Rules — Closed Captions

>> Good afternoon. The committee on rules will now come to order. Cindy, please call the roll. >> Senator Passidomo. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Jones. >> Here. >> Senator Avila. >> Here. >> Senator Berman. >> Here. >> Senator Boyd. >> Here. >> Senator Bradley. >> Here. >> Senator Brodeur. >> Here. >> Senator Burgess. Senator Burton. Senator Davis. >> Yours isn't on. Is mine on? I could recall the roll. Here hand me. I'll call the roll. >> Here. >> Chair Passidomo. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Jones. >> Here. >> Senator Avila. >> Here. >> Senator Berman. >> Here. >> Senator Boyd. >> Here >> Senator Bradley. >> Here. >> Senator Brodeur. >> Here. >> Senator Burgess. >> Here. >> Senator Burton. >> Here. >> Senator Davis. >> Here. >> Senator DiCeglie. >> Here. Senator Gaetz. >> Here. >> Senator Garcia. >> Here. >> Senator Grall. >> Here. >> Senator Harrell. >> Here. >> Senator Hooper. >> Here. >> Senator Martin. >> Here. >> Senator Osgood. >> Here. >> Senator Pizzo. >> Here. >> Senator Rodriguez. >> Here. >> Senator Rouson. >> Here. >> Senator Simon. >> Here. >> Senator Trumbull. >> Here. >> Senator Wright. >> Here. >> Quorum present. >> Thank you. CS for SB 1080 by, Senator DiCeglie, is temporarily postponed, but it will be back. Please silence all electronic devices. Anyone wishing to speak before the committee, fill out appearance form, hand it to a member of the Sergeant staff. And if you would waive your time, which we love when you do that, your position will be included in the committee meeting records. Before we start, we have, I don't know, we started with 60, 50 I don't know how many bills we have. We have a lot. So speaking time is going to be limited to two minutes, at least to begin with. As we get closer to six o'clock it may be coming down to one minute. And we're going to skip around the order as I usually do. We're going to start with the bills that we retained from last week. And so we're going to take up Tab 17. Senator Mayfield, see us for SB 706. You are recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Members, Senate Bill 706 pre-empts the naming of major commercial service airports to the state. Major commercial service airports is defined in the bill as an airport which the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, classifies as a medium or large hub airport. The bill provides names for the seven airports which currently meet that definition. Orlando International Airport, Miami International Airport, Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport, Tampa International Airport, Southwest Florida International Airport, and the Palm Beach International Airport, which the bill designates as the Donald J. Trump International Airport. The name changed from Palm Beach International Airport to Donald J. Trump International Airport is subject to approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. Execution of an agreement between Palm Beach County and the trademark holder authorizing the commercial use of the name Donald J. Trump International Airport. The bill acknowledges that airport names function as brand identities rather than separate legal entities. And finally, the bill allows reasonable implementation period for local government to implement a name change. And I do have one amendment, Madam Chair. I'd like to take up Barcode 754524. >> Thank you. There are actually three amendments, so we're going to start with yours, the 754524. You recognize to explain the amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment changes the designation for the airport currently known as Palm Beach International Airport to the President Donald J. Trump International Airport. >> Are there any questions on the amendment? No appearance form? Is there any debate on the amendment? Senator Mayfield, you recognized to close on the amendment. >> Waive closed. >> All in favor of the amendment, say yea. >> Yea. >> Opposed say nay. The amendment is adopted. There is a late filed amendment Barcode 612734 by, Senator Jones. Without objection, show the amendment introduced. Senator Jones, you recognized to explain the amendment. >> Tester. Okay go. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So members, on February 13th and 14th, a private company that controls Donald Trump's intellectual property portfolio filed three trademark applications reserving the names, President Donald J. Trump International Airport, Donald J. Trump International Airport, and DJT. And the article came out yesterday that shared when these trademarks were filed. And typically, this is submitted by a public airport authority. And so this raises ethical concerns and questions regarding the intersection of when we're looking at public infrastructure and private brand ownership. For example, Reagan National Airport is trademarked by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. Right now, what we are seeing is that a sitting president, private company, which has never in the history of the United States, have sought a trademark rights in advance of an airport naming. This is not about honoring the president, this is about generating revenue from a public entity for a private company, a company with Donald Trump's interest at the ham and not the people of the State of Florida. This amendment ensures that a private company that may produce merchandise, such as clothing, handbags, luggage or any other item you typically see at airport kiosk would not be required to pay any royalty, licensing or trademark to DTTM operations. The president should not, no one, not even President Trump or anybody, be able to receive personal monetary benefits from a public entity while serving as the president of the United States. And that's the amendment. >> There is also a late filed amendment to that amendment. The late filed amendment Barcode is 297694 also by, Senator Jones. Without objection show the amendment to the amendment introduced. Senator Jones, you recognized to explain the amendment to the amendment. >> Sorry, Madam Chair. That was the amendment to the amendment that I explained. Okay. Are there any questions on the amendment to the amendment? No appearance forms. Any debate on the amendment to the amendment? Senator Jones, you're recognized to close. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, the reason why I filed this amendment and I did speak with the bill sponsor this morning. And of course, we are very good friends with each other, philosophically, we just see pass each other on this one to where I do not believe that anybody should benefit monetarily, let alone the president of the United States, should benefit monetarily off of a public entity. I think we as a state, are about to set a precedent that has never been done before in this country. And I just hope that we consider that as this is going forward. This amendment doesn't change the essence of the bill. It doesn't change anything. All it says is that no sitting president or anybody can benefit off of the royalties off of a public entity. Then that's the amendment. >> All in favor of the amendment to the amendment, say, yeah. >> Yea. >> Opposed say nay. >> Nay. >> The amendment fails, but we are back on the main amendment, which is 612734, which was not amended. Are there any questions on the main amendment? Yeah, we'll go to the bill, eventually. Okay, there are no appearance forms on the amendment. Any debate on the amendment? Senator Jones, you're recognized closed on that main amendment. >> Still stands. >> All right. All in favor of the amendment, say yea. >> Yea. >> Opposed say nay. That amendment fails. So now we're back on the bill, not amended or as amended one time. Are there questions on the bill? Senator Berman, you're recognized. >> Not holding. Alright, there. Thank you, Madam Chair. Has there ever been an airport named after a sitting president? >> Senator Mayfield. >> After a sitting president, I'm not aware of, but I don't know, Senator. But there are many airports that have been named after other presidents. >> Thank you. Follow up, Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> So there are other airports, and what I saw is that they were named after the presidents left office. Why would we change that precedent and name the airport when somebody is in office instead of waiting like we have in the past? >> Senator Mayfield. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator Berman, this is the first time Florida has ever had a president that was a Palm Beach County resident in Florida. And this is an agreement that Palm Beach County airport and President Donald J. Trump has got together on, and has agreed upon. So this agreement, what we're doing, is an agreement between Palm Beach County Airport and President Trump. And because of the fact that he is a resident of Palm Beach County, they just felt it was fitting to do so. And President Trump is honored that they would bestow him with such an honor. >> Senator Berman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Have the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County voted on this issue? >> Senator Mayfield. >> Madam Chair. I am not aware of that, but I know that I have been working closely with the County Administrator as the Trump family has been working close with the County Administrator. And we have made amendments along the way to meet their needs. So I am not aware if it's been voted by the County Commissioners, but I know I am aware and have had discussions with the County Administrator of Palm Beach County as the Trump family has. >> Senator Berman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. President Trump, actually, did not win Palm Beach County in the last election. Would you have any problems with the people of Palm Beach County having the ability to have a referendum to vote whether they want to have their airport renamed? >> Madam Chair, I don't think that's my call to make. >> Senator Berman? >> Okay, thank you. That's fine. >> Any other questions? >> One question. I have a question >> Senator Pizzo? >> Thanks. How do you change the name of an airport in statute or unname something or change it to a different name? Is that the state's decision in the future? >> Senator Mayfield. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. If I understand your question correctly, Senator Pizzo, if one of these seven airports that we designated as the state authority to name, if you wanted an airport named, then you would go through the legislative process to do so like we're doing this. So that's how the name would either change going forward. >> Follow up? >> You're recognized. >> So if Fort Lauderdale Airport becomes Jason WB Pizzo Airport, 10 years from now, the legislature can change the name, correct? >> Is that right? >> That is correct. >> Thanks. >> Any other questions? >> Yes, ma'am. >> You're recognized? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, it's noted that this will cost, I guess, a total of 5.5 million. And we just inserted, I think, roughly, you can correct me, 2.5 million in the budget. Could you tell us where the, I guess, other monies will come from to make this change? >> Senator Mayfield. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. That will come from the conferencing process that we're getting ready to go into after both bills are passed on the House in the Senate. >> Follow up, Madam Chair. >> You recognize. >> Last time we talked, Senator, you made mention that Jacksonville is a part of this, and we know that Jacksonville is a consolidated government. I was wondering in talking to some of the stakeholders to get the bill to this point, is there something specific about Jacksonville that created a hiccup in this legislation from our last conversation? Is there anything different about Jacksonville being that consolidated government versus the other airports that are in counties that are not? >> Senator Mayfield. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The Jacksonville International Airport met the criteria of the medium or large hub airport. If I understand your question, that's why they're in here. Now, if there's some reason that there's some other reason that we're not aware of as to why they should not be, then I haven't heard from anyone other than our discussion when you brought that up at the last committee. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions on the bill? There are no appearance form. Is there any debate? Senator Berman, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I find this very troubling that we're naming an airport after a sitting president. There's no precedent for it. There's no reason why we should be doing this. I represent Palm Beach County, the county in question. As I mentioned, the county did not vote for Donald Trump for president. And the County Commissioners have not had an opportunity to weigh in nor have the citizens who live in Palm Beach County. And this whole idea of the licensing agreement where there could be a sitting president's private company making money off of the trademark is very troubling. And I really think this is not the right way for us as the legislature to be moving forward naming this airport. And I will be voting no and urge my colleagues to also vote no. >> Any other debate? >> Senator Osgood, you recognize. >> Thank you. And thank you, Senator Mayfield. I thought long and hard about this. I don't live in Palm Beach. And I thought about how we use names and we give recognition. And as a Florida senator and a woman of faith, I truly believe that public honors must reflect our higher standards of character, unity, and respect. For that reason, I am a no vote on naming an airport after President Donald Trump. I believe that leadership can be a double edged sword. As leaders, we can do a lot of good, and we can also do a lot of bad. I read the Bible it reminds me of our tongue and how it's an unruly evil and can be full of deadly poison. When I think about airports, I don't see them as just buildings. They are gateways. They are the first impression of our nation. They carry our name, our values, and our identity to the world. This is why naming an airport after any individual must rise above politics. It must reflect unity, dignity, and moral leadership that transcends party lines. And today, we're being asked to name a public airport after President Donald Trump. For me, it's not about party affiliation. It's about principles. Public honor should unify. But President Trump's continue, he just continues to mark his tenure with rhetoric that deeply divide this nation. He has a long documented history of this type of rhetoric. I mean, extreme inappropriate rhetoric about women. When you are a star, they just let you do anything, grab them. Those words are not private thoughts. They're public evidence of a mindset that objectifies women. It's awful. He continues to make the derogatory remarks about female journalists. And as leaders, we must be clear, honoring individuals with such a record sends a troubling message to our daughters, our granddaughters about behavior we excuse. Yes, I'm a woman. So I can be a bit of a feminist. And I guess as a Black woman, I'm probably more guilty of being a womanist. But President Trump's demeaning language, even about his own political party, calling members of the Republican Party Rhinos and publicly attacking colleagues that disagree with them outright calling them morons. I think that leadership requires disagreement without degradation, and public monuments should symbolize statesmanship, not personal insults. And I think for me, what really shifted me on this bill is I watch the most recent prayer breakfast, a historical prayer breakfast, something that is sacred. Something that brings us together. And his remarks regarding Christians and political affiliations, I thought were very divisive. Millions of faithful Americans across denominations serve God and participate in civic life according to their conscience. Suggestions that Christian identity is tied to one political party diminishes both faith and freedom. This National Prayer Breakfast has historically been a bipartisan movement of humility and unity. With partisan rhetoric included in sacred civic traditions, it undermines the spirit of that gathering. I was personally hurt by his comment that I don't know how a person of faith can vote for a Democrat. I am a person of faith and I'm a proud Democrat, and I was offended by that statement. I could just go on and on about the rhetoric. But I think about minutes. >> What we're talking about a bill. I appreciate you keep me your comments to the bill. >> I really would. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. With all due respect, I'm talking about a bill that's asking me to name an airport. I'll just close like this. Senators, let's consider our future. Let's take the time. We're still living through a long term constitutional and social consequences of recent presidencies with an S. History has not rendered it a final verdict. Naming an airport is permanent. Political reputations are not. Most importantly, our children are watching. What do we teach them about leadership if we reward divisive rhetoric with permanent civic honor? Does the naming reflect a respect for women? Does it model humility in faith places? Does it demonstrate leadership? I believe in closing that airport should welcome everyone Republicans, Democrats, independents, blacks, whites, immigrants, all of us. So for the sake of unity, for the integrity of public honor, and for the example we set forth to the next generation, I urge you to vote no on this bill. Let our gateways reflect our highest values, not our deepest division. >> Is there any other debate? Senator Jones. >> Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'm going to be brief because I spoke with Senator Mayfield this morning and Senator Mayfield I voted for this bill in community affairs for various reasons that we spoke about. But, Madam Chair, and to members, some things changed to where not only do I not have the appetite or the gut to be able to do it. I'm appalled to even sit here and have to vote on something towards an individual. I'm going to say it. An individual who's a known racist who posted last week, depicting the president former president and his wife as monkeys. Now, I'll be honest with you all. If we are going to sit here and memorialize an individual who see me, Bracy Davis, Darr Rooson, Rosalind Osgood, Corey Simon, as Monkeys, I don't want his name on the airport. And it's unfortunate that we're about to sit here and name an airport in the State of Florida in the year of our L in 2026, and we're going to name an airport off of somebody who sees me as less than a human being. I don't want to hear anybody say, well, he took it down. You cannot take down racism. And I know all of us in here are friends, and you say that you are allies, but I need you to be accomplices to the Black community. Now, again, I just made mention I voted for this in committee, because it's more than just about a name change. I mean, listen, I swallowed the fact that we were about to name Donald Trump airport. I swallowed. I said, You know what? That's fine. Whatever. It's okay. But I'm sorry. I could not allow it to just go when you depict my people as monkeys. And when you know, everybody in this room know what a monkey has been depicted of as Black folks in February in Black History Month. This has nothing to do with party. This has nothing to do with race. This has everything to do with the state of Florida figuring out what our litmus test is going to be when it comes to what we say enough enough is enough supposed to be. I would think I would think, members that this should be where enough stops. I can't, Madam Chair. In good faith, in good conscience vote for something like this. I appreciate Senator Pizzo's question asking whether or not the legislature can come back and change the name Leger. Yes, that's fine. That's well and good. But the stain of what this president has done in the last week, you have a communiy of people who are not only upset but are appalled that we can approve of somebody who consider me and my colleagues and the people in the community I serve as monkeys and positioning as a mistake. >> Madam Chair. >> Senator Pizzo, you recognized. >> Thanks. I've said many times that in not so many words to the Victor go the spoils. So if you're in the majority, you get to do certain things. You, hold your breath. People want to name highways after Rush Limbaugh and other people. And yeah, there's a precedent. I mean, Washington was actually federal city, and it was named for Washington while he was president, but he still referred to it as Federal City. The Hoover Dam was named after Hoover while he was in office. I just think we need to be more deliberate, because this is really tacky. If it was just a bill about preemption going to the state, great, and that should have with it attendant to it, a committee or commission that's formed to make a very deliberate sort of agnostic decision as to what we should name an airport. You shouldn't have a bill that preempts it, and then all of a sudden names, in someone's lifetime that's not posthumous or at least out of office. So it's tacky. It's really, really tacky. And so if it was just a preemption to the state, attended with a very deliberate decision of a commissioner or a committee with two members appointed by the president of the Senate, two by the House, so on and so forth, and a governor, that would make a lot more sense. But the poison pill for this is someone in their lifetime to have a name. The reason why I asked a question is because this bill will pass. I will pass because you have the votes. It will be so named. And, sometime in the future, people will decide and determine that the identity, the character and the characterization of a community is not defined by what its existing name is or what it should be. It's happened with army bases. It's happened with airports, it's happened with bridges, and it'll continue to happen and evolve. So it is what it is. But the poison pill and a few of the votes that will now be no respectfully derived from the fact that it has the naming of one particular living president. >> Any other debate? Senator Mayfield, you recognize to close. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And I usually do waive my closing, but I just want to address a couple of things. One is, I want to make sure people understand there is at no cost to the airport to make this change name. There is no royalty cost that the airport is paying. There's no franchise fee that the airport is paying. There is no cost associated at all that it's going to cost Orland or Palm Beach County airport using the trademark name. And remember, this was a trademark name before. It's been a trademark name for quite a while. The other thing is Senator Jones, it's unfortunate that happened a staff member did it. As soon as it was brought to his attention, he took it down, and I am assuming that President Trump addressed that staff member accordingly on that. Whether you agree or disagree with President Trump's approach, you cannot disagree with the fact that he has done some remarkable things for our country. He has put our country as first America first. He has appointed some great people that have went as state the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, that has addressed the horrific things that are happening to humans around the country and around the world. So whether you agree or disagree with his approach, it would be hard for you to disagree on the number of things that he has done to put America first back in our country. And with that, Madam Chair, I ask for your favorable support. >> Thank you. Before we call the role, we got two appearance forms, but they came in after public comment, so I'm not ignoring anybody. These cards will go into the record. Cindy, please call the roll on CS for CS for SB 706. >> Senator Avila, Senator Berman, Senator Boyd, Senator Bradley, Senator Brodeur, Senator Burgess, Senator Burton, Senator Davis, Senator DiCeglie, Senator Gaetz, Senator Garcia, Senator Grall, Senator Harrell, Senator Hooper, Senator Martin, Senator Osgood, Senator Pizzo, Senator Rodriguez, Senator Rouson, Senator Simon, Senator Trumbull, Senator Wright. By Chair Jones. Chair Passidomo. >> Yes, by your vote, CS for CS for SB 706 is reported favorably. Next, we're going to take up Tab 12, CS for SB 546 on conservation lands by Senator Mayfield. You are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And also, Senator Jones, I wanted to congratulate you on your new appointment as minority leader coming up. I meant to tell you that, too. Members, hopefully, this is a less controversial bill. This is 542 conservation land. And under current law, the disposition of state owned land is reviewed first by the acquisition and Restoration Council, known as ARC and then by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, which is the governor and the cabinet for approval. Senate Bill 546 improves public transparency and decisions to dispose of state owned conservation land by strengthening public notice requirements for meetings to review the sale or exchange of conservation lands. Specifically, the bill requires the division of state lands within the Department of Environmental Protection and Water Management District to provide a 30 day notice before any meeting to review the proposed sale or exchange of conservation land. And that is the bill. >> Are there questions on the bill? >> There are two appearance forms Javier Estevez, Sierra Club, Florida, waves in Support. Chadwick Leonard, thousand Friends of Florida, waves in support. Is there any debate? >> Yes. >> Senator Harrell, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to say thank you senator, for this great bill. We protected our parks and our wildlife corridors last year in the Parks bill. This is now also making sure we have that public notification so that people have the opportunity to speak before any type of change is made, whether the land is sold or whatever. But thank you so much for doing this. It's the next step in protecting our conservation land. Thank you. >> Any other debate? Senator Mayfield you recognized. >> Way close. >> Please call the roll on CS for SB 546. >> Senator Avila. >> Yes. >> Senator Berman. >> Yes. >> Senator Boyd. >> Yes. >> Senator Bradley. >> Yes. >> Senator Brodeur. >> Yes. >> Senator Burgess. >> Yes. >> Senator Burton. >> Yes. >> Senator Davis. >> Yes. >> Senator DiCeglie. >> Yeah. >> Senator Gaetz, Senator Garcia. Senator Grall. >> Yes. >> Senator Harrell. >> Yes. >> Senator Hooper. >> Yes. >> Senator Martin. >> Yes. >> Senator Osgood. >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Senator Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Senator Rouson. >> Yes. >> Senator Simon. >> Yes. >> Senator Trumbull. >> Yes. >> Senator Wright. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Jones. >> Yes. >> Chair Passidomo. >> Yes. By your vote, CS for SB 546 is reported favorably. The last Mayfield bill today is tab 78, CS for CS for SB 1014 on provision of municipal utility service to owners outside the municipal limits. You are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Under current law, cities can provide water and wastewater utility services to properties outside their municipal limits. Cities are allowed to collect a utility surcharge on these properties, and the connection costs are typically covered by the property owner. It has come to my attention that certain cities are requiring annexation as a condition of connection for any property outside their utility service, even if the utility currently has service lines running adjacent to their property. Senate Bill 1014 prohibits a municipality from declining to extend water and wastewater utility services to a residential property outside its limits, solely on the basis that the owner refuses to annex into the municipality. Upon application for service, a utility must expand its service territory to a property outside its current service territory if the property is not within a service territory of another water or wastewater utility. The property is within a half a mile of the municipal utility, and the utility has sufficient capacity to serve the property, including capacity to treat and dispose of water. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the utility shall connect the property in a timely manner. Any costs associated with the connections are the responsibility of the property owner. And, Madam Chair, I do have an amendment Barcode 321918, I'd like to address at this time. >> Let's take up amendment Barcode 321918 Senator Mayfield, you recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This reverts the definition of owners and properties to the definition found in the bill as it was originally filed, and it requires that a property connection to a municipal utility be subject to the utility service requirements, allows a property located between a half a mile and a mile to connect if the property is within a municipal urban service area, and it requires property owners to pay all fees associated with the connection, including fees for infrastructure required to service the property and pay proportionate shares of onsite, offsite or system wide improvements necessary to serve the property. And before Municipality utility is required to connect a property, they must receive full payment of our legal enforceable funding assurance for all required capital improvements. And there's also an additional amendment that's going to clear up some technical stuff in the First Amendment. >> All right. There's an amendment to the amendment, Barcode 853994. Senator Mayfield, do you recognize? Explain the amendment to the amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And with help of staff, we simplify that just allows distance to connection by allowing any property owner within a mile to connect so long as the specific conditions are met. >> Okay. Are there any questions on the amendment to the amendment? There are no appearance forms on the amendment to the amendment. Is there any debate on the amendment to the amendment? Senator Mayfield recognized. Close. >> Wave. All in favor of the amendment to the amendment. Say yay. [OVERLAPPING]. >> Opposed say nay. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. We're back on the main amendment, Barcode 329918. As amended, are there questions on the main amendment? >> Yeah. >> You recognize Senator Davis. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, I know you've had some opposition along the way from the Florida League of Cities. Does this amendment that you have here and the one previous that we just added to the bill, does that help create a neutrality for the Florida League of Cities, or they still have issues with their legislation? >> Senator Mayfield. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Davis, I have been working with the League of cities, and Rebecca and I have met many times. This amendment did address a lot of their concerns, which I appreciate her comments, but it has not addressed all of their concerns. And I'm not sure that we can get to the point to address all of their concerns. And I know that, so there are still going to be an opposition of the bill. >> Any other questions on the amendment? Senator Burgess. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Hey, Senator Mayfield, thank you so much for talking to me last night about the legislation. Totally get the purpose and scope behind what you're trying to accomplish here and ensuring that there's services in underserved areas that a county is not able to surface themselves. One particular issue that arose unique to my area is some of my cities have reached water usage capacity limits. And in that, they've been working with the water management District to increase that usage level and get it approved, and they've done so. I think the main concern being, and I know you're seeking to address that in your amendment. I just want to get on the record. The purpose of that amendment is to address a situation like this wherein capacity limits have been reached. Say a development is looking to go in adjacent to where that mile space span behind where the municipal line is, that would be a situation where a city would have standing to not have to provide that service. Is that accurate? >> You're recognized. >> In a question form, yes, that is correct. The main bill actually indicate they must have capacity in order to do it. And in your situation, I would say they have demonstrated that they do not have the capacity to take on by having to get an additional water consumption from the water management District. >> Is there any other questions on the amendment? There are no appearance forms on the amendment. Is there any debate on the amendment? Senator Mayfield recognize close. >> Wave. >> All in favor of the amendment, say yay. [OVERLAPPING]. >> Opposed saying nay, the amendment is adopted. Okay, we're back on the bill as amended. Are there any questions on the bill as amended? Senator Hooper, you recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Mayfield. Just two questions, if I may, Madam Chair. I believe I understand in your bill that there is no restriction on the local government issuing a surcharge for the privilege of hooking up that's question one. >> No, they will have to charge. They have the ability to charge a surf charge. >> Madam Chair, the second question is, I know in Senator DiCeglie's district, specifically, there is a city that for years has a contract with property owners. The city may have extended their sewer lines years ago, and one of the contracts between the property owner and the city is when we are ready to annex, you must annex. What would be the process for unwinding those agreements if this passes? >> You're recognize. >> Thank you for that question. Senator Hooper, there is provisions in the bill that says, if you have a prior agreement, then you have to honor that agreement. >> Any other questions? Okay, there's three appearance forms. Laura Munoz waves in support. Something [LAUGHTER] Mendez Zamora, American Friends Service Committee waves in support. Rebecca O'Hara, Florida League of Cities waves against. Is there debate on the bill as amended? Senator Mayfield, you recognize close. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And the only comment I'll say is, we're in the budget process, and if you guys look through the budget, you'll see so many appropriation requests for doing septic to sewer conversions. What I'm trying to avoid is those septic to sewer conversions in the future by allowing people to connect if the ability is there for them to connect. And that is the bill, Madam Chair, and I ask your favorable support. >> Cindy, please call the roll for CS for CS for SB 1014. >> Senator Avila. >> Yes >> Senator Berman. Senator Boyd. >> Yes. >> Senator Bradley. >> Yes. >> Senator Brodeur. Senator Burgess. Senator Burton. >> Yes. >> Senator Davis. >> Yes. >> Senator DiCeglie. >> Yes. >> Senator Gaetz. >> Yes. >> Senator Garcia. Senator Grall. >> Yes. >> Senator Harrell. >> Yes. >> Senator Hooper. >> Yes. >> Senator Martin. Senator Osgood. >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo. >> Yeah. >> Senator Rodriguez. >> Yes >> Senator Rouson. >> Yes. >> Senator Simon. >> Yes. >> Senator Trumbull. >> Yes. >> Senator Wright. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Jones. >> Yes. >> Chair Passidomo. Yes. By your votes, Ooh. I got all my CS for CS RSB 1014 is reported favorably. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and members. >> We're continuing with the bills that we had retained. Senator Bradley has three bills. We're start with Tab 37. CS for SB 1,500 on estates. Senator Bradley, you recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this bill implements recommendations of the Supreme Court work group on uncontested probate proceedings to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Florida's processes and procedures for uncontested probate. That is the bill. >> Are there questions on the bill? Okay, there are a couple of appearance forms. Ann Michelle Pataki, Florida Bankers Association, waves in support. Martha Edenfield from the Real Property Reptiles. I love saying that, Waves I support. Eric McClure, state Court administrator, waves in support for the state court system. Is there any debate? Senator Bradley, you recognize close. >> Wave Close. >> Do any please call the roll on CS for SB 1,500. >> Senator Avila. >> Yes. >> Senator Berman. >> Yes. >> Senator Boyd. >> Yes. >> Senator Bradley. >> Yes >> Senator Brodeur. Senator Burgess, Senator Burton, Senator Davis. >> Yes. >> Senator DiCeglie, Senator Gaetz, Senator Garcia, Senator Grall , Senator Harrell. >> Senator Hooper. >> Senator Martin. >> Yes. >> Senator Osgood. >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Senator Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Senator Rouson. >> Yeah. >> Senator Simon. >> Yes. >> Senator Trumbull. >> Yes. >> Senator Wright, Vice Chair Jones? Chair Passidomo? >> Yes, by your vote, CS for SB 1,500 is reported favorably. Next, we're going to take up Tab 26, SB 962 on Affordable Housing by Senator Bradley. You are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. In recent years, this legislature has worked diligently to increase the availability of attainable affordable housing. Last year, as part of that continued effort, we clarified the application of the zoning preemption by defining commercial, industrial, and mixed use. Senate Bill 962 amend those definitions to protect our working farms and ensure that those definitions don't unintentionally capture those operations. The bill excludes farms and farm operations from the definition of commercial use, mixed use, and industrial use. This bill arose in Clay County. We have local zoning, which would allow a produce stand on residential agland which is triggering the preemption to allow high density development in a very low density area, which was certainly not the intent of this legislature, and that is the bill. >> Are there any questions on the bill? There are no appearance forms. Is there any debate? Senator Bradley, you recognize close? >> Wave close. >> Cindy please call the roll for SB 962. >> Senator Avila. >> Yes. >> Senator Berman. >> Yes. >> Senator Boyd. >> Yeah. >> Senator Bradley. >> Yeah. >> Senator Brodeur, Senator Burgess, Senator Burton. >> Yes. >> Senator Davis. >> Yeah. >> Senator DiCeglie. >> Yes. >> Senator Gaetz. >> Yes. >> Senator Garcia. >> Yes. >> Senator Grall. >> Yes. >> Senator Harrell. >> Yes. >> Senator Hooper. >> Yes. >> Senator Martin. >> Yes. >> Senator Osgood. >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Senator Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Senator Rouson. >> Yes. >> Senator Simon. >> Yes. >> Senator Trumbull. >> Yes. >> Senator Wright. >. Yes. >> Vice Chair Jones? >> Yes. >> Chair Passidomo. >> Yes. By your vote, SB 962 is reported favorably. Next, we're going to take up Tab 20. CS for SB 820 on problem solving court reports by Senator Bradley. You recognize, explain the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 820 strengthens the statutory performance reporting requirements of problem solving courts in Florida. In Florida, our specialty courts assist individuals by addressing their problems through a continuum of education based services. This bill requires reporting by OSCA by January 31 of each year and requires that all of our problem courts report a host of data points so that we can have a better picture of what's happening in all of our specialty courts. That's a bill. >. Are there any questions on the bill? There are no appearance forms, any debate. Senator Bradley, you recognize close. >. Wave Close. >> Cindy please roll call the roll on CS for SB 820. >> Senator Avila. >> Yes. >> Senator Berman. >> Yes. >> Senator Boyd. >> Yes. >> Senator Bradley. >> Yes. >> Senator Brodeur, Senator Burgess. >> Yes. >> Senator Burton. >> Yes. >> Senator Davis. >> Yes. >> Senator DiCeglie. >> Yes. >> Senator Gaetz. >> Yes. >> Senator Garcia. >> Yes. >> Senator Grall. >> Yes. >> Senator Harrell. >> Yes. >> Senator Hooper. >> Yes. >> Senator Martin. >> Yes. >> Senator Osgood. >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Senator Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Senator Rouson. Senator Simon. >> Yes. >> Senator Trumbull. >> Yes. >> Senator Wright? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Jones. Chair Passidomo? >> Yes. By your vote, CS for SB 820 is reported favorably. Okay, next, from last week, Senator DiCeglie has two bills. Tab 23 SB 840 on land use regulations for local governments affected by national natural disasters. Senator DiCeglie, you recognized by the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the constructive feedback received since the enactment of last year's Senate Bill 180 into law, this bill seeks to address the concerns voiced by fellow legislators, local governments, and constituents. There was broad agreement that most of the provisions of Senate Bill 180 would go far, maintaining Florida's excellence in emergency preparation and response, but a few provisions could use some improvement. The concerns shared about Senate Bill 180 Senator on the temporary limitations related to Hurricanes Debbie, Helen and Milton, included in Section 28, this bill would sunset those limitations on June 30 so that the proposed amendments in this bill related to the one year limitations after future storms will go into effect immediately thereafter on July 1. This bill will narrow the geographic areas subject to these revised limitations from 100 miles to 50 miles and land use decisions related to certain unique communities, state and federal requirements and water supply and management will be exempted. Madam Chair, that is the bill. >> Are there questions on the bill? There are a number of appearance forms. We have Patricia Watkins from Crestview. Tricia. She was speaking for Lane Watkins. Also from Crestview was Oh, there you go. I'm sorry. >> [inaudible]. >> So you're Patricia? >> That's me. >> You have Laine, too, or just you? >> Just me. >> Alright, so you first. [LAUGHTER] >> As it should be? Did you just say? >> Yes. >> For two minutes. Thank you. >> I don't have two minutes worth of stuff. My name is Pat Watkins. I live in Okaloosa County in Crestview. Senate Bill 180 was a one size fits all bill, and it takes away citizens' rights to determine their county's development. Florida is not a one size fits all state. We urge a yes vote on 840 to restore our local rule. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. So Mr. Watkins, you're up. >> Thank you. >> Are you as brief as Mrs. Watkins? >> Close. First, I'd like to thank Senator DiCeglie, Senator Gaetz, and Senator Mayfield for this bill. I'm not going to reiterate her points, but we agree that we should expedite means for citizens to make repairs after natural disasters. However, developers should not be given special opportunities for new development. And that's what his reference to Sections 18 and 28 is all about. So the Florida statutes and the comp plans and land development codes exist to allow citizens and county governments to manage new development in such a way that infrastructure and services support the community, and 180 corrupted that. So we're asking to support 180. I hope that new sunset for Section 28 is effective, but I'm a little concerned about future legislation. So I'd really like to see the sections that nullify Section 18 also apply to 28 and some future amendment. But other than that, I'd just like you all to pass this, get it to the floor and vote it to the governor and get a house version. Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony. Cindy Scarda from San Antonio. You are recognized for two minutes. >> Hi. My name is Cindy. I'm from San Antonio, Florida. I'm in Pasco County, and I would urge you to pass SB 840. I think, like Pat and Lane said, it is a great starting fix to SB 180. I continue to see that our county commissioners' ability to govern their own communities are being eroded away. And I really think that a lot of these decisions are best made by the community that are going to be impacted by these decisions. I was a supervisor, where I used to live in Wisconsin, and I was on several committees, one of which was a zoning committee. And I feel like here in Florida, a lot of our zoning is being eroded and taken away control at the local level. And also that sometimes in some of these bills, our redress of grievances are being eroded away also in our right to petition. But we vote on our county commissioners. A lot of people move to certain areas based on zoning and comprehensive master plans. When I was a town supervisor, I helped and spent many months in my community developing comprehensive master plans. And as a supervisor, I depended on those to make my votes as far as zoning votes for different zoning. So I think they're very important, and I think we're chipping away at those and taking away local citizens to manage their communities as far as development, growth, infrastructure, and whatnot. So I support SB 840. I think it's a great start to fix that bill. So thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. >> Thank you for your testimony. Chadwick Leonard from Thousand Friends of Florida waves in support, Javier Estevez, Sierra Club waves in support. Jess McCarty, Dade County, waves in support. And Jeff Scala, Florida Association of Counties waves in support. Is there any debate? You're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank Senator DiCeglie last year. You worked really hard on this project, and unfortunately, it got a little changed, maybe somewhere else in the Capitol. I know you've been on many calls with me and others about this since this past session. I know you're trying to get it right. Thank you very much for trying to thread that needle. That's a tough one to thread, but I appreciate all your work on this. >> Any other debate? Senator Harrell , then Senator Wright. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and I want to jump on the train also and say, thank you. My county commission, my city councils were all so concerned, and you always answered my phone calls. You always talk to them. You talk to me. And you have just been an open door in assisting in making sure we finally get this right. So I want to thank you for all the hard work you did last year in really making sure that we moved forward from there with this bill. And I appreciate everything you've done. And thank you. I totally support your bill. >> Senator Wright. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Senator DiCeglie, I want to thank you. Also, I came out of hiding after you brought out 840, so I can now run around my community and my district without any worries. And I told everyone, just calm down. Senator DiCeglie knows what's happening, and he will make it right. And you are doing that, sir, and I'm supporting you in every way. Thank you. >> Any other accolades for Senator DiCeglie? You're recognized to close on your bill. >> Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the kind words. Look, at the end of the day, Senate Bill 180 was about Hurricane response and recovery. We were trying to address an issue where local governments were laying out moratoriums that had the absolute potential to stop homeowners and businesses from rebuilding. And unfortunately, we got some feedback of unintended consequences that Senate Bill 840 seeks to address. So I appreciate the kind words. I appreciate the support, and I ask for your favorable support today. Thank you. >> Sandy you please call the roll on SB 840. >> Senator Avila, Senator Berman, Senator Boyd, Senator Bradley, Senator Brodeur, Senator Burgess, Senator Burton, Senator Davis, Senator DiCeglie, Senator Gaetz, Senator Garcia, Senator Grall, Senator Harrell , Senator Hooper, Senator Martin, Senator Osgood, Senator Pizzo, Senator Rodriguez, Senator Rouson, Senator Simon, Senator Trumbull, Senator Wright, Vice Chair Jones, Chair Passidomo. >> Yes. By your vote, SB 840 is reported favorably. Senator DiCeglie has another bill, Tab 25 SB 856 on disclosure of estimated ad Valorem taxes. You are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 856 requires online listing platforms to include estimated property taxes on any residential property visible on their platform. Senators, we talk a lot about affordability. This is a very pro-consumer piece of legislation. So many times we have folks who are purchasing a home. They go into that purchase thinking that their property taxes is going to be a certain amount. And then once they close, they realize that their property taxes is not the amount that they anticipated. It could be several thousands of dollars more. This bill focuses on transparency. We want to make sure that the consumer has the information at hand so they can make good, sound financial decisions. Madam Chair, that is the bill. >> There's an amendment. So let's take up the amendment before questions on the bill. Late filed Amendment Barcode 158618. Without objection, show the amendment introduced. Senator DiCeglie you're recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment excludes social media platforms from being considered a listing platform. The amendment broadens liability protection relating to the accuracy of the tax estimate. And finally, it changes the effective date. That is the amendment. >> Are there questions on the amendment? There are two appearance. Senator Berman, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I liked this bill when I saw it before, and I still like it. But if people are protected from liability, what protections do we have to make sure that they don't give inaccuracies when they're putting the new tax rate in their materials? >> Senator DiCeglie. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. That is a fantastic question. Leader Berman. We have the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which protects consumers and businesses from unfair, deceptive or unconscionable acts in trade or commerce. So if there's any inaccuracies that are so severe, then that part of Florida law would take place, would be effective. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions on the amendment? There are two appearance forms. Mike Twitty, Pinellas County Property Appraiser, waves in support. Murphy Kennedy gearing, Florida Realtors, waves in support. Is there any debate on the amendment? Senator DiCeglie you're recognized to close. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to publicly thank the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, Mike Twitty for his leadership on this issue. This is the number one complaint property appraisers throughout the state get from our constituents. And this is a really great pro-consumer bill that I ask for your favorable support. Thank you. >> Sorry about that. I don't know. My phone talks to me all the time, and I don't know why. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. >> Yay. [OVERLAPPING] >> Opposed, say, nay. The amendment is adopted. We're back on the bill as amended. Are any questions on the bill as amended? There are a couple of appearance forms. Mike Twitty again from Pinellas County speaks. Mike Twitty, you're recognized, two minutes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. I really just wanted to thank Senator DiCeglie for bringing forward this great legislation. It's been many years in the making. This is, as he pointed out, our biggest constituent complaint that we face day in day out this time in particular because this is when people, they've purchased their home, crossed their first January 1 under their ownership, and they get that big cap reset. So this is a hard time for a lot of people when they get their escort letters. So we want to try and make that much more transparent on the front end, and we think that this legislation will do so. And I also want to thank the senators. This has moved through two committee stops already, and several senators have been gracious enough to jump on with their co sponsorship, and I want to thank their support as well, along the way. With that, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony. Jeff Scala, Florida Association of Counties, waves in support. Albert Bolito Property Appraisers Association of Florida, waves in support. Mike Moore, Pasco Property Appraiser, waves in support. Is there any debate on the bill as amended? Senator DiCeglie, you're recognized to close. >> I'll waive close on this great bill. >> Sidney, please call the roll and see us for SB 856. >> Senator Avila, Senator Berman, Senator Boyd, Senator Bradley, Senator Brodeur, Senator Burgess, Senator Burton, Senator Davis, Senator DiCeglie, Senator Gaetz, Senator Garcia, Senator Grall, Senator Harrell, Senator Hooper, Senator Martin, Senator Osgood, Senator Pizzo, Senator Rodriguez, Senator Rouson, Senator Simon, Senator Trumbull , Senator Wright. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Jones. Chair Passidomo. >> Yes. By your vote, CS for SB 856 is reported favorably. Next, we're going to take up Tab 2, CS for SB 110 on homestead exemptions by Senator Arrington. You are recognized to explain the bill. >> Good afternoon, and thank you, Chair Passidomo, Vice Chair Jones, my co-sponsor, President Gaetz, and members of the committee. CS for SB 110 states that individuals holding a 98 year or longer residential lease are eligible for Florida's Homestead tax exemption, even if they have a lease that terminates upon their death. This change will align with long term leaseholders with life estate holders and ensure families using these leases for estate planning, retain homestead benefits. This clarification is recommended by the real property probate and trust law section of the Florida Bar. The bill states that this change is remedial and clarifying in nature. CS for SB 110 resolves this uncertainty by explicitly confirming that a 98 year or longer lease that terminates at the tenant's still qualifies for the homestead tax exemption during the retained tenancy. But upon the tenant's death, there should be a change of beneficial owner and a homestead exemption reset unless an exemption applies like a transfer to a spouse. The clarification strengthens Florida law by promoting predictability in the application of homestead benefits to long term residential leases. The staff analysis also states that there is no impact on local ad Valorem revenue. Thank you, and that is the bill, Madam Chair. >> Are there questions on the bill? There is one appearance form. French Brown on behalf of the reptile section waves in support. Is there any debate? Senator Arrington, you recognize close. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you adding it to today's agenda. >> Cindy, please call the roll on CS for SB 110. >> Senator Avila, Senator Berman, Senator Boyd, Senator Bradley, Senator Brodeur, Senator Burgess, Senator Burton, Senator Davis, Senator DiCeglie, Senator Gaetz, Senator Garcia, Senator Grall, Senator Harrell, Senator Hooper, Senator Martin, Senator Osgood, Senator Pizzo, Senator Rodriguez, Senator Rouson, Senator Simon, Senator Trumbull , Senator Wright. Vice Chair Jones. Chair Passidomo. >> Yes. By your vote, CS for SB 110 is reported favorably. Next, we've got two bills by Senator McClain. We're going to start with Tab 4, CS for CS for SB 212 on sexual offenders and sexual predators, you are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senators, for allowing me to present SB 212. Madam Chair, there is a strike call. >> Senators, there is a late filed amendment Barcode 275394. >> Without objection, show the amendment introduced. Senator McClain, you are recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, again. Chairman members, the amendment deletes everything after enacting clause. Strike all focuses the bill on public swimming pools by defining public swimming pool, revises residency restrictions and penalties, revise the ordering or prowling and contact provisions in 856022 and ties warrantless arrest to the same 856022, defines public swimming pools, adds a new thousand foot residency restriction, revises 856022, also changes the distance element from 300 feet to 500 feet. Warrantless arrest, also, again, 856022 just talks about contact, and then also present on school or childcare facility, updates public entity registry search requirements, and adds protective supervision conditions for pools. That is the strike column. >> Are there questions on the amendment? There's one appearance form. Allie McNair, Florida Sheriff's Association , waves in support. Is there any debate on the amendment? Senator McClain, you're recognized close. >> I'll wave to close. >> All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Opposed, say nay. The amendment is adopted, so we're back on the bill as amended. Are there any questions on the bill as amended? >> Madam Chair. >> You are recognized. >> Thanks. I didn't do my homework this morning. I think the amendment was filed this morning, around 9:30, the strike all. I guess did not get a chance, I apologize. Did it make any changes to either the definition or application of the status of any of these individuals as it relates to a public swimming pool as newly defined? >> You're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, you're going to have to help me out a little bit with your question. >> Senator Pizzo? >> Specifically, I guess. >> In the original bill, which I voted for, we're creating a definition of public swimming pool, like a watertight structure, and any buildings appurtenant to there and so and so forth. Does the strike all change either the definition or application of a newly created statute contemplating the bill as it relates to pools> >> Senator McClain. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. It does not. >> Follow up. >> You're recognized. >> Give me just a scenario or hypothetical as it relates to a hotel stay. How would that affect somebody that's staying at a hotel with a pool? >> Senator McClain. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. They'd be allowed to stay at the motel. There would be a requirement on the use of the pool. >> Any other questions? >> One last one? >> You're recognized. >> Is there any exception for any of these offenders who have children to be in places? There's religious exceptions I know. You can go to church. There's a big difference between false bad, bad offender and predator. But is there any exceptions for those people who have children to be in certain places? >> Senator McClain. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. There are exceptions, yes. >> Any other questions? You're recognized, Senator Davis. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm surprised Senator Pizzo didn't go down this road. Courts have raised due process challenges where laws impose sweeping geographic exclusions without individualized risk assessment for individuals. How do you respond to that? I know over the weekend, a number of us were receiving letters and statements from everyone about this, and that was something that caught my eye. How do you handle a response to that type of question? >> Senator McClain. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Davis, if you could maybe expound on that just a little bit, and then I'd be glad to try to answer your question. >> Senator Davis. >> So I'll just repeat the question. In the residency and the geographical bands that you have in this legislation, courts have raised issues with the due process by that being challenged with this type of law because we're imposing geographical exclusions without an individual risk assessment. So we're doing like all-one-solve approach here. How do you handle that with this type of legislation? How do you answer that that's not the case here? >> Senator McClain. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you again, Senator Davis, for the question. We're not necessarily changing any of the current residency restrictions that we have. The only thing that we really were changing was the water feature or the splash pad or public bathing as we defined it. So the residency restrictions are the same as they have been that we've already adopted. >> Any other questions? We have a number of appearance forms. Marsha Cantrell for t