10
5
Lee County Electric Coop., Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 159 So. 3d 126, 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
6
Section 202.11(1), F.S. Excluded from this definition is information services; installation or maintenance of wiring or
equipment on a customer’s premises; the sale or rental of tangible personal property; the sale of advertising, including, but
not limited to, directory advertising; bad check charges; late payment charges; billing and collection services; and Internet
access service, electronic mail service, electronic bulletin board service, or similar online computer services.
7
Section 202.12(1)(a) and (b), F.S.
8
Section 202.19, F.S.
9
Section 337.401(3)(c), F.S.
10
Florida Department of Revenue, 2023 Agency Legislative Bill Analysis for SB 1432, (Mar. 14, 2023) (on file with the
Senate Committee on Regulated Industries). BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 4
The local CST includes and is in lieu of any fee or other consideration, including, but not limited
to, application fees, transfer fees, renewal fees, or claims for related costs, to which the
municipality or county is otherwise entitled for granting permission to dealers of
communications services to use or occupy its roads or rights-of-way for the placement,
construction, and maintenance of poles, wires, and other fixtures used in the provision of
communications services.
11
Additionally, the term “replaced revenue sources” includes permit
fees relating to use of rights-of-way collected from communication services providers; however,
if a municipality or charter county elects the option to charge permit fees pursuant to
s. 337.401(3)(c), F.S., such fees are not be included as a replaced revenue source.
12
Under s. 202.19(5), F.S., any discretionary sales surtax levied by a county or school board under
s. 212.055, F.S., is imposed as a local CST. This surtax is added to the adopted local rate at the
respective conversion rate, as determined in accordance with methodology and chart in
s. 202.20(3), F.S. However, any increase to the discretionary sales surtax levied under
s. 212.055, F.S., on or after January 1, 2023, may not be added to the local communications
services tax under this s. 202.19, F.S., before January 1, 2026.
The total local CST rate is the total adopted rate plus the local option tax (at the converted rate),
if applicable. The total local CST rates vary by jurisdiction.
Broadband Services
Broadband (or high-speed Internet) services allow users to access Internet and Internet-related
services at speeds significantly higher than could be provided by traditional dial-up Internet
services. The speeds that can be obtained through broadband service can vary significantly based
on a number of factors including the technology used by the provider, infrastructure in place to
provide service to a particular end user by that provider, and the level of broadband service
ordered by that end user.
13
Types of broadband generally available include:
• Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), which is a wireline transmission technology that allows data
to be transmitted faster over copper-based telephone wires already installed in end-user
locations.
• Cable modem, which is a type of broadband provided through the same coaxial cable that
delivers an end user’s cable television service.
• Fiber, which is a fiber optic technology that converts to light electrical signals that carry data.
This light is then sent through transparent glass fibers (these fibers are about the same
diameter as a human hair). Fiber can transmit data at speeds far exceeding current DSL or
cable modem speeds.
• Wireless (WiFi), which is a technology that connects end-user devices to internet services
through short-range wireless technology. Public “hotspots” use this technology. In addition,
11
Section 202.19(3)(a), F.S.
12
Section 202.20(2)(b)1.e, F.S.
13
Federal Communications Commission, Getting Broadband Q&A, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/getting-
broadband-qa (last accessed April 16, 2025). BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 5
fixed wireless technologies with longer-range directional equipment can also be used to
provide broadband service in sparsely populated or remote areas too costly to provide other
types of broadband. Mobile wireless services are also available from mobile broadband
service providers—however, this type of service is generally slower than wired or fixed
wireless services.
• Satellite, which is essentially another type of wireless broadband, where an end user receives
broadband service connection through a fixed satellite mounted at their location transmitting
data to a satellite internet modem. This type of connection, which requires a clear line of
sight to the provider’s satellite, can be useful as well in providing broadband service to
remote or sparsely populated areas.
14
Broadband in Florida
Section 288.9961, F.S., establishes the Florida Office of Broadband within the Division of
Community Development within the Florida Department of Commerce (DCM). The Office of
Broadband “works with local and state government agencies, community organizations and
private businesses to increase the availability and effectiveness of broadband internet throughout
the state, specifically in small and rural communities.”
15
The section defines “broadband internet
service” as a service that offers a connection to the Internet with a capacity for transmission at a
consistent speed of at least 25 megabits per second (mbps) downstream and three mbps upstream
(25/3 mbps service). This 25/3 mbps service benchmark to be defined as broadband service was
the same as that used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since 2015. However,
in 2024, the FCC increased that standard to 100 mbps downstream and 20 mbps upstream.
16
Currently, 91.8 percent of Floridians have access to 25/3 mbps service. Presently, there are
229 internet service providers in Florida,
17
including investor-owned companies and cooperative
electric utilities.
18
Cable and Video Services in Florida
Section 610.102, F.S., provides that the Florida Department of State is the franchising authority
for state-issued franchises for the provision of cable or video service. The section provides that
municipalities and counties may not grant new franchises for the provision of cable or video
services within their jurisdictions. Section 610.103, F.S., which provides the definitions for
ch. 610, F.S., defines:
• “Cable service” as the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming or any
other programming service and the subscriber interaction, if any, required for the selection or
use of such service.
14
Id.
15
Florida Department of Commerce, Office of Broadband, https://www.floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-
development/broadband/office-of-broadband (last visited April 16, 2025).
16
Federal Communications Commission, FCC Increases Broadband Speed Benchmark, (Mar. 14, 2024)
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401205A1.pdf.
17
Broadband Now, Internet Service Providers in Florida, https://broadbandnow.com/Florida (last accessed April 16, 2025).
18
Section 425.04, F.S., provides that rural electric cooperatives may engage in the provision of broadband, pursuant to the
requirement in s. 364.391, F.S. Section 364.391, F.S., provides that if a cooperative engages in the provision of broadband,
all poles owned by the cooperative are subject to regulation under s. 366.04(8), F.S., on the same basis as if that cooperative
were a public utility under that subsection. BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 6
• “Cable service provider” as a person that provides cable service over a cable system.
• “Cable system” as a facility consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated
signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service
that includes video programming and that is provided to multiple subscribers within a
community.
19
• “Video service” as video programming services, including cable services, provided through
wireline facilities located at least in part in the public rights-of-way without regard to
delivery technology, including Internet protocol technology.
20
• “Video service provider” as an entity providing video service.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
Section 1 of the bill amends s. 202.18, F.S., to establish the Utility Relocation Reimbursement
Grant Program (grant program). The purpose of this grant program, administered by the
Department of Commerce (DCM), is to reimburse providers of communications services which
are subject to ch. 202, F.S. (communication services providers), for eligible costs incurred in
relocating facilities at the request of a county or municipal authority.
To fund this grant program, 7.5 percent of the proceeds of each local communications services
tax levied by a municipality or county pursuant to s. 202.19(1) or s. 202.20(1), F.S., must be
redirected to the DCM. The DCM must then, beginning October 1, 2025, deposit these proceeds
into an account funding the grant program.
The bill also directs the DCM to establish the following, by rule, relating to the grant program:
• The criteria and process by which communication services providers may apply for
reimbursement;
• The minimum documentation required to verify eligible relocation costs, which may not be
excessive or burdensome; and
• The timeline for application review and reimbursement disbursement, which may not exceed
90 days from submission.
The bill specifies the grant program only funds fund documented expenses directly attributable
to the physical relocation of facilities required by a county or municipal authority. Indirect or
administrative costs are not eligible. Funds in the grant program are exempt from the
requirement in s. 215.20, F.S., that certain income and certain trust funds contribute to the state’s
General Revenue Fund. Any interest earned on program funds must accrue to the program’s
fund.
19
However, the term does not include 1) a facility serving only to retransmit the television signals of television broadcast
stations; 2) a facility serving only subscribers in one or more multiple-unit dwellings under common ownership, control, or
management (unless it does so using any public right-of-way); 3) a facility serving subscribers without using public right-of-
way; 4) a facility of a common carrier that is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the federal
Communications Act of 1934 (except that such facility is considered a cable system other than for purposes of 47 U.S.C.
s. 541(c) to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent
of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services); 5) any facilities of any electric utility used solely for
operating its electric utility systems; or 6) an open video system complying with 47 U.S.C. s. 573.
20
“Video service” does not, however, include any video programming provided by a commercial mobile service provider as
defined in 47 U.S.C. s. 332(d), video programming provided as part of and via a service that enables end users to access
content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the public Internet. BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 7
Section 2 of the bill amends s. 337.403, F.S., to revise the process under which certain utilities
located within a public road or publicly-owned rail corridor must be relocated when such utility
is found by an authority to be unreasonably interfering in any way with the convenient, safe, or
continuous use, or the maintenance, improvement, extension, or expansion, of such public road
or publicly-owned rail corridor. The utility owner must initiate work within 30 days to alleviate
the interference. The general requirement is that the utility owner must pay for such relocation.
However, the bill provides that when a county or municipal authority requires a communication
services provider to relocate facility used to provide such communications services, the service
provider owning or operating such facility must perform any necessary work upon notice from
the authority. The county or municipal authority requiring such relocation is not responsible for
paying the expense of such work. The service provider may apply for reimbursement of
relocation expenses from the grant program, subject to funds availability. If the grant program
does not contain the necessary funds for reimbursement, the bill specifies that the county or
municipal authority must pay the entire expense properly attributable to such relocation work.
The bill also requires that the department,
21
must notify communications services providers that
have permitted infrastructure within a planned or existing public right-of-way within 90 days
after a project is added to the department’s project schedule which may require the provider to
relocate its infrastructure for roadway improvements to increase safety or reduce congestion.
Such notification must include an estimated project schedule and timeline, including the
anticipated year of construction. Within 90 days of this notification, communications services
provider must respond to the department with an estimated timeframe and project cost for the
relocation of the provider’s infrastructure. The response must include a draft relocation schedule
within or adjacent to the existing or planned public right-of-way. The department must then
provide a reasonable offer for joint participation in relocation costs, so long as the
communications services provider begins work within a mutually agreed upon timeframe and, if
the infrastructure relocation is a result of roadway improvements within the public right-of-way
to increase safety or reduce congestion and the impacted infrastructure was, at the time of
notification under this subsection, installed within the past seven state fiscal years, the
department must incur at least 50 percent of the costs for relocation work as described in a joint
participation agreement. These provisions do not prevent the department from relocation
processes, agreements, or payment options authorized under this section or to prevent a
communications services provider from using grant funds provided through other government
sources to support all or a portion of the relocation costs.
Section 3 of the bill amends s. 125.42, F.S., to conform a cross-reference to amendments made
by the bill.
Section 4 of the bill provides a legislative finding and declaration that the bill fulfills an
important state interest.
Section 5 of the bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2025.
21
The department is defined as FDOT; the Greater Miami, Tampa, and Central Florida Expressway Authorities; and the
Jacksonville Transportation Authority. BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 8
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
Article VII, s. 18(a) of the Florida Constitution provides that a county or municipality
may not be bound by a general law requiring a county or municipality to spend funds or
take an action that requires the expenditure of funds unless certain specified exemptions
or exceptions are met. Under the bill, local governments are required to pay the entire
cost of relocating communications services provider’s facilities if the grant program
created in the bill does not have the funds to pay for such relocation.
However, the bill meets an exception specified in the Constitution and the Legislature has
determined that the bill fulfills an important state interest. However, the expenditures
required by this law which applies differently to a state agency (Florida Department of
Transportation) and local governments.
Article VII, s. 18(b), of the Florida Constitution provides that except upon approval of
each house of the legislature by two-thirds of the membership, the legislature may not
enact, amend, or repeal any general law if the anticipated effect of doing so would be to
reduce the authority that municipalities or counties have to raise revenues in the
aggregate, as such authority exists on February 1, 1989. The bill requires that 7.5 percent
of the local communications services tax levied by a municipality or county pursuant to
ss. 202.19(1) or 202.20(1), F.S., is to be redirected to the Department of Commerce
(DCM) to fund the grant program.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
Article VII, s. 9(a) of the Florida Constitution states that counties, school districts, and
municipalities shall, and special districts may, be authorized by law to levy ad valorem
taxes and may be authorized by general law to levy other taxes, for their respective
purposes (emphasis added), except ad valorem taxes on intangible personal property and
taxes prohibited by this constitution. Under Amos v. Mathews, 126 So. 308 (Fla. 1930), a
“tax cannot be so laid as to tax people of one district for benefit of another district for
purpose in which people taxed have no concern.” Further, “even though the Legislature
may impose excise taxes for county purposes, it cannot take the revenue thus raised in
one county for county purposes and appropriate it to pay the debts of some other county, BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 9
upon the assumption that, as the revenue is public funds raised by act of the Legislature
itself, it must be at the absolute disposal of the Legislature.” Under Cassady v. Consol.
Naval Stores Co., 119 So. 2d 35, 37 (Fla. 1960), the “Legislature may lawfully delegate
to counties, acting through their constitutionally authorized and duly elected taxing
officials, the authority to assess and impose taxes for county purposes.” However, “the
execution of a tax statute or the exercise of taxing powers thereby granted cannot be
made to depend upon the unbridled discretion or whim of a ‘statutory’ board or
individual or group of individuals.”
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
The bill eliminates utility relocation costs for providers of broadband Internet, cable
service, and video service when such providers are located within the right-of-way limits
of roads and rail corridors under the jurisdiction and control of the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) or a local government entity. When such utilities are within the
jurisdiction and control of the FDOT or expressway authorities, such costs may be
substantially reduced. Providers of communications services may be eligible for
reimbursement for eligible costs incurred in relocating facilities at the request of a county
or municipal authority.
C. Government Sector Impact:
The bill will have an indeterminate, but likely substantial, impact on local government
revenues and expenditures when engaging in a transportation project requiring the
relocation of facilities used to provide broadband Internet, cable service, and video
service.
The bill will have a significant impact on revenues and expenditures for the Department
of Commerce relating to the newly created grant program. The 7.5 percent of the local
communications services tax transferred to the Department of Commerce pursuant to the
chart below will need an appropriation before it can be disbursed as part of the grant
program.
The bill does not impact the Public Service Commission.
22
The bill requires the
Department of Commerce (department) to adopt rules and expands the responsibilities of
the department. Any expenses related to rulemaking can be absorbed within existing
resources.
22
Public Service Commission, 2025 Agency Legislative Bill Analysis for SB 818 (March 9, 2025) (on file with the Senate
Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government). BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 10
The Department of Revenue may incur costs associated with updating technology
systems which may be absorbed within existing resources.
Local governments which currently receive revenue from the local Communications
Services Tax (CST) would experience a decrease in revenue receipts. There are five
jurisdictions which have a local CST rate of zero percent. Those five jurisdictions would
not provide funding to the Utility Relocation Reimbursement Grant Program.
23
It is
estimated in the first fiscal year, $55 million will be transferred to the department for the
Grant Program.
The Revenue Estimating Conference met on February 20, 2025, and forecast revenue for
the Gross Receipts and the CST. Based on those revenues, it is estimated the 7.5 percent
would have a negative impact on local governments and municipalities. The 10-year
7.5 percent forecast window is provided in the below chart.
24
Fiscal Year
7.5 Percent of
Local CST Forecast
FY 2024-2025 $53,442,000
FY 2025-2026 $55,038,000
FY 2026-2027 $56,099,250
FY 2027-2028 $56,808,000
FY 2028-2029 $57,624,750
FY 2029-2030 $58,414,500
FY 2030-2031 $59,165,250
FY 2031-2032 $59,997,750
FY 2032-2033 $60,837,000
FY 2033-2034 $61,637,250
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
The Department of Revenue has indicated, in its analysis of the amendment to CS/SB 818 passed
by the Senate Rules Committee on April 16, 2025, that it “is unable to meet the July 1, 2025,
effective date due to extensive programing required by the…amendment. The required
programming would ensure that in the event of a subsequent refund or schedule IV adjustment
the correct amount would be taken into account. An effective date of January 1, 2026, will allow
enough time for the required programming to be completed.”
23
Id. The five jurisdictions are: Layton, Bay Lake, Lake Buena Vista, Highland Park and Unincorporated Volusia.
24
Department of Revenue, 2025 Agency Legislative Bill Analysis for Amendment 868666 to CS/SB 818 (April 15, 2025) (on
file with the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government). BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 11
Section 2 of the bill uses the term “permitted infrastructure,” however, the term “infrastructure”
is not used elsewhere in s. 337.403, F.S. In regards material that may be considered
“infrastructure,” the section uses either “utility” or “utility facilities.” It is unclear whether the
material indicated in the bill as “infrastructure” is intended to differ from these terms and in what
way.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 202.18 and 337.403.
This bill amends section 125.42 of the Florida Statutes to amend a cross-reference.
This bill creates an undesignated section of the Florida Statutes.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Substantial Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
CS/CS by Rules on April 16, 2025:
The committee substitute amended CS/SB 818 to establish a Utility Reimbursement
Grant Program (grant program) to reimburse providers of communications services
subject to ch. 202, F.S., (providers) for the cost to relocate utilities located within the
right-of-way of a public road or publicly-owned rail corridor that must be relocated when
such utility is found by a county or municipal authority unreasonably interfering in any
way with the use, or the improvement, of such public road or publicly-owned rail
corridor. The committee substitute specifies that 7.5 percent of the local communications
services tax levied by a municipality or county pursuant to s. 202.19(1) or
s. 202.20(1), F.S., is to be redirected to the Department of Commerce to fund the grant
program. Providers may seek reimbursement for such relocation costs from the grant
program subject to the availability of funds. If the grant program does not contain enough
funds, the authority is responsible for paying the relocation cost. The committee
substitute also provides for rulemaking to establish the procedures for reimbursement by
the grant program and that relocation costs may not be excessive or burdensome.
The committee substitute also deletes a provision in the bill requiring utility owners to
provide the authority, upon notice that their utility is unreasonably interfering, a
reasonable utility relocation schedule to expedite the completion of the authority’s
construction or maintenance project identified in the notice, and, within 60 days after the
notice. The committee substitute adds a provision that the department must notify
providers which have permitted infrastructure within a planned or existing public right-
of-way within 90 days after a project is added to the department’s project schedule which
may require the provider to relocate its infrastructure for roadway improvements to
increase safety or reduce congestion. This notification must include an estimated
schedule and timeline. Within 90 days after receipt of the notification, providers must
provide department with estimated timeframe and project cost for the relocation of the
provider’s infrastructure. The department must also provide a reasonable offer for joint
participation in relocation costs, so long as the provider begins work within a mutually BILL: CS/CS/SB 818 Page 12
agreed timeframe and, if the relocation is a result of roadway improvements increase
safety or reduce congestion and the infrastructure was installed within the past seven state
fiscal years. The department must pay at least 50 percent of this cost.
CS by Transportation on April 1, 2025:
Provides a legislative finding and declaration that the bill fulfills an important state
interest.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.