Impacts 0f State Legislative Acti0ns pre-empting H0me Rule

A summary review 0f the impacts 0f State Changes - and Pre-empti0ns 0f H0me Rule and L0cal Planning Auth0rity from Miles T0der 0f SEERD

March 2026 Update-Focus on State Legislation

It's been a busy month in Tallahassee where our state legislature wrapped up its session. Our

lawmakers considered many changes in state law, some quite controversial, so it could not agree

upon many bills, and left more than a few loose ends. There is a strong possibility that the

governor will call the legislature back into session shortly because they failed to pass a budget,

one of the few "must-do" tasks that our state constitution requires of our lawmakers. The

governor also seems to want the legislature to pass a redistricting plan for elections even though

redistricting depends on federal decennial census data that we will not have for four more years.

And the governor appears eager for the legislature to finish work on a plan to reduce or eliminate

real property taxes to be placed on the ballot as a constitutional referendum in the upcoming

November mid-term elections.

Here is how those bills we previewed last month in our SEERD Update for January-February

fared in Florida's 2026 legislative session. We focus on those that have a direct impact on

development, growth management and our quality of life in Counties across the state as well as

the Bee Ridge neighborhood.

1.  SB 840 to Correct SB 180 Restricting Local Planning and

Growth Management and Prohibiting Changes to Plans and

Regulations until 2027.

Here is a summary of provisions that failed in HB 840. HB 840 proposed targeted amendments

to §252.422, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 2025190, Laws of Florida, which currently restrict

local landuse authority after hurricanes. Because HB 840 failed, all of the following provisions

did not become law.

A. Narrowing the Geographic Scope of State Preemption

 HB 840 would have reduced the geographic area in which local governments are

restricted after a hurricane.

 Existing law applies broadly to counties and municipalities within a set distance of a

hurricane’s track.

 HB 840 proposed tightening that definition so fewer jurisdictions would be automatically

classified as “impacted local governments.”

Result of failure: The broader geographic reach of SB 180 remains in effect.

B. Allowing Certain InfrastructureRelated Moratoriums

 HB 840 would have allowed local governments to impose moratoriums if they were:

o Necessary for stormwater or floodwater management

o Related to potable water supply

o Necessary for sanitary sewer systems

Result of failure: Local governments remain largely prohibited from imposing moratoriums,

even for these infrastructure purposes.

C. Blocking Procedural Delays Added After a Storm

 The bill would have prohibited local governments from changing development review

procedures after landfall if those changes:

o Were intended to extend review timelines, or

o Increased the time for final action on development permits or orders

Result of failure: Existing procedural freezes under SB 180 continue without clarification.

D. Clarifying Exceptions for State and Federal Compliance

 HB 840 would have clarified that posthurricane landuse restrictions do not apply when

local governments act:

o To comply with state or federal law

o Within an Area of Critical State Concern

Result of failure: Ambiguity remains about whether such actions are permitted under SB 180.

E. Earlier Sunset of Restrictions for Certain Hurricanes

 For counties listed in federal disaster declarations for Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and

Milton, HB 840 would have:

o Ended the special landuse restrictions on June 30, 2026, instead of 2028

Result of failure: Those restrictions now remain in place through June 30, 2028.

F. Limiting Enforcement Against Routine Planning Updates

 HB 840 was intended to allow local governments to:

o Resume comprehensive plan updates

o Reinstate environmental protections (e.g., wetland buffers)

o Continue longterm planning unrelated to storm recovery

Result of failure: Many local governments report they remain unable to update comprehensive

plans or environmental regulations.

Summary of Practical Effect of HB 840’s Failure:

Because HB 840 did not pass:

 SB 180 (2025) remains unchanged

 Local governments continue operating under broad, stateimposed limits on landuse

regulation.

 The legal and practical uncertainties that prompted HB 840 were not resolved.

2. HB 105 Local Government Enforcement Actions

HB 105 (2026), relating to local government enforcement actions, passed the Florida

House by a strong bipartisan vote (104–5) on February 25, 2026, but did not complete the

legislative process before adjournment. After House passage, the bill was sent to the

Senate, where it was received and referred to the Senate Rules Committee on February

26, 2026. The Senate did not take further action prior to adjournment of the 2026 Regular

Session on March 13. As a result, HB 105 did not pass both chambers and did not

become law.

HB 105 would have significantly restricted how counties and cities enforce local laws,

by:

o Allowing individuals or businesses to challenge most local enforcement actions as

“unreasonable”

o Creating a new private right of action to sue local governments

o Exposing cities and counties to mandatory damages (up to $50,000 per action)

and attorney’s fees

o Preempting conflicting local ordinances and enforcement procedures statewide

Practical implications of HB 105 failing to pass:

A. Local governments retain enforcement authority.

Because HB 105 failed:

o Cities and counties retain their existing authority to enforce zoning, code

compliance, environmental rules, permitting decisions, and local ordinances.

o Enforcement actions remain governed by current law and existing dueprocess

protections, rather than a new statewide “reasonableness” litigation standard.

Practical effect: Local governments can continue enforcing community standards without

facing automatic litigation exposure for routine decisions.

B. No new litigation pathway against cities and counties.

HB 105 would have made it much easier and cheaper to sue local governments, with

onesided fee shifting favoring plaintiffs.

Because it failed:

o There is no new automatic right to damages or attorney’s fees

o Plaintiffs must continue using existing legal remedies, which carry higher burdens

of proof and financial risk.

Practical effect: Taxpayers are not exposed to a wave of enforcementrelated lawsuits or

expanded municipal liability.

C. No chilling effect on local enforcement.

Opponents warned HB 105 would cause cities and counties to stop enforcing laws out of

fear of lawsuits.

Since it did not pass:

o Local officials are not discouraged from enforcing health, safety, environmental,

or landuse regulations

o Enforcement decisions can still be made based on public interest, not litigation

avoidance.

Practical effect: Communities retain the ability to proactively address code violations,

unsafe properties, and landuse conflicts.

D. Home rule remains intact.

HB 105 would have imposed broad state preemption over local enforcement processes.

Its failure means:

o Florida’s constitutional “home rule” framework remains unchanged

o Local governments continue tailoring enforcement to local conditions and

community priorities.

Practical effect: Local elected officials—not state courts—remain the primary

decisionmakers on enforcement policy.

E. Status quo for HOAs, residents, and businesses.

For residents, HOAs, and businesses:

o There are no new tools to challenge enforcement actions outside existing

processes

o Disputes remain handled through current administrative appeals, mediation, or

court standards

Practical effect: No immediate change in how code enforcement, permitting disputes, or

compliance actions are handled.

Bottom Line:

HB 105’s failure preserved the status quo. Local governments avoided a major shift

that would have increased lawsuits, reduced enforcement certainty, and weakened

local control over land use and regulatory compliance.

3.  HB 655 to Amend the Burt Harris Act.

o HB 655, dealing with public records and public meetings exemptions for attorney

meetings concerning private property rights claims, passed the Florida House

unanimously (116–0) on February 25, 2026.

o The bill was then sent to the Senate, where it advanced through the Senate Rules

process, was withdrawn from Rules, placed on the calendar, and passed the Senate

unanimously (37–0) on March 4, 2026.

o On March 4, 2026, HB 655 was ordered enrolled, the final legislative step before

presentation to the Governor.

Unless vetoed by the Governor, HB 655 is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026. 

Implications of HB 655 for Local Governments are considerable.

HB 655 provides local governments with a limited new ability to meet privately with

legal counsel to discuss certain private property claims, while preserving transparency

through delayed disclosure. Specifically, the bill creates a narrow exemption from

Florida’s public meetings and public records laws that allows counties, municipalities,

and special districts to hold closed attorneyclient meetings during the presuit notice

period under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Property Rights Protection Act.

For local governments, this change aligns prelitigation property rights discussions with

existing litigation strategy exemptions, allowing officials to discuss settlement options

and legal risks confidentially before a lawsuit is filed. Under prior law, such discussions

were required to occur in public, potentially weakening a local government’s negotiating

position and increasing litigation risk.

At the same time, HB 655 does not eliminate public oversight. Any closed meeting must

be fully transcribed by a certified court reporter, and the transcript and related records

become public once the claim is resolved, litigation concludes, or the applicable

limitations period expires. Final decisions, settlements, and regulatory actions must still

be approved in public meetings.

Overall, HB 655 is expected to reduce unnecessary litigation costs, encourage earlier

and more realistic settlement discussions, and place local governments on more

equal footing with private claimants, while maintaining Florida’s constitutional

commitment to open government through delayed disclosure and sunset review of

the exemption.

4. SB 354 Blue Ribbon Projects

At the conclusion of the 2026 Regular Session, Senate Bill 354 (SB 354) — the “Blue

Ribbon Projects” bill — successfully passed the Legislature.

What SB 354 does — in practical terms

A. Creates a new statecontrolled approval pathway for very large

developments.

SB 354 establishes a special category called “Blue Ribbon Projects” for

megadevelopments of at least 15,000 contiguous acres. If a project meets the statutory

criteria, it can be approved under this new framework rather than through traditional local

landuse processes.

Practical effect: Local governments no longer have full discretion over whether or where

developments of this scale may occur once a project qualifies under state law.

B. Allows qualifying projects to override local comprehensive plans and

zoning.

Once a Blue-Ribbon Plan is approved, the development:

o Does not have to be consistent with local comprehensive plans

o Does not require rezoning

o May proceed regardless of existing landuse designations.

Practical effect: Longstanding local growth plans, rural protections, and urban service

boundaries can be bypassed for qualifying projects.

C. Converts local review into a largely administrative role.

Local governments still review applications, but their authority is procedurally limited.

Approval is required if the application meets the statutory criteria, and denial is only

allowed if there are “substantial inconsistencies” with an adopted comprehensive plan —

a standard that is narrow and ambiguous.

Practical effect: Local elected officials have far less ability to shape or reject large

projects through policy judgment or public hearings.

D. Requires 60% of project land to be labeled “reserve,” but with broad

definitions.

At least 60% of the acreage must be designated as “reserve area.” However, the law

allows this reserve land to include:

o Agriculture

o Utilities

o Stormwater facilities

o Infrastructure corridors

—not just conservation land.

Practical effect: Large developments may still significantly alter rural landscapes even

while meeting the “reserve” requirement.

E. Grants longterm, vested development rights.

Once approved, development rights for a Blue Ribbon Project are vested for decades,

allowing phased buildout over time without being subject to future changes in local

policy or planning priorities.

Practical effect: Future local governments and residents have little ability to revisit or

adjust the development once approved.

F. Shifts infrastructure and service impacts onto local governments.

While the law includes provisions for certain credits or offsets, counties and cities may

still face:

o Increased demand for roads, utilities, emergency services, and schools

o Longterm fiscal impacts tied to population growth

The statute does not guarantee full cost recovery for local governments.

Practical effect: Local governments may bear ongoing service and infrastructure costs for

developments they did not fully control.

G. Limits the influence of community associations and residents.

Because approval is largely administrative:

o Public hearings play a reduced role

o Community associations cannot rely on zoning or comprehensive plan challenges

o Opportunities for meaningful public input are narrower.

Practical effect: Homeowners’ associations and community groups have fewer tools to

influence outcomes.

SB 354 significantly shifts landuse authority from local governments to the state for

megadevelopments. It prioritizes largescale growth certainty for developers over

traditional local planning control, public input, and longterm community discretion.

5. HB 657 Governing HOAs in Florida

House Bill 657 (HB 657) passed the Legislature and became law.

Here is the precise outcome based on the official legislative record:

 HB 657 passed the Florida House on March 5, 2026, on third reading by an

overwhelming vote.

 The bill was then received and taken up by the Florida Senate, which allowed the House

bill to serve as the final legislative vehicle rather than passing a separate Senate

companion.

 HB 657 cleared both chambers before adjournment and was enacted, with an effective

date of July 1, 2026.

What HB 657 Does for HOAs (Effective July 1, 2026):

HB 657 significantly restructures how Florida homeowners’ associations are governed,

challenged, and dissolved. In practical terms, the law:

·         Creates a legal process to terminate an HOA that may now be dissolved through a

courtapproved plan of termination, with defined voting thresholds, appointment of a termination

trustee, payment of debts, and distribution of remaining assets.

·         Removes mandatory mediation. Most HOA disputes no longer require prelawsuit

mediation. Owners may instead pursue arbitration or court action, streamlining dispute

resolution.

·         Authorizes specialized “community association court programs”. Circuit courts may

establish HOAfocused court programs with dedicated judges to hear association disputes,

increasing judicial oversight and consistency.

·        . Associations must include (or vote to add) language in their governing documents

acknowledging that future changes in state law automatically apply, even without member

approval.

·         Increases board accountability and disclosure requirements. The law expands rules on

official records, conflicts of interest, elections, inspections, and transparency, strengthening

owner access to information and remedies.

Bottom line for HOAs:

HB 657 increases owner leverage, judicial involvement, and state oversight of HOAs, while

reducing boards’ insulation from legal